Objective Thread

Yellow Ledbelly

There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to politics whether it be the average joe/jane or the media

chopitdown

nfanel wrote:

agreed. john kerry was a weak, weak, candidate. it was like trying to pick the lesser of two evils.

it seems the dems like to nominate people with grand ideas but seem to lack any real policy or sense of steadfastness. Kerry had decent ideas but was afraid to put off anyone; Obama keeps saying "change" and "different" but won't really get specific on how...he'll say I want to lower "x" raise "x" change "x"...but he's careful not to get too specific so that he doesn't offend someone who may be in his voting base. It seems the repubs are willing to say, here's what we'll do and we don't really care what the other side thinks...and frankly, there's something that people like about being firm in decisions.

saveuplife

Those of you who are saying you can't speak objectively about politics are just wrong.

The idea of a politics is to win elections. We can speak very objectively about the day in day out moves by each candidate in their attempt to win the election.

Platforms are not objective.... political science can be.

digster

My objective opinion on the Republican Party, as best I can, is that its initial goals are laudable and ones that everyone can subscribe to...a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, and personal liberty. These are are laudable qualities, but I feel that in the past twenty years the Republican Party has lost the plot on all these areas, and now employs these social issues into the debate because they know it feeds on people's angers and prejudices.

I mean, speaking objectively, did anyone think gay marriage was going to be one of the deciding influences of the 04 election till the Republicans made it one?

So if we're talking about the Republican Party of Eisenhower, even of Nixon to a degree (although he was a crook)...if we can get back to that, I think we'd have some great debates on our hands.

decides2dream

it's already been said numerous times here when first announced that she was a wise, strategic pick...what else do ya want? seriously?

beyond that, it IS a question of subjectivity...what YOU personally believe is the right course of action for the country...and therefore the candidates that best support your personal pov.

Yellow Ledbelly

saveuplife wrote:

On the other side, for all you die-hard Republicans.... Can you say honestly that people are not looking for change when we are on the brink of recession? Can you not say that Obama is very very eloquent speaker who clearly connects with people?

I don't know what people are looking for....I only know what I am looking for.

Obama is a good speaker and he obviously does connect with people, but being a good speaker doesn't mean his qualified to be president. It doesn't matter that he is young and charismatic and handsome...he is an easy sell based on those things but we aren't talking about electing a high school homecoming queen here. He is flatly not experienced enough to hold the position....I've fallen short of being objective I suppose, but I think even a dem -- one able to be objective -- wouldn't be able to deny that. I do hear he is one hell of a writer though

mammasan

chopitdown wrote:

it seems the dems like to nominate people with grand ideas but seem to lack any real policy or sense of steadfastness. Kerry had decent ideas but was afraid to put off anyone; Obama keeps saying "change" and "different" but won't really get specific on how...he'll say I want to lower "x" raise "x" change "x"...but he's careful not to get too specific so that he doesn't offend someone who may be in his voting base. It seems the repubs are willing to say, here's what we'll do and we don't really care what the other side thinks...and frankly, there's something that people like about being firm in decisions.

I'm not a fan of Obama but I have disagree with you. I have read Obama's economic policy and it is very detailed. I may not agree with it but he definitely lays it out there for everyone. If anything McCain has been the candidate who is being vague and throwing out grand ideas with no support.

Solat13

I found these poll results interesting:

Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

Forty-two percent of unaffiliated voters (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.

Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.

Voters are more ambivalent about whether the media coverage of Palin and her family reflects a double standard that treats women worse than men. Forty-six percent (46%) say it does, but 35% disagree. Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the stories show the media's double standard against women, but a majority of Democrats disagree.

The findings, nevertheless, are troublesome for the embattled news industry and parallel what voters said in surveys earlier this summer. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters now believe most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 49% believe reporters are trying to help Obama this year. Only 14% think they are trying to help McCain. In another survey, 55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations.

Women voters by a 48% to 35% margin believe the coverage of Palin reveals a double standard in the media.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/palinmedia20080904

decides2dream

Solat13 wrote:

I found these poll results interesting:

Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

Forty-two percent of unaffiliated voters (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.

Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.

Voters are more ambivalent about whether the media coverage of Palin and her family reflects a double standard that treats women worse than men. Forty-six percent (46%) say it does, but 35% disagree. Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters say the stories show the media's double standard against women, but a majority of Democrats disagree.

The findings, nevertheless, are troublesome for the embattled news industry and parallel what voters said in surveys earlier this summer. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters now believe most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 49% believe reporters are trying to help Obama this year. Only 14% think they are trying to help McCain. In another survey, 55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations.

Women voters by a 48% to 35% margin believe the coverage of Palin reveals a double standard in the media.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/palinmedia20080904

christ...this shit is infuriating. how about voters focus on ISSUES, and not simply how they perceive media coverage?

and damn, i wish i remembered what thread it was....but i think raindog? posted a link that actually showed that obama got more negative coverage than mccain, even if he did get more coverage overall.....but this was back around the time of his speech in germany.


none the less....way NOT to focus on what's important.

and btw - as a woman, i really don't find any 'double-standard' towards palin, at ALL. anyhoo...if she weren't a female, she wouldn't even BE on the podium, so that right there is a double-standard in action.

chopitdown

mammasan wrote:

I'm not a fan of Obama but I have disagree with you. I have read Obama's economic policy and it is very detailed. I may not agree with it but he definitely lays it out there for everyone. If anything McCain has been the candidate who is being vague and throwing out grand ideas with no support.

fair enough. I guess here's where I'm coming from. If you look at each candidates position, in the media on a superficial level (as many do) then you'll get the left saying change and we'll give you more and the right saying war and we won't tax you as much as the other guy (very stereotypical, but you get my point). If you do your homework and read the websites etc... you'll get good information. I was thinking back to a news video I saw where people said they liked Obama b/c of change but couldn't really say one thing about the change. Granted, those could have been the only people who couldn't say what change they were excited about.

OlDiamondback

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

It doesn't matter that he is young and charismatic and handsome...he is an easy sell based on those things but we aren't talking about electing a high school homecoming queen here.

LMAO

http://beldar.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/29/palinbook059.jpg

mammasan

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I don't know what people are looking for....I only know what I am looking for.

Obama is a good speaker and he obviously does connect with people, but being a good speaker doesn't mean his qualified to be president. It doesn't matter that he is young and charismatic and handsome...he is an easy sell based on those things but we aren't talking about electing a high school homecoming queen here. He is flatly not experienced enough to hold the position....I've fallen short of being objective I suppose, but I think even a dem -- one able to be objective -- wouldn't be able to deny that. I do hear he is one hell of a writer though

Let me ask what experience does one need to be President? I keep hearing all this talk about experience, wether it's Palin's or Obama's. In my opinion the only true experience is actually having served in that capacity before. No candidate has the true experience to be president because guess what none of them have ever been president. Besides these candidates surround themselves with experts and advisers in every aspect of government. As someone pointed out to me yesterday that this is true but they still have to have a grasp of what their advisors are telling them. While this is true I highly doubt that McCain or Obama are not experienced enough or smart enough to do this. While I may disagree with their politics I would never question their intelligence or ability to lead this country. This whole experience issue is simply another layer of BS put up by a political campaign. The more layers of BS they erect they less likelihood they will have to address real issues. We do ourselves a huge injustice by going along with the game and indulging ourselves in debates about irrelevant issues such as experience or a pregnant teenage daughter.

Yellow Ledbelly

decides2dream wrote:

.if she weren't a female, she wouldn't even BE on the podium, so that right there is a double-standard in action.

Interesting thought indeed

cheeseandrice

It is sad that some Americans still find it impossible to be a mom and a working woman at the same time.

One thing I really dislike about what the media is throwing around: “She’s Pro-life- look…she has a down syndrome baby… that proves it!” What were they thinking? That is so wrong on so many levels.

Her views on abortion, though, ARE a little extreme compared to the views of the majority of voters. But, my children and I have had this discussion before… if you are truly pro-life, it doesn’t matter if your raped, etc. The stance is that you believe that it is human from the time of conception, and there is no just cause to kill a baby, for any reason. No matter what the circumstance, it is still an innocent human life. So, even if her views are not of the majority, at least she’s not on the fence about it.

Palin is very likable as is Obama, but the fact still remains that they are both under-qualified for the job.

And Obama’s healthcare plan sucks. Please- don’t allow the fed or state government to manage my healthcare. They can’t even get an IRS check out in time, manage Medicaid, or budget Social Security. Could you imagine if they took on this task? Nightmare with a capitol “N”. And what will happen to all those healthcare providers and their employees? Mass layoff?

Philadelphia has shut down 15 maternity wards in the last 9 years due to the rising cost of operations. Forcing pregnant women to go out of state. Could you imagine what it would be like when the government plan only pays doctors and hospitals ½ of what their asking for from your healthcare plan- like an HMO?

Ok, I’ll save the rest for the CNN blog.

Back to work! Now I’ve got MYSELF all fired up.

Still have noone to vote for.

polaris

as the way things are - you just want a president that isn't going to embarass your country internationally ... someone who actually knows where key countries are in the world and the knowledge of other cultures ... someone who understands that the world is bigger than the USA ...

stupidcorporatewhore

cincybearcat wrote:

This is a good post...I've wondered the same thing.

from one shit disturber to another this really made me laugh.

you are one of the most polorized posters on this board (as am I)

That said, I'd never trade you in for the world cincy...

you complete me!

Yellow Ledbelly

mammasanThis whole experience issue is simply another layer of BS put up by a political campaign. The more layers of BS they erect they less likelihood they will have to address real issues. We do ourselves a huge injustice by going along with the game and indulging ourselves in debates about irrelevant issues such as experience or a pregnant teenage daughter.[/quote wrote:

I actually agree with you completely about the BS of the experience debate and the focus that is placed on issues that shouldn't even rate a passing thought when considering which way to vote. I think all that is the product of there being so much time to fill on the 24-hour news channels and that leads to the average voter listening to a bunch of assinine bickering over silly issues and then they vote based on something totally meaningless in the grand scheme. In my earlier post I suggested that this isn't like the election of a homecoming queen, but our system is actually more akin to American Idol

Edit: Why didn't the quote work right?

digster

polaris wrote:

as the way things are - you just want a president that isn't going to embarass your country internationally ... someone who actually knows where key countries are in the world and the knowledge of other cultures ... someone who understands that the world is bigger than the USA ...

That's something I haven't understood about the Republican platform; they mock the need for a President to be skilled at international relations. What's especially funny is that was the President's only primary job as stated in the Constitution; he wasn't even supposed to be involved in domestic matters for the most part. Do they think we're living in a world where it still takes weeks to travel across the ocean? You need a President skilled at International Relations. I would've thought this was obvious.

However, being objective, something positive about McCain; anyone saying he's milking his POW experience, including President Carter are out of their minds. I don't think it makes someone qualified to be President, but it is an incredible display of integrity and character. He should talk about it, but he should not let it stand in for a grasp of the issues.

cheeseandrice

digster wrote:

That's something I haven't understood about the Republican platform; they mock the need for a President to be skilled at international relations. What's especially funny is that was the President's only primary job as stated in the Constitution; he wasn't even supposed to be involved in domestic matters for the most part. Do they think we're living in a world where it still takes weeks to travel across the ocean? You need a President skilled at International Relations. I would've thought this was obvious.

However, being objective, something positive about McCain; anyone saying he's milking his POW experience, including President Carter are out of their minds. I don't think it makes someone qualified to be President, but it is an incredible display of integrity and character. He should talk about it, but he should not let it stand in for a grasp of the issues.

Not that this is my stance in anyway but, the dems are now saying "Does it make you more qualified because you were a POW? Or does it show you that you were hasty and planned poorly because you were captured?" I guess there are two sides to it and a rotten question to be answered.

stupidcorporatewhore

Quite often in her speech, Palin said "all Americans" regarding what they were going to do.

funny considering they run on a platform of issues where they kinda say "with us or against us"

I guess they mean "all who think like us" the others are un-american commie pinkos so they don't really have a say.

there's only one candidate who was very specific in wanting to find the middle ground on all these "devisive issues"

Barack Obama