Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ya'll messed up, you had Ron Paul and you went for the rock star (hero) status of McCain. Ron Paul was resonating with lots more young folks out there than McCain. Thats all I have to say!
You know, when you think about it, this election is nothing but history repeating itself. People voted for Hitler because he was charming and charismatic, people voted for Kennedy because he was charming and charismatic, people voted for Reagan because he was charming and charismatic, and people voted for Obama because he is charming and charismatic. It's the same old [expletive], plain and simple.
Hitler wasn't charming.
He was a populist and he provided the people with promises they wanted, but he also, as importantly, pointed a finger at those "to blame" for Germany's situation - and that, even more than his charismatic speaking, is what put him into position.
Generally speaking, though, I agree that in the television era, when we've had debates, the more charismatic/attractive candidate has won close to every time. (Nixon did not debate McGovern, unless I am mistaken.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornerstoneEagle04
throughout history, people have exhibited an overwhelming tendency to vote with their emotions instead of their conscience. And I don't care about political differences; we as a people cannot afford to keep taking the chance that a candidate who appeals to our emotions will also be good for the country. That is a dangerous assumption on so many levels.
So, how would you counter that or change it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornerstoneEagle04
Also, it is a proven fact that more people voted for Obama because he is black, than those who did not for the same exact reason. Just look at the voting demographics regarding race.
And this is the point at which the wheels fall off your wagon.
"A proven fact." No such animal when it comes to exit polls.
Millions of people were willing to overlook McCain's "associations with a fanatical religious zealot, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, and a remorseless former Islamic Jihadist," too.
<sarcasm>What the [expletive]?!?</sarcasm>
Can you say, prejudice?
In this case, it is prejudging those who voted for Obama while ignoring McCain's foibles in the same realm.
"How can you see well enough to remove the mote from your brother's eye when you have a log in your own?"
He was a populist and he provided the people with promises they wanted, but he also, as importantly, pointed a finger at those "to blame" for Germany's situation - and that, even more than his charismatic speaking, is what put him into position.
I certainly agree. However, there is no question that Hitler was an expert communicator, and because of this his hateful rhetoric was ten times more convincing than if he were a lousy speaker. That is what I meant by "charming." Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Also, there is a lot of evidence to support the assertion that Obama is the same way in his own finger pointing. He is against the "Bush doctrine", and considers it a substantial cause of the problems afflicting society. He has been playing up this "threat" throughout the entire election, and anyone who thinks people aren't influenced by it is fooling himself. Obama does not differentiate between one doctrine and another, by the way... it's just simply "the Bush doctrine." And one of his goals is to reverse every decision Bush made and replace it with his own... Which begs the question, "Does this man have his priorities in order?"
I think most people who voted for him will say "yes", but many will likely fail to provide a reason why, other than "because he will bring about change." So I stand by the sentiment that the most dangerous thing in this election was not Obama becoming President, but the reasons why people voted him in. "Because he will bring about change?" Okay, but so what? The 9/11 terrorists brought change to America, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher
Generally speaking, though, I agree that in the television era, when we've had debates, the more charismatic/attractive candidate has won close to every time. (Nixon did not debate McGovern, unless I am mistaken.)
Yes, and the fact that the Media has enough power to tailor the footage to their own political views compounds the problem tenfold. If what they're doing is not propaganda, I don't know what is. Remember the 30-minute Obama advertisement on national television? I rest my case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher
So, how would you counter that or change it?
As for me, I will continue to vote according to my conscience, and remain undeterred in forming educated, personal decisions as to who I will vote for and why.
But as far as getting the majority of Americans to be like this... all I can say is no one can ask someone to do more than he/she is capable, and there is no point in worrying about things beyond our control. I will set the right example for people, but you can't help someone who is unwilling to help himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher
And this is the point at which the wheels fall off your wagon.
"A proven fact." No such animal when it comes to exit polls.
Three terms for you:
1) Consistency
2) Pattern
3) Representative Sample
More than one agency did an exit poll. In fact, there were 4 times as many individual exit polls done in this election than in the previous one. So just look at the similarities among all of the polls, and that will provide you with credible statistics regarding this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher
Millions of people were willing to overlook McCain's [EDIT: this is not an accurate transcription. I referred to Obama, not McCain.] "associations with a fanatical religious zealot, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, and a remorseless former Islamic Jihadist," too.
<sarcasm>What the [expletive]?!?</sarcasm>
Can you say, prejudice?
In this case, it is prejudging those who voted for Obama while ignoring McCain's foibles in the same realm.
"How can you see well enough to remove the mote from your brother's eye when you have a log in your own?"
Oh I see, you're going to call me a hypocrite based on this example? Interesting. Have you seen McCain palling around with any people like Bill Ayers or Rashid Khalidi? Was McCain married to his wife by a radical religious nut, remaining a close friend with him for more than 20 years?
Yes, McCain has his own foibles - there's no question about that... but at least he's not in bed with the enemy. Considering Obama's questionable associations, and his failure to adequately explain those associations, trying to prove McCain has done worse will lead you to a case of apples and oranges.
It reminds me of an old Jewish proverb... When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas!
I think it will take someone fresh and new to come out of the GOP in 2012. Many people out there have already been inspired by Obama and how far he's reached in a short time. Obama has changed the game forever. Now Anyone with common sense, the ability to pull together a dream campaign team and some form of political career can become the President. This is NOT a bad thing. All said person needs to do is take the bull by the horns and tackle issue and reach out the masses.
Some Conservative is studying the Obama formula and is taking pointers. Many think Palin will run and make it. I beg to differ based on 3 points below;
1. her own party will rip her to shreds
2. if she survives point 1. the opposition will rip her to shreds
3. if she makes it past 1 and 2 the people will rip her to shreds
4. if she get past 1-4 she's earned every right to be the POTUS
In order for her to even get past point 1 she's got to brush up on her current affairs, foreign affairs, geography and world history. She's got to be able to stand on her own two feet and challenge questions that are thrown at her. She got to be able to stay on topic and not veer off into left field. Answer direct question and give detail so people won't think it's rehearsed. She got to stop with all the facial expressions winks, smiles, smirks etc. Get rid of the shiny lip stick. Stop taking the children all over the place and exposing them to any and everything. We all know she a maverick wannabe but she got a lot of brushing up to do be Presidential material.
Anyone planning on running against Obama in 2012 has to start right now getting all their ducks in order.
ya'll messed up, you had Ron Paul and you went for the rock star (hero) status of McCain. Ron Paul was resonating with lots more young folks out there than McCain. Thats all I have to say!
Obama's regime will be outlawing popular elections before 2012, and he will have installed himself as the North American version of Idi Amin.
I have to hand it to you for the least thoughtful post in this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the event Obama wins, who will the GOP run in 2012?
