zandyne
Full Member
This is NOT Zetsu. DX
Posts: 1,037
|
Post by zandyne on Nov 6, 2008 1:45:55 GMT -5
I hate to sound like I'm accusing you of something but I just told you: They felt that Obama was too YOUNG, INEXPERIENCED AND UNKNOWN for the job. It's not a matter of LIKE/DISLIKE it was a matter of who was better fit for the job. Looking pretty is not a requirement of the job and while being a good orator is always a plus it does not automatically make all their policies good ones. That's kinda what I was talking about, it looks like a lot of your McCain supporters really would vote not for McCain, but rather against Obama due to his lack of experience, age, etc. Silva being "young" in politics would mean you are easy to manipulate. Being "inexperienced" means you wouldn't know what to do, lastly being "unknown" means you have no credibility. I have no idea how else to convey this to you but typically when a candidate possesses traits another candidate does not have you are voting FOR them. If a candidate does not possess traits you want you DON'T vote for them. However if you are going to vote for someone based solely on their outer and public appearances rather than having a solid background for a job that requires you have a strong background as opposed to none at all then that is, in my opinion a wasted vote. However everyone's criteria is different. If you want an analogy it's like when you're buying food, you have on one hand a can with a nutritional label and a well-known label, in the other you have a can with no nutritional facts on it or even an expiration date, but it's a REALLY SHINY CAN. You can pick whichever you want but which one would you feel safer to trust? It's just an analogy because I don't think eating either candidate would be good in the long-run. But does this somewhat clear that up? S/N: You know a lot could be said that people only voted for Obama because they just didn't want to vote for McCain, does this mean they support Obama any less? It just sounds like you're trying to discredit people who actually looked or at least seemed like they were familiar with McCain's platform... ._.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Nov 6, 2008 1:46:23 GMT -5
But at the same time, she would have either had to go to a polling place where CNN was there, or her aides knew that they would be at her polling place, or it was a giant coincidence ( which is extremely unlikely)
The arguement I'm presenting is that if she either knew they would be there, or knew they were following her, she could dress in such a manner to send a message.
|
|
Silva
Full Member
I don't need no stinkin avatar!
Posts: 285
|
Post by Silva on Nov 6, 2008 2:15:34 GMT -5
Silva being "young" in politics would mean you are easy to manipulate. Being "inexperienced" means you wouldn't know what to do, lastly being "unknown" means you have no credibility. I have no idea how else to convey this to you but typically when a candidate possesses traits another candidate does not have you are voting FOR them. If a candidate does not possess traits you want you DON'T vote for them. However if you are going to vote for someone based solely on their outer and public appearances rather than having a solid background for a job that requires you have a strong background as opposed to none at all then that is, in my opinion a wasted vote. However everyone's criteria is different. If you want an analogy it's like when you're buying food, you have on one hand a can with a nutritional label and a well-known label, in the other you have a can with no nutritional facts on it or even an expiration date, but it's a REALLY SHINY CAN. You can pick whichever you want but which one would you feel safer to trust? It's just an analogy because I don't think eating either candidate would be good in the long-run. But does this somewhat clear that up? S/N: You know a lot could be said that people only voted for Obama because they just didn't want to vote for McCain, does this mean they support Obama any less? It just sounds like you're trying to discredit people who actually looked or at least seemed like they were familiar with McCain's platform... ._. What I'm trying to get at here is, how many of them actually knew what issues McCain stood on. This election was about the issues, after all.
|
|
zandyne
Full Member
This is NOT Zetsu. DX
Posts: 1,037
|
Post by zandyne on Nov 6, 2008 2:41:07 GMT -5
Silva being "young" in politics would mean you are easy to manipulate. Being "inexperienced" means you wouldn't know what to do, lastly being "unknown" means you have no credibility. I have no idea how else to convey this to you but typically when a candidate possesses traits another candidate does not have you are voting FOR them. If a candidate does not possess traits you want you DON'T vote for them. However if you are going to vote for someone based solely on their outer and public appearances rather than having a solid background for a job that requires you have a strong background as opposed to none at all then that is, in my opinion a wasted vote. However everyone's criteria is different. If you want an analogy it's like when you're buying food, you have on one hand a can with a nutritional label and a well-known label, in the other you have a can with no nutritional facts on it or even an expiration date, but it's a REALLY SHINY CAN. You can pick whichever you want but which one would you feel safer to trust? It's just an analogy because I don't think eating either candidate would be good in the long-run. But does this somewhat clear that up? S/N: You know a lot could be said that people only voted for Obama because they just didn't want to vote for McCain, does this mean they support Obama any less? It just sounds like you're trying to discredit people who actually looked or at least seemed like they were familiar with McCain's platform... ._. What I'm trying to get at here is, how many of them actually knew what issues McCain stood on. This election was about the issues, after all. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.... We were specifically required to write up several reasons as to why we picked a candidate in addition to who we picked, this is how I was able to so easily to do the comparison. Of reading at least 500 of these, about 100 of which were for McCain which actually had REASONS listed, I'm terribly sorry that I didn't reiterate all of them. I summarized these reasons for you and for others they specifically voiced that McCain wasn't going to tax the hell out of them and they were willing to step up to the plate to do their own to help out instead of relying on the Democratic platform's patterns of "solving" these economic problems; they shared view-points of McCain such as with the war, concerning morality, etc. they could also cite and credit instances where McCain actually did his job as a Senator and even collaborated with another Senator to pass a bill concerning a limit for the public funding for campaigns. Others voiced concerns about not wanting a repeat from history such as Jimmy Carter and John Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis. (If you don't know who these are please look them up, because they are excellent reasons why some people would not side with Obama given how shaded his history is. It also heavily factors into how being "young", "inexperienced" and "unknown" are not exactly favorable traits for a presidential candidate.) The point I'm even trying to make Silva is that they listed and deduced their reasons thoroughly for siding with McCain (aside from the handful within the handful I mentioned that were the statistically expected loyal-party voters) whereas the VAST majority of the Obama supporters in my class just listed "Change" or in the off chance the "increased taxing on the rich to help get rid of the debt" for some and for select others they actually knew the platform of Obama. You can continue to keep on questioning and pondering and pestering me to list the reasons for why people picked McCain but that's just it. That is how my class was and that is what I observed, I gain nothing by fabricating this just to spite or harass others, this is just an observation. And I also don't understand why you are trying to fault people because they didn't identify with Obama or believe that the reasons that they decided on were weak. I have listed several reasons for you and you seem to continue to insist that they aren't reasons. If you'd like you can list your own strong reasons for why you voted for Obama and then I can tell you in that same fashion why some voted for McCain, but from our current exchange of words that isn't the matter at all. Anyway if you just repeat some variation of the question again I will most likely ignore it because then I'd really start spamming. :\
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Nov 6, 2008 3:09:03 GMT -5
But at the same time, she would have either had to go to a polling place where CNN was there, or her aides knew that they would be at her polling place, or it was a giant coincidence ( which is extremely unlikely) The arguement I'm presenting is that if she either knew they would be there, or knew they were following her, she could dress in such a manner to send a message. That is true. Then again, the fourth option could be that the reporters knew her polling place (since it is public information, if you know where to look) and staked her out, and she simply didn't know...but that's probably equally unlikely, since I think I have to agree that she must have at least been informed that news crews were going to be at her polling place. Then again (again), she simply could have been tired of wearing all those ridiculous fancy getups all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 6, 2008 7:04:03 GMT -5
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.... That's because you are, Zandyne. Silva and Subtle have only got their mind in one track and, rather like Veritas who is absolutely incapable of taking in any information that could suggest that Mogg is not the supreme god of all and that all other people and entities are demons and blasphemers, these two honestly seem equally incapable of taking in any information that might suggest Obama is not the Messiah, despite the man's own admission that he was not born in a manger but on Krypton. On a side note, another reason, Donut, might be that the outfits the Republicans had to buy her for the warmer climates were simply too cold for Alaska. I mean, someone came through in a freaking parka. I don't suppose her coming through in a skirt and light blouse would've been very practical. ^_^;;
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Nov 6, 2008 9:43:30 GMT -5
Okay, what the fuck?
I haven't even talked about Obama specifically since page one, and on page one all my posts were either questioning Obama or stating he wasn't my first pick for president.
Is there some sort of second Subtle on this board that you are referring to? You obviously don't mean me. ?
Edit: Did you watch the clip from the O'riely show I posted, Ninmast? Or are you even reading my posts ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on Nov 6, 2008 10:09:25 GMT -5
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.... That's because you are, Zandyne. Silva and Subtle have only got their mind in one track and, rather like Veritas who is absolutely incapable of taking in any information that could suggest that Mogg is not the supreme god of all and that all other people and entities are demons and blasphemers, these two honestly seem equally incapable of taking in any information that might suggest Obama is not the Messiah, despite the man's own admission that he was not born in a manger but on Krypton. What happened to respecting people's opinions? If I have to, so do you.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 6, 2008 16:36:25 GMT -5
*sigh* I was making a joke, guys. I thought that'd be evident with the Krypton comment.
And no, Subtle, I think I missed your post with the O'Reily link in it, sorry.
|
|