Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

Okay, when and what did he lie about?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

He rejected prestigious law firms for Chicago politics (more $$$). He served 143 days as a senator before he went on the presidential campaign trail. Is that really considered to be "rather successful"? I'll concede the "hard worker" part.

In my opinion, yes. :)
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

Have you?

Are you planning to vote for me?

Are you honest? It's a very base question - but you've already been dishonest... so, why ask........


Are you asking me if I'm as honest as Obama?
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

Okay, when and what did he lie about?


I would be happy however it will lead to: "is that the best you got?" "that doesn't matter" "that's politics" "you haven't said worse?" and the list goes on and on.


How about the 100 present votes, is it true and if so does that bother any of you Obama supporters?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
good god man please spare us this "100 present votes" bullshit I think you've spammed 3 different threads with it. 100 cumulative "present" votes doesn't mean a damn thing.

Its one vote at a time that we would have to evaluate. Because that is how each vote is cast.

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
good god man please spare us this "100 present votes" bullshit I think you've spammed 3 different threads with it. 100 cumulative "present" votes doesn't mean a damn thing.

Its one vote at a time that we would have to evaluate. Because that is how each vote is cast.

It's a pretty valid question. Your job as an elected representitive is to represent the people. To me, that means a yes or no vote, not merely saying "present".

Edit - The only reason that he's spammed 3 different threads with the question is because no one will answer it.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
good god man please spare us this "100 present votes" bullshit I think you've spammed 3 different threads with it. 100 cumulative "present" votes doesn't mean a damn thing.

Its one vote at a time that we would have to evaluate. Because that is how each vote is cast.

It's a pretty valid question. Your job as an elected representitive is to represent the people. To me, that means a yes or no vote, not merely saying "present".

Edit - The only reason that he's spammed 3 different threads with the question is because no one will answer it.

No its not a valid question. Asking about a specific vote of "Present" is a valid question. And here is why:

if he voted on the issue of abortion rights 100 times and voted "Present" instead of yes or no then you MIGHT be able to deduce that he voted "Present" in order to avoid voting no.

Do you agree with that?

But since he voted "Present" over a multitude of items and a with respect to a multitude of issues you cannot draw any particular conclusion over the fact that he voted "Present" over 100 times.Thats why his question regarding the 100 present votes is bullshit.


To add...

Voting "Present" can sometimes be used as a strategy to rework whatever it is that is being voted on...so its not necessarily a vote against an issue that the person wants to support, but that in its current form or revision, the item up for vote needs work...from that persons perspective.

 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
good god man please spare us this "100 present votes" bullshit I think you've spammed 3 different threads with it. 100 cumulative "present" votes doesn't mean a damn thing.

Its one vote at a time that we would have to evaluate. Because that is how each vote is cast.

It's a pretty valid question. Your job as an elected representitive is to represent the people. To me, that means a yes or no vote, not merely saying "present".

Edit - The only reason that he's spammed 3 different threads with the question is because no one will answer it.

No its not a valid question. Asking about a specific vote of "Present" is a valid question. And here is why:

if he voted on the issue of abortion rights 100 times and voted "Present" instead of yes or no then you MIGHT be able to deduce that he voted "Present" in order to avoid voting no.

Do you agree with that?

But since he voted "Present" over a multitude of items and a with respect to a multitude of issues you cannot draw any particular conclusion over the fact that he voted "Present" over 100 times.Thats why his question regarding the 100 present votes is bullshit.


To add...

Voting "Present" can sometimes be used as a strategy to rework whatever it is that is being voted on...so its not necessarily a vote against an issue that the person wants to support, but that in its current form or revision, the item up for vote needs work...from that persons perspective.

Your right I have asked this question and you are the first to answer it. Does it bother you that he voted that way so many times?

Does anyone in the Senate vote present more often?

 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
good god man please spare us this "100 present votes" bullshit I think you've spammed 3 different threads with it. 100 cumulative "present" votes doesn't mean a damn thing.

Its one vote at a time that we would have to evaluate. Because that is how each vote is cast.

It's a pretty valid question. Your job as an elected representitive is to represent the people. To me, that means a yes or no vote, not merely saying "present".

Edit - The only reason that he's spammed 3 different threads with the question is because no one will answer it.

No its not a valid question. Asking about a specific vote of "Present" is a valid question. And here is why:

if he voted on the issue of abortion rights 100 times and voted "Present" instead of yes or no then you MIGHT be able to deduce that he voted "Present" in order to avoid voting no.

Do you agree with that?

But since he voted "Present" over a multitude of items and a with respect to a multitude of issues you cannot draw any particular conclusion over the fact that he voted "Present" over 100 times.Thats why his question regarding the 100 present votes is bullshit.


To add...

Voting "Present" can sometimes be used as a strategy to rework whatever it is that is being voted on...so its not necessarily a vote against an issue that the person wants to support, but that in its current form or revision, the item up for vote needs work...from that persons perspective.

Your right I have asked this question and you are the first to answer it. Does it bother you that he voted that way so many times?

Does anyone in the Senate vote present more often?

you will have to forgive other posters because it gets rather tiresome answering every tangent question/gripe that people have come up with lately to bash BHO.

The trick to that is: Ask about a specific issue.

Example: FISA Vote

Obama screwed the pooch on that vote...he should have voted against the FISA update.

I don't agree with him on that vote. And many other posters on this board feel the same way I do.

Now back to your question:

No it doesn't bother me. As a tactic I can imagine alot of public representatives can use the "Present" vote to continue working on bills that are up for vote, to avoid taking a stance on an issue (I'm willing to concede that for some of those 100 votes THIS maybe the case) or to abstain on taking a position for whatever other strategy a representative might be employing...ie participating in politics and the political process.

Ask me about a specific "Present" vote and I might be able to judge/gauge Obama's position on the vote and therefore on the issue..

Fortunately (Or unfortunately for some people) that is how this type of analysis works.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: OrByte
good god man please spare us this "100 present votes" bullshit I think you've spammed 3 different threads with it. 100 cumulative "present" votes doesn't mean a damn thing.

Its one vote at a time that we would have to evaluate. Because that is how each vote is cast.

It's a pretty valid question. Your job as an elected representitive is to represent the people. To me, that means a yes or no vote, not merely saying "present".

Edit - The only reason that he's spammed 3 different threads with the question is because no one will answer it.

No its not a valid question. Asking about a specific vote of "Present" is a valid question. And here is why:

if he voted on the issue of abortion rights 100 times and voted "Present" instead of yes or no then you MIGHT be able to deduce that he voted "Present" in order to avoid voting no.

Do you agree with that?

But since he voted "Present" over a multitude of items and a with respect to a multitude of issues you cannot draw any particular conclusion over the fact that he voted "Present" over 100 times.Thats why his question regarding the 100 present votes is bullshit.


To add...

Voting "Present" can sometimes be used as a strategy to rework whatever it is that is being voted on...so its not necessarily a vote against an issue that the person wants to support, but that in its current form or revision, the item up for vote needs work...from that persons perspective.

Your right I have asked this question and you are the first to answer it. Does it bother you that he voted that way so many times?

Does anyone in the Senate vote present more often?

you will have to forgive other posters because it gets rather tiresome answering every tangent question/gripe that people have come up with lately to bash BHO.

The trick to that is: Ask about a specific issue.

Example: FISA Vote

Obama screwed the pooch on that vote...he should have voted against the FISA update.

I don't agree with him on that vote. And many other posters on this board feel the same way I do.

Now back to your question:

No it doesn't bother me. As a tactic I can imagine alot of public representatives can use the "Present" vote to continue working on bills that are up for vote, to avoid taking a stance on an issue (I'm willing to concede that for some of those 100 votes THIS maybe the case) or to abstain on taking a position for whatever other strategy a representative might be employing...ie participating in politics and the political process.
Ask me about a specific "Present" vote and I might be able to judge/gauge Obama's position on the vote and therefore on the issue..

Fortunately (Or unfortunately for some people) that is how this type of analysis works.

I understand what your saying but you don't think that he was working a majority of those do you?

I see it as the second reason, it seems like he is not showing his true colors and letting us the American public rate him on his record? Don't you think it would of been better if he voted the way he wanted and stood by his record and letting the chips fall where they may?

 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Budmantom
I understand what your saying but you don't think that he was working a majority of those do you?

I see it as the second reason, it seems like he is not showing his true colors and letting us the American public rate him on his record? Don't you think it would of been better if he voted the way he wanted and stood by his record and letting the chips fall where they may?


He doesn't have to be working on a majority of those. Are you talking about him working on those bills personally? He doesn't have to do that. He has to work with representatives that are working on bills...they don't work in a bubble. Do you understand how politics is conducted?


Ok talking about "true colors" means we are getting to opinions...and you are welcome to yours. And talking about voting the way he wanted? he did vote the way he wanted. Letting the chips fall where they may??? I think maybe politics is a little more complicated than that. these are votes and positions that consist of compromise, negotiation, accommodation, debate, and maneuvering that exists amongst a governing body today and into the future.

I'd advise to learn more about each vote. That is the only way to get any idea of the position(s) of BHO or any other member.

Edit: and I get the impression you are not willing to do that.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Budmantom
I understand what your saying but you don't think that he was working a majority of those do you?

I see it as the second reason, it seems like he is not showing his true colors and letting us the American public rate him on his record? Don't you think it would of been better if he voted the way he wanted and stood by his record and letting the chips fall where they may?


He doesn't have to be working on a majority of those. Are you talking about him working on those bills personally? He doesn't have to do that. He has to work with representatives that are working on bills...they don't work in a bubble. Do you understand how politics is conducted?


Ok talking about "true colors" means we are getting to opinions...and you are welcome to yours. And talking about voting the way he wanted? he did vote the way he wanted. Letting the chips fall where they may??? I think maybe politics is a little more complicated than that. these are votes and positions that consist of compromise, negotiation, accommodation, debate, and maneuvering that exists amongst a governing body today and into the future.

I'd advise to learn more about each vote. That is the only way to get any idea of the position(s) of BHO or any other member.

Edit: and I get the impression you are not willing to do that.

Good conversation I think I've learned a bit.

This is one of the few Obama conversations that hasn't ended with profanity and name calling :thumbsup:

 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
I had to bite my tongue....but maybe you are sincere. :)

So I take back my last comment...maybe you are willing to do the work it takes to figure out both of these candidates.

:beer:
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: OrByte
I had to bite my tongue....but maybe you are sincere. :)

So I take back my last comment...maybe you are willing to do the work it takes to figure out both of these candidates.

:beer:


I doubt we will see eye to eye on these candidates but we can have a civil conversation and I can take something away from that ;)
 

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,678
0
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
So, ignore the rest of my post where I say HRC is the same as BHO and provide more FUD?

just admit it, you are out to ATTEMPT at another Obama thrashing thread...the 600th we've had this month...and you aren't getting the results you wanted.

I'm sorry but you are showing us your true colors and you are, in fact, not attempting to enter into an honest discussion. And BTW I am NOT surprised.

Actually to me it looks like you have AT P&N open in one window, and on another window you have your list of Obama "hit pieces" going all the way back to 1996 and possibly beyond. In attempting to smear him as a Presidential candidate.

In the end that is all you are doing.


I'm still waiting to hear more than one or two posts that have tangible things about Obama that makes them want to vote for him. NOT 'i don't like the other guy' but actual tangible things about him. I already said that they have similar platforms, but that BHO's was never really fleshed out. Their campaigns were run differently; HRC talked about actual issues. BHO talks about 'ooooh change inspiring change new guard blah blah blah'.
 

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,678
0
0
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

I did do it in the OP. He was NOT a rather successful senator. He's barely BEEN a senator. He was raised middle class, became a senator....and then promptly started vacuuming up money from Wall St. and the wealthy elite to run his campaign. I'm not saying that other candidates don't do this...but he takes it to an extreme...all while pandering to grass-roots and african-americans that he will do NOTHING for, since he's in the pocket of corporate america more than Romney even was.

YES WE CAN!!!
 

wwswimming

Banned
Jan 21, 2006
3,695
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Because the only other option is to vote McCain? :confused:

the next President has one Hell of an in-basket -

* national debt that shows no signs of being paid off
* Peak Oil/ oil supply not keeping up with demand
* US economy
* health of US banks (or lack there-of)

... and all the other news (e.g. telling the US & world population
that when push comes to shove, we won't be able to reduce our
CO2 emissions)

there's a hell of a lot of balls to juggle. in terms of how mentally
demanding it is, it's like being in med school and getting a pHD
and whatever other intellectually demanding metaphor you might
want to use.

i don't think McCain is up to it.

plus some guy who thinks bombing Iran is funny doesn't belong
@ 1600 Penn. Ave.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Budmantom
It's hard to argue that but she has experience :), compared to Obama.

Because she was married to Bill? By that logic Lewinski has some presidential qualifications.

Originally posted by: RY62
If you thought you were alone, you were wrong. There are many long time Democrats and recently converted Independents who agree with you.

Some links to get you started.

http://blog.pumapac.org/
http://justsaynodeal.com/
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/

You'll find many more sites linked from there. Get involved.

Don't forget to contribute to Hillary's campaign. She's in debt you know!

Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
BTW this forum does have it's fair share of howling bitter Clinton supporters who can't seem to get over the fact that their candidate was not favored. We can add the OP to that group.

There aren't many of us on this forum but new members are always welcome to join the group. :)

Party unity my ass!

Waaaaaaah! Hillary lost! Waaaaah!!!! It was her turn! Waaaah!!! It's not fair! You Bitter Clinton Supporters are the biggest bunch of political whiny babies I've ever seen.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Budmantom
It's hard to argue that but she has experience :), compared to Obama.

Because she was married to Bill? By that logic Lewinski has some presidential qualifications.


Hasn't she been in the senate twice as long as Obama?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: DomS
I'm still waiting to hear more than one or two posts that have tangible things about Obama that makes them want to vote for him. NOT 'i don't like the other guy' but actual tangible things about him. I already said that they have similar platforms, but that BHO's was never really fleshed out. Their campaigns were run differently; HRC talked about actual issues. BHO talks about 'ooooh change inspiring change new guard blah blah blah'.

I will vote for him because I want him to seat the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices. That is my main concern for the next POTUS. I don't want McCain to send selections to congress.

I will also vote for him because he will work to reverse GWBs tax cuts. I know McCain in 2001 said he was against GWB's tax cuts and now he is actually saying he will extend the same tax cuts he once opposed.

I will also vote for him because of his common sense and intelligent approach to Iraq and Afhganistan. He was against it (Iraq war) from the start and that is all that really matters imho. I will trust his decision making ability, and the ability of his advisors over the group that McCain will employ...and my fear there is that with McCain, it will be more of the same numbfvckinnuts people that GWB trusted.

The same goes for economic policy. I trust Obama's ability and approach moreso than McCain...and I do not trust that McCain will employ individuals that will advise him any differently than those that ran this country into the ground under GWB. Maybe George's "Ownership society" policy approach wasn't the best idea since it seems the only people taking ownership of anything these days are the top 1%. We need to reevaluate that approach and I trust Obama's team to change our countrys course appropriately.

what you fail to understand is that the, "I don't like the other guy" thought process is regularly employed (and rightfully so) to select candidates that do not always fall in line with your individual wants and needs. There are no perfect candidates, you vote for the guy that lines up as closely to what you want because the "other guy" doesnt. Just because I dont agree with Obama with his FISA vote doesn't mean im running over to the McCain side. HRC supporters should consider that BHO and HRC are essentially the same as far as policy goes. Just because you don't trust BHO you are going to run over to McCain? Hell I dont trust BHO either, but I trust McCain even less. I don't trust anyone in our two party system these days. We need to shake it up and root out the career politicans. But thats another thread.

In actuality though, the SC nominations are what really drives my vote. Everything else is secondary.

There i've said it. :)
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Because he's black and the mans been keeping him down for the last couple hundred years.

And it would be racist not to vote for him.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: DomS
I'm still waiting to hear more than one or two posts that have tangible things about Obama that makes them want to vote for him. NOT 'i don't like the other guy' but actual tangible things about him. I already said that they have similar platforms, but that BHO's was never really fleshed out. Their campaigns were run differently; HRC talked about actual issues. BHO talks about 'ooooh change inspiring change new guard blah blah blah'.

Hillary talked about 'issues' all right. Remember how she beat the drum about working class whites having 'issues' voting for a black man? That was awesome! JFC give it a rest or go join all the bitter Hillary supporters in their forums. :roll:

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Budmantom
It's hard to argue that but she has experience :), compared to Obama.

Because she was married to Bill? By that logic Lewinski has some presidential qualifications.


Hasn't she been in the senate twice as long as Obama?

I think a little longer but since so many say Obama has no experience doesn't 2 x 0 still = 0? ;)

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: lupi
Because he's black and the mans been keeping him down for the last couple hundred years.

And it would be racist not to vote for him.

Racism humor. Very nice. FWIW, not voting for Obama because he is black is racist. Not voting for McCain because he's white is also racist. Duh.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: lupi
Because he's black and the mans been keeping him down for the last couple hundred years.

And it would be racist not to vote for him.

Racism humor. Very nice. FWIW, not voting for Obama because he is black is racist. Not voting for McCain because he's white is also racist. Duh.

You missed the point. It's racist IF you don't vote for him.