www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Monday, February 11, 2008
US presidential elections
Please don't read on if you are part of those people who think that just because somebody has a gaming blog he is disqualified from having any political opinions. I'm European, and thus obviously can't vote in the US presidential elections or primaries. But the outcome of them is of huge importance for the rest of the world, so many Europeans follow the current developments with interest.
Now if you take all the political parties of the USA and Europe and place them on a scale from most right-wing to most left-wing, you'll find that most European rightish parties are still very much to the left of the US Democrats, the US leftish party. For example the Democrats are still debating universal healthcare, while the first such system was introduced in Europe (Germany in that case) in 1883. The UK National Health Service was founded in 1948. So given that on average Europeans are more leftish than Americans, it is not surprising that most of them morally support Democratic candidates in US presidential elections.
That usually would be true for me as well, I'm not exactly a fan of George W. Bush, few people are nowadays on either side of the Atlantic. But somehow the Republicans managed to beat expectations this time around. Not only did they surprise everyone by more or less already choosing one viable candidate while the Democrats still have a tight race for the presidential nomination. But they also managed to put up the one candidate I would vote for (if I could) in preference of either of the Democratic candidates. I like John McCain, because he appears to be far more honest than any other candidate. It takes guts to tell Michigan the truth about their economic situation, and it takes somebody to be aware of the truth to improve that situation. McCain's "straight talk" is a big point in his favor in my opinion, and I hope that he'd continue to talk and act straight if he were elected President of the United States.
I could live with a President Hillary Clinton as well, but the dynastic aspects of it worry me a bit. A Bush or a Clinton has been president since 1989, and if Hillary is elected that could continue until 2016. Followed by Jeb Bush for 8 years and then Chelsea Clinton? Double dynasty is a strange political system, and it is statistically unlikely that somebody happens to be both related to a previous president *and* the best possible candidate for the job at the same time.
I'm not at all a fan of Barack Obama. This is where *not* being American comes in as an advantage. Europeans don't have the same sense of guilt towards African Americans. Electing somebody just because he is black seems like a bad idea to me. If he was the best possible candidate, him being black just shouldn't make a difference. But his relative youth and inexperience make him look bad against a John McCain. In a battle of "straight talk" versus "I have a dream", I'd chose the realist every day. It is good to have politicians with dreams, but the oval office isn't exactly the best place to dream. Obama as vice president to Hillary Clinton would be a lot more attractive. An idealist to egg the White House on, but somebody more cool-headed to take the decisions. With a vice presidential experience under his belt he'd make a much better candidate the next time around. I just doubt he sees it that way.
But the whole race is still wide open, and either of the three candidates mentioned could still end up becoming president. While funnily it is Obama who most reminds me of George W. Bush (as in having to rely on advisors to make policy), all of the candidates have the advantage of being "not Bush". It appears as if the USA this time gets a rare chance to vote in an election which isn't just about partisanship, with lots of relatively centrist candidates. May the best person win.
- posted by Tobold @ 9:49 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
The more McCain is examined, the less credible his "straight talk" appears. That slogan is essentially an excuse not to consider opposing opinions. In fact, McCain is even more infamous than Bush when it comes to being pigheaded.
McCain's age is also a consideration, and his cancer is another obvious concern.
His foreign policy positions will earn him no friends in Europe. Rest assured, he'll keep the military industrial complex well fed and happy.
His position on immigration represents national and cultural suicide, which is the number one reason that conservatives despise him.
Between Clinton, Obama, and McCain, I'll go with the fresh face. I'm well aware of the "magic Negro" (Google it) angle, but I'm not falling for it. I harbor no illusions about any politician.
I could go on, but I'd much prefer to hear your thoughts on the new WoW patch.
McCain's age is also a consideration, and his cancer is another obvious concern.
His foreign policy positions will earn him no friends in Europe. Rest assured, he'll keep the military industrial complex well fed and happy.
His position on immigration represents national and cultural suicide, which is the number one reason that conservatives despise him.
Between Clinton, Obama, and McCain, I'll go with the fresh face. I'm well aware of the "magic Negro" (Google it) angle, but I'm not falling for it. I harbor no illusions about any politician.
I could go on, but I'd much prefer to hear your thoughts on the new WoW patch.
# posted by 
: 11/2/08 11:33
: 11/2/08 11:33
McCain would be even less popular with europeans than Bush, Bush's foreign policy is a watered down version of the extremely agressive, interventionist approach McCain has been advocating for over a decade.
He's also strongly disliked by large chunks of his own party, who cannot accept his much more moderate positions on social and fiscal policy. Quite a lot of them are actively sabotaging his campaign, believing it would be better to elect a democrat and try for a more extreme candidate in 4 years.
Hillary is distrusted by large chunks of her own party. She has a reputation for having no scruples when it comes to political maneuvering, being inherently dishonest, and for considering everything negotiable. Many of them are now convinced that the right is exploiting the Democrat desire for consensus and compromise by taking positions of tactical extremity in order to pull the resulting compromise to the right.
Obama is building his candidacy not on being a black man who is owed a turn as president (that angle has been played before with no success), but on being the one who promises to actively reverse the excesses of the Bush administration, rather than simply halt the movement to the right. He's drawing lots of support not just from his own race, but from Americans of nearly every demographic. He's won not just a few but *many* states with no significant African-American population.
Yes, I'm an Obama advocate. But I am because he wants to make America a country we can be proud of again.
--Dave
He's also strongly disliked by large chunks of his own party, who cannot accept his much more moderate positions on social and fiscal policy. Quite a lot of them are actively sabotaging his campaign, believing it would be better to elect a democrat and try for a more extreme candidate in 4 years.
Hillary is distrusted by large chunks of her own party. She has a reputation for having no scruples when it comes to political maneuvering, being inherently dishonest, and for considering everything negotiable. Many of them are now convinced that the right is exploiting the Democrat desire for consensus and compromise by taking positions of tactical extremity in order to pull the resulting compromise to the right.
Obama is building his candidacy not on being a black man who is owed a turn as president (that angle has been played before with no success), but on being the one who promises to actively reverse the excesses of the Bush administration, rather than simply halt the movement to the right. He's drawing lots of support not just from his own race, but from Americans of nearly every demographic. He's won not just a few but *many* states with no significant African-American population.
Yes, I'm an Obama advocate. But I am because he wants to make America a country we can be proud of again.
--Dave
One thing that I think your missing living on the other side of the Atlantic is on the Obama thing. Despite the best efforts of the media, the African-American angle really has no effect on people here. I work for the office of a state senate, so I get to keep in touch with alot of this stuff. Obama is popular candidate because he has a popular positive message and because he is a fresh face.
McCain is the best choice for the Republicans because he is seen as the most moderate candidate. And America is looking for a moderate above anything else (even Clinton, a definate leftist has centered herself in a big way). Unfortunately for McCain, is support on the right is splintering, and several big names are denouncing his candicy. In contrast to Obama, who has been picking up support from all the big names from the Democratic party (sans Al Gore who is currently undecided and Bill Clinton who is obviously backing is wife).
If you follow McCain closely, he has changed his stance on a number of issues, and is likely to get pounded in the general election for not being a straight talker.
If McCain can convince the Republican Party that he is their candidate and they need support him if they want any chance of a Republican president, than he is a powerful force to be reckoned with.
On the other hand, the ball is still very much in the Democrat's court, especially against a nominee that is pro-Iraq war.
Sorry for writing a book, mmos and politics are kinda my thing.
McCain is the best choice for the Republicans because he is seen as the most moderate candidate. And America is looking for a moderate above anything else (even Clinton, a definate leftist has centered herself in a big way). Unfortunately for McCain, is support on the right is splintering, and several big names are denouncing his candicy. In contrast to Obama, who has been picking up support from all the big names from the Democratic party (sans Al Gore who is currently undecided and Bill Clinton who is obviously backing is wife).
If you follow McCain closely, he has changed his stance on a number of issues, and is likely to get pounded in the general election for not being a straight talker.
If McCain can convince the Republican Party that he is their candidate and they need support him if they want any chance of a Republican president, than he is a powerful force to be reckoned with.
On the other hand, the ball is still very much in the Democrat's court, especially against a nominee that is pro-Iraq war.
Sorry for writing a book, mmos and politics are kinda my thing.
# posted by : 11/2/08 13:26
: 11/2/08 13:26
'Relative youth and inexperience'?
Obama's the same age that Bill Clinton was when he was first elected president (46) and has about the same amount of political experience as Bill too (who had 15 years in Arkansas politics, while Obama's got 8 years in Illinois and 3 on a national level as a Senator). He also has twice as much political experience as Hillary Clinton does, unless you count the years she was married to Bill as being relevant.
Say what you will about Obama, but youth and inexperience shouldn't disqualify him, and saying that people are just voting for him because he's black is silly. JFK was even younger when he was elected, and though I'm sure some said so at the time, I highly doubt that he got to be President just because he was the first Roman Catholic to be a serious contender.
Obama's the same age that Bill Clinton was when he was first elected president (46) and has about the same amount of political experience as Bill too (who had 15 years in Arkansas politics, while Obama's got 8 years in Illinois and 3 on a national level as a Senator). He also has twice as much political experience as Hillary Clinton does, unless you count the years she was married to Bill as being relevant.
Say what you will about Obama, but youth and inexperience shouldn't disqualify him, and saying that people are just voting for him because he's black is silly. JFK was even younger when he was elected, and though I'm sure some said so at the time, I highly doubt that he got to be President just because he was the first Roman Catholic to be a serious contender.
# posted by : 11/2/08 15:14
: 11/2/08 15:14
Would you support McCain if he was running in your country with policies of...
-Removing Universal Health Care.
-Sending 150k troops into Iraq and leaving them there for a generation.
-More military intervention around the world, including attacking Iran.
-Banning all abortion procedures, even if the mother's life were in jeapordy.
-etc
...Sure he's honest about his ideas, and I respect him for it, but I'd never vote for the guy and I'd be shocked if many Europeans would, especially if they were electing him their leader.
-Removing Universal Health Care.
-Sending 150k troops into Iraq and leaving them there for a generation.
-More military intervention around the world, including attacking Iran.
-Banning all abortion procedures, even if the mother's life were in jeapordy.
-etc
...Sure he's honest about his ideas, and I respect him for it, but I'd never vote for the guy and I'd be shocked if many Europeans would, especially if they were electing him their leader.
# posted by : 11/2/08 15:17
: 11/2/08 15:17
Incidentally, for sake of perspective, the Prime Minister of Belgium also assumed that office at the age of 46.
Was he too young and inexperienced for the job too?
Was he too young and inexperienced for the job too?
# posted by : 11/2/08 15:20
: 11/2/08 15:20
Tobold, your comment "Electing somebody just because he is black seems like a bad idea to me" shows just how ignorant you are of the reasons America is so very much behind Obama.
That's not anywhere close to the reason and for you to just 'say so' is very irresponsible.
You say "Europeans don't have the same sense of guilt towards African Americans." but if you look at who is excited about Obama you'll see that it's the younger generation. The ones that have no reason whatsoever to feel the 'guilt' that you feel is so prevalent here.
You can't POSSIBLY understand how the vast majority of responsible Americans feel at how badly we've let our country fall in the opinion of the world at the hands of Bush.
You can't possibly understand how much Obama's message of hope and unity means to our country at this time.
Obama is very presidential. He's an amazing speaker, he's no idiot either.
You should keep your political commentary to yourself as based on the way you describe things you clearly have no clue and I'm happy that your NOT an American.
That's not anywhere close to the reason and for you to just 'say so' is very irresponsible.
You say "Europeans don't have the same sense of guilt towards African Americans." but if you look at who is excited about Obama you'll see that it's the younger generation. The ones that have no reason whatsoever to feel the 'guilt' that you feel is so prevalent here.
You can't POSSIBLY understand how the vast majority of responsible Americans feel at how badly we've let our country fall in the opinion of the world at the hands of Bush.
You can't possibly understand how much Obama's message of hope and unity means to our country at this time.
Obama is very presidential. He's an amazing speaker, he's no idiot either.
You should keep your political commentary to yourself as based on the way you describe things you clearly have no clue and I'm happy that your NOT an American.
i cannot stop laughing when i read news about obama. that guy is being deifed and lifted above normal human being.. its scary to see rational ppl in USA treating jfk or mlk or obama like demi gods.. they dont realize they got caught by charming men and good orator..
obama is a joke imho, hillary is better than him , but i prefer republican. democrat have been showing nothing less than contempt for ppl serving in us military.
and thats my opinion , not a trolling attempt so dont start accusing me of trolling when i state my opinion here in open forum
obama is a joke imho, hillary is better than him , but i prefer republican. democrat have been showing nothing less than contempt for ppl serving in us military.
and thats my opinion , not a trolling attempt so dont start accusing me of trolling when i state my opinion here in open forum
# posted by : 11/2/08 15:49
: 11/2/08 15:49
Didn't I specifically tell you not to read that post? I don't doubt Obama's good intentions, but I do doubt his ability to implement them. But that is just *my* opinion, and I'm no more the political spokesperson for Europe than you are for the USA. If it is true that Obama's message of hope and unity means a lot to the USA, he'll be elected president and be given a chance to prove me wrong. Right now I doubt many Republicans would sign your statement, and apparently half of the Democrats aren't convinced yet either.
Incidentally, for sake of perspective, the Prime Minister of Belgium also assumed that office at the age of 46. Was he too young and inexperienced for the job too?
I was talking RELATIVE youth and inexperience in a direct one-on-one election battle against John McCain, who is a quarter of a century older. Not that I'm a fan of Soviet style gerontocraty, but it *will* look like a battle between hope and experience.
Incidentally Belgium doesn't really have a Prime Minister right now, we only have a caretake Prime Minister. The parties who got elected in the last elections still haven't worked out how to form a government after nearly 9 months now. Compared to the mess Belgian politics are in, US politics are peaceful and orderly. You only have left vs. right partisanship, we have that plus French vs. Dutch partisanship at the same time.
Incidentally, for sake of perspective, the Prime Minister of Belgium also assumed that office at the age of 46. Was he too young and inexperienced for the job too?
I was talking RELATIVE youth and inexperience in a direct one-on-one election battle against John McCain, who is a quarter of a century older. Not that I'm a fan of Soviet style gerontocraty, but it *will* look like a battle between hope and experience.
Incidentally Belgium doesn't really have a Prime Minister right now, we only have a caretake Prime Minister. The parties who got elected in the last elections still haven't worked out how to form a government after nearly 9 months now. Compared to the mess Belgian politics are in, US politics are peaceful and orderly. You only have left vs. right partisanship, we have that plus French vs. Dutch partisanship at the same time.
@robert
you are the kind of ppl that make me hate democrat/lefty/liberal
liberal said : you can have free speech , but you cannot have disagreement with me.
wth why you critized tobold or other ppl who have different opinion? thats not freespeech thats dictatorship. this is internet, this is tobold's forum/blog and you dare to impose your will here ? dont you realize tobold is telling the truth (and most american dont want to say it) that obama is riding on racial (READ:BLACK) vote ? all tobold said is selecting president based on color is stupid and i agree. im asian descent if you want to know.
thats the kind of ppl that support obama and i hope obama dont win.. too many ppl with secret agenda is riding with democrat.
you are the kind of ppl that make me hate democrat/lefty/liberal
liberal said : you can have free speech , but you cannot have disagreement with me.
wth why you critized tobold or other ppl who have different opinion? thats not freespeech thats dictatorship. this is internet, this is tobold's forum/blog and you dare to impose your will here ? dont you realize tobold is telling the truth (and most american dont want to say it) that obama is riding on racial (READ:BLACK) vote ? all tobold said is selecting president based on color is stupid and i agree. im asian descent if you want to know.
thats the kind of ppl that support obama and i hope obama dont win.. too many ppl with secret agenda is riding with democrat.
# posted by : 11/2/08 15:55
: 11/2/08 15:55
@Robert: there's this wonderful thing we're supposed to believe in here in the US -- Freedom of Speech. Whether Tobold is a US citizen or not, we shouldn't be telling him to refrain from ever voicing his opinion, however correct or incorrect they may be. Don't be a political fanboy.
I work in the South and given my (albeit limited) experiences there, I am of the opinion that the racism is dwindling away with each generation. There are times when it can seem the Carolinas haven't realized they're no longer fighting the "war of Northern aggression" but those are few and far between, the South is catching up to the rest of the world. That said, the one black most prominent in recent political history was always Rev. Jesse Jackson. Obama is articulate, intellectual, and charismatic. So was Bill Clinton in his hey-day.
Regardless how it turns out, this may be an historic election since both Democratic candidates are so-called "minorities" for the first time in US history. We have a chance to see the first-ever woman president. Black men could vote long before women could in this country, so to a degree electing Hillary would be an even larger victory for women voters. Obama isn't playing the "black" card at all (good for him) and he'd likely be a great leader and use his charisma to his advantage to bring back to the table the world leaders that Bush has taken great measures to alienate.
I'm just happy we have two great candidates to choose from.
I work in the South and given my (albeit limited) experiences there, I am of the opinion that the racism is dwindling away with each generation. There are times when it can seem the Carolinas haven't realized they're no longer fighting the "war of Northern aggression" but those are few and far between, the South is catching up to the rest of the world. That said, the one black most prominent in recent political history was always Rev. Jesse Jackson. Obama is articulate, intellectual, and charismatic. So was Bill Clinton in his hey-day.
Regardless how it turns out, this may be an historic election since both Democratic candidates are so-called "minorities" for the first time in US history. We have a chance to see the first-ever woman president. Black men could vote long before women could in this country, so to a degree electing Hillary would be an even larger victory for women voters. Obama isn't playing the "black" card at all (good for him) and he'd likely be a great leader and use his charisma to his advantage to bring back to the table the world leaders that Bush has taken great measures to alienate.
I'm just happy we have two great candidates to choose from.
The Democrats are the centrist party. Republicans are right wing, Libertarians somewhat to the right of that. The US has no viable leftist party as far as I can tell (though leftists like Dennis Kucinich run as Democrats), but there are pockets of socialism here and there, such as Vermont, which borders libertarian New Hampshire by odd coincidence.
I don't feel any guilt toward African-Americans. My ancestors came from Europe to New England directly, or through Canada. My ancestors weren't part of the problem, but I still respond to Obama's message of unity and hope. I think he can do it.
Given that, McCain could bring the Republican party back to the center, and perhaps that would give the Democrats some room to move back to the left, which they abandoned more than twenty years ago.
I don't feel any guilt toward African-Americans. My ancestors came from Europe to New England directly, or through Canada. My ancestors weren't part of the problem, but I still respond to Obama's message of unity and hope. I think he can do it.
Given that, McCain could bring the Republican party back to the center, and perhaps that would give the Democrats some room to move back to the left, which they abandoned more than twenty years ago.
# posted by : 11/2/08 16:07
: 11/2/08 16:07
Tobold, I think a most agree with you on the issue of experience. But the appeal of obama here is the appeal of the first presidential candidate we've had since Clinton that is actually trying to send a positive message.
I don't think clinton or regan where as good as some people think. Or as bad as the other side thinks. But they were as successful as they were because they motivated people with hope.
McCain has a lot of baggage some of it his support of George Bush even after Bush and Rove trashed what should have been and untouchable military record. McCain gave up his straight talk and now has come back to it and that really worries me. I think if he loses this election that in th end will be what killed it for him.
But on the bright side looking at the likely candidates. All of them are better than the MORON we have in charge now.
I don't think clinton or regan where as good as some people think. Or as bad as the other side thinks. But they were as successful as they were because they motivated people with hope.
McCain has a lot of baggage some of it his support of George Bush even after Bush and Rove trashed what should have been and untouchable military record. McCain gave up his straight talk and now has come back to it and that really worries me. I think if he loses this election that in th end will be what killed it for him.
But on the bright side looking at the likely candidates. All of them are better than the MORON we have in charge now.
@Natalie
"wth why you critized tobold or other ppl who have different opinion? thats not freespeech thats dictatorship"
I actually laughed out loud when I read your comment.
Free speech is all about disagreement and critiquing others opinions.
Tobold posted a political opinion and I responded with mine.
Either your typo laden comment is a trolling attempt or you truly believe what you wrote. In the latter case your mind is already closed off to different opinions and debate and nothing I can possibly say can sway you from your fervent belief that there is only one 'right way' and anyone who doesn't rush into it at light speed with their eyes closed is some sort of dictator or is unpatriotic.
Either way I shall not respond again to any posts made by you.
"wth why you critized tobold or other ppl who have different opinion? thats not freespeech thats dictatorship"
I actually laughed out loud when I read your comment.
Free speech is all about disagreement and critiquing others opinions.
Tobold posted a political opinion and I responded with mine.
Either your typo laden comment is a trolling attempt or you truly believe what you wrote. In the latter case your mind is already closed off to different opinions and debate and nothing I can possibly say can sway you from your fervent belief that there is only one 'right way' and anyone who doesn't rush into it at light speed with their eyes closed is some sort of dictator or is unpatriotic.
Either way I shall not respond again to any posts made by you.
I considered myself a conservative but it doesn't mean I'll blindly vote for the Republican party nowadays. If it comes down to a campaign between McCain and Obama I'll be hard pressed to make a decision. Obama is a little more left then I would like but I could see him improving foreign relations more so then McCain.
Hilary's ideas have always been a little too big and expensive for me to swallow. Also they seem to smack a bit too much of socialism and government control. A lot of conservatives in the USA still have a very independent nature and her polcies tend to be unacceptable to them. Plus her attempts at video game censorship and legislation are atrocious.
Hilary's ideas have always been a little too big and expensive for me to swallow. Also they seem to smack a bit too much of socialism and government control. A lot of conservatives in the USA still have a very independent nature and her polcies tend to be unacceptable to them. Plus her attempts at video game censorship and legislation are atrocious.
@Natalie
I also had a knee jerk reaction to Robert's comments that Tobold shouldn't have said what he said because Robert disagreed with him...
BUT I also disagree with your statement:
===============
"@robert
you are the kind of ppl that make me hate democrat/lefty/liberal
liberal said : you can have free speech , but you cannot have disagreement with me."
===============
I have read/heard Republicans write/say the exact same thing Robert just did.
So in my opinion that was a low-blow-comment against democrats to put us all into that boat.
His anti-free speech reference does not define him as a democrat or one as a republican. It is just ignorant.
I believe more democrats fall into my category, where we are looking for the best candidate to lead this country and it doesn't always have to be a democrat.
I would have voted for McCain for president 8 years ago if he had gotten his party's nomination, but he didn't.
Now though, I will not vote for him, becuase I do not like his war rhetoric. His desire to wipe out extremist opposition in IraQ and his declaration that he will be on a mission to hunt down and kill Osama Bin Laden...
It is not our war and in our countries interest to spend so much of our resources to accomplish this goal. The more we push they will push back. The longer way stay there they more hatred will be built up against the United States. Violence begets violence.
We have more pressing issues here at home and better ways to spend our tax money.
I like Richards. I like Ron Paul. I like Barak Obama. Unfortunately Ron Paul is not even on the radar at this late stage in the game, and Richards has dropped out so I have no other favorites in the race but Barack.
If any of you democrats are on the fence between Barack and Hilary, I found this blog video (put together by a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School) expresses the things that were bothering me about Hilary that I couldn't put my finger on.
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
I also had a knee jerk reaction to Robert's comments that Tobold shouldn't have said what he said because Robert disagreed with him...
BUT I also disagree with your statement:
===============
"@robert
you are the kind of ppl that make me hate democrat/lefty/liberal
liberal said : you can have free speech , but you cannot have disagreement with me."
===============
I have read/heard Republicans write/say the exact same thing Robert just did.
So in my opinion that was a low-blow-comment against democrats to put us all into that boat.
His anti-free speech reference does not define him as a democrat or one as a republican. It is just ignorant.
I believe more democrats fall into my category, where we are looking for the best candidate to lead this country and it doesn't always have to be a democrat.
I would have voted for McCain for president 8 years ago if he had gotten his party's nomination, but he didn't.
Now though, I will not vote for him, becuase I do not like his war rhetoric. His desire to wipe out extremist opposition in IraQ and his declaration that he will be on a mission to hunt down and kill Osama Bin Laden...
It is not our war and in our countries interest to spend so much of our resources to accomplish this goal. The more we push they will push back. The longer way stay there they more hatred will be built up against the United States. Violence begets violence.
We have more pressing issues here at home and better ways to spend our tax money.
I like Richards. I like Ron Paul. I like Barak Obama. Unfortunately Ron Paul is not even on the radar at this late stage in the game, and Richards has dropped out so I have no other favorites in the race but Barack.
If any of you democrats are on the fence between Barack and Hilary, I found this blog video (put together by a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School) expresses the things that were bothering me about Hilary that I couldn't put my finger on.
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
# posted by : 11/2/08 16:56
: 11/2/08 16:56
Here's that link again:
www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
# posted by : 11/2/08 17:01
: 11/2/08 17:01
Well, the url runs off the text area apparently. It doesn't seem to let me make it a link.
Here is the entire url broken into 2 pieces.
www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20
_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
Here is the entire url broken into 2 pieces.
www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20
_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
# posted by : 11/2/08 17:04
: 11/2/08 17:04
@Scott "there's this wonderful thing we're supposed to believe in here in the US -- Freedom of Speech. Whether Tobold is a US citizen or not, we shouldn't be telling him to refrain from ever voicing his opinion, however correct or incorrect they may be. Don't be a political fanboy."
Your right, I shouldn't have told him to refrain from posting political opinions in the future.
That was a mistake on my part. Sorry.
He is of course free to continue posting whatever he wants as I am free to respond in disagreement.
Your right, I shouldn't have told him to refrain from posting political opinions in the future.
That was a mistake on my part. Sorry.
He is of course free to continue posting whatever he wants as I am free to respond in disagreement.
The '08 US presidential campaign is so interesting to me, because so very many Democrat tactics and "issues" have come back to bite them.
Dems have practiced 'identity politics' for as long as I remember, pitting social classes (esp. rich v. poor re: taxes) and races and gender against one another for votes against their opponents. But this time it appears that their classes are bitterly divided against each other. For example, polls and news reports I have seen over the past few months indicate that Clinton gets the Dem low-income/education, union, Latino, and women blocs, while Obama gets the Dem higher-income/education and black blocs. Race and gender and personal politics have been interjected into the campaign (partly because there are really not any substantial differences between the candidates on issues).
The really funny thing is that the Dem nominee will likely be decided based upon whether they really do disfranchise Michigan and (irony of ironies) Florida, and finally by "smoke-filled-room" decisions of career politicians who hold about 20% of the delegate votes.
I would say that the ~50% of Dems that get shafted by their own party might be alienated, but US voters have notoriously short memories and tend to vote in the very politicians
that shafted them last time around.
I don't much care for either of the Dems, or for McCain either, but of all the possible Republican candidates he is probably the worst-case scenario for the Dems. The funny thing there is that the Dem candidates continue to beat the anti-war drum that won them the US Congress in '06 (since McCain is very pro-war), yet with control of the Congress for more than a year, the war has not only continued, but troop levels were increased (with great success, to the chagrin of the Dems).
Meanwhile, Congress hasn't passed basic necessary bills but can find the time to hold extensive hearings about such "important" things as steroids in baseball.
And that do-nothing Congress is at a 22% approval rating.
Did I mention that all three candidates likely to win the nomination are currently in Congress?
None of these three can even lead the Senate in a productive direction, but supposedly they can push their policies as President...
(I would guess that at least part of Obama's lingering bad rap on experience is because of the rather clueless and out-of-step foreign policy statements he made early on.)
Politics... whatever...
Dems have practiced 'identity politics' for as long as I remember, pitting social classes (esp. rich v. poor re: taxes) and races and gender against one another for votes against their opponents. But this time it appears that their classes are bitterly divided against each other. For example, polls and news reports I have seen over the past few months indicate that Clinton gets the Dem low-income/education, union, Latino, and women blocs, while Obama gets the Dem higher-income/education and black blocs. Race and gender and personal politics have been interjected into the campaign (partly because there are really not any substantial differences between the candidates on issues).
The really funny thing is that the Dem nominee will likely be decided based upon whether they really do disfranchise Michigan and (irony of ironies) Florida, and finally by "smoke-filled-room" decisions of career politicians who hold about 20% of the delegate votes.
I would say that the ~50% of Dems that get shafted by their own party might be alienated, but US voters have notoriously short memories and tend to vote in the very politicians
that shafted them last time around.
I don't much care for either of the Dems, or for McCain either, but of all the possible Republican candidates he is probably the worst-case scenario for the Dems. The funny thing there is that the Dem candidates continue to beat the anti-war drum that won them the US Congress in '06 (since McCain is very pro-war), yet with control of the Congress for more than a year, the war has not only continued, but troop levels were increased (with great success, to the chagrin of the Dems).
Meanwhile, Congress hasn't passed basic necessary bills but can find the time to hold extensive hearings about such "important" things as steroids in baseball.
And that do-nothing Congress is at a 22% approval rating.
Did I mention that all three candidates likely to win the nomination are currently in Congress?
None of these three can even lead the Senate in a productive direction, but supposedly they can push their policies as President...
(I would guess that at least part of Obama's lingering bad rap on experience is because of the rather clueless and out-of-step foreign policy statements he made early on.)
Politics... whatever...
# posted by : 11/2/08 17:40
: 11/2/08 17:40
Like another commenter said, I would have seriously considered voting for McCain in 2000 before he started pandering to the religious right and other groups he previously criticized. Now, for me, he's lost his credibility as a true "independent" and I couldn't stomach voting for him.
As for Obama, as others wrote, it's really not because he's black (for white voters, anyway). We want to believe what he's selling, and, in this case, there really does seem to be some chance he's legit.
Also, counting Bush Sr.'s VP run and an 8 year HRC presidency, that's 36 straight years of Bush/Clinton. Eww.
As for Obama, as others wrote, it's really not because he's black (for white voters, anyway). We want to believe what he's selling, and, in this case, there really does seem to be some chance he's legit.
Also, counting Bush Sr.'s VP run and an 8 year HRC presidency, that's 36 straight years of Bush/Clinton. Eww.
I'm glad to see your more neutral stance regarding the election. Tobold.
Maybe I am just paranoid, but I generally do not like (or care) when a large number of non-americans supports a particular candidate. They usually have their best interests in mind (and their countries), not ours. Often times these interests conflict.
Maybe I am just paranoid, but I generally do not like (or care) when a large number of non-americans supports a particular candidate. They usually have their best interests in mind (and their countries), not ours. Often times these interests conflict.
# posted by : 11/2/08 18:50
: 11/2/08 18:50
I just want to comment to one think you said in a followup comment:
"Right now I doubt many Republicans would sign your statement, and apparently half of the Democrats aren't convinced yet either."
Actually most Democrats voting said they would be perfectly happy with either Democratic candidate.
You can say "omg don't read this post" all you want, but you're the one who writes a very popular blog, if you think people aren't going to read and comment on what you have to say, what have you been doing all this time? :)
"Right now I doubt many Republicans would sign your statement, and apparently half of the Democrats aren't convinced yet either."
Actually most Democrats voting said they would be perfectly happy with either Democratic candidate.
You can say "omg don't read this post" all you want, but you're the one who writes a very popular blog, if you think people aren't going to read and comment on what you have to say, what have you been doing all this time? :)
Being on the other side of the ocean I think you are missing a couple of huge elements in your column today.
First, there are many people who have very serious concerns about what Bill Clinton would do should Hillary get into office. We have a Constitutional prohibition against a president serving for more than two terms, and now that he is actively campaigning for her, many of us think he will not be able to keep his nose out of the day-to-day operations of the White House... and for that concern alone I don't think any spouse of a former two-term President should be able to run for office.
I don't know if you remember, but the Clinton Presidency was HORRIBLE for the Democratic party. Clinton completely divided the country; he may have a very high approval rating among Clinton fans, but the Clintons also have an extremely high DISapproval rating (which is what a lot of political watchers pay attention to)... people who actively dislike them. If Hillary were to go in office, she would completely divide the country in two and nobody would ever agree on anything and nothing would ever get done. Just arguing and arguing.
Obama on the other hand brings none of that baggage with him.
However the single biggest miss in your column is that people are voting for him because of some African-American thing. You cannot be farther from the truth. He is the closest thing to John F. Kennedy this country has had in 50 years. He is charismatic, and his being Black is almost as inconsequential as Kennedy's having been Catholic. People aren't voting for him because he is Black; people are voting for him because he brings the country HOPE.
Honestly, I cannot swallow the thought of 20+ years of this country headed by just two families. This is a republic, not run by royalty.
First, there are many people who have very serious concerns about what Bill Clinton would do should Hillary get into office. We have a Constitutional prohibition against a president serving for more than two terms, and now that he is actively campaigning for her, many of us think he will not be able to keep his nose out of the day-to-day operations of the White House... and for that concern alone I don't think any spouse of a former two-term President should be able to run for office.
I don't know if you remember, but the Clinton Presidency was HORRIBLE for the Democratic party. Clinton completely divided the country; he may have a very high approval rating among Clinton fans, but the Clintons also have an extremely high DISapproval rating (which is what a lot of political watchers pay attention to)... people who actively dislike them. If Hillary were to go in office, she would completely divide the country in two and nobody would ever agree on anything and nothing would ever get done. Just arguing and arguing.
Obama on the other hand brings none of that baggage with him.
However the single biggest miss in your column is that people are voting for him because of some African-American thing. You cannot be farther from the truth. He is the closest thing to John F. Kennedy this country has had in 50 years. He is charismatic, and his being Black is almost as inconsequential as Kennedy's having been Catholic. People aren't voting for him because he is Black; people are voting for him because he brings the country HOPE.
Honestly, I cannot swallow the thought of 20+ years of this country headed by just two families. This is a republic, not run by royalty.
It is also kind of funny that Hillary Clinton is running as Bill, Obama's supporters are portraying him as JFK, and the Republicans are all trying to be Ronald Reagan.
It would be nice to see at least one candidate that was a leader in his or her own right, instead of pretending to be someone they are not to obscure the fact that none of them are getting much of anything done in their current political office.
It would be nice to see at least one candidate that was a leader in his or her own right, instead of pretending to be someone they are not to obscure the fact that none of them are getting much of anything done in their current political office.
# posted by : 11/2/08 19:30
: 11/2/08 19:30
I can assure you, if any of these candidates is the realist, it is Obama (and I'm no fan of his views or plans).
He realizes that elections are all about money - specifically, how much money is in a voter's wallet next November compared to how much money was there November four years earlier.
Simply put, incumbents get the vote if you feel you are doing better than you were four years earlier, incumbents lose if you feel you are doing worse.
In this race, the only candidate of the three realistic ones (Obama, Clinton, McCain) who is not perceived as an incumbent is Obama. It is no mistake that Obama likes to press the point that he views himself as an "underdog".
He realizes that elections are all about money - specifically, how much money is in a voter's wallet next November compared to how much money was there November four years earlier.
Simply put, incumbents get the vote if you feel you are doing better than you were four years earlier, incumbents lose if you feel you are doing worse.
In this race, the only candidate of the three realistic ones (Obama, Clinton, McCain) who is not perceived as an incumbent is Obama. It is no mistake that Obama likes to press the point that he views himself as an "underdog".
The '08 US presidential campaign is so interesting to me, because so very many Democrat tactics and "issues" have come back to bite them.
true but I could replace democrat with republican and say the exact same thing and it would be just as true.
I voted republican every election since I was 18 until the last election.
McCain has some real issues as a candidate. We are talking about the man that said on public television he had no opinion about the aids epidemic. The man that after fighting bush's fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that did not come with reduction in government now says they were a good idea. And while I have to agree with him that leaving Iraq now will be a disaster no one has convinced me it won't be a worse disaster if we stay. I have yet to hear anyone state the simple truth that until the whole Israel/palestinian issue is resolved that nothing we do will ever stick or make a difference.
I do have concerns about Obama's experience but at this point I'd rather have a young idealist who tries than more of the same that we'd get with MCCain and Hillary.
It pains me that All the ethically defunct people waiving Reagan's legacy as thier rallying cry are the ones that have broken the Geneva Convention (one of america's best implemented ideas ever), rewritten what the constitution means to make us feel safe. Even though nothing our government has done in 9 years has made us one iota safer. (The fact is both before and after 9-11 you are and were more likely to die of a heart attack or in a car wreck than to be hit by a terrorist attack in the US.)
Add that to the Guantanamo debacle and I feel like i've slipped into a parallel universe where germany won world war II. And I think a lot of moderates like me feel the same way.
It's simple we vote for mcain and more of the same old constitutional errosion of our identity, or obama and his message of hope. (And cross our fingers and hope he can deliver)
true but I could replace democrat with republican and say the exact same thing and it would be just as true.
I voted republican every election since I was 18 until the last election.
McCain has some real issues as a candidate. We are talking about the man that said on public television he had no opinion about the aids epidemic. The man that after fighting bush's fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that did not come with reduction in government now says they were a good idea. And while I have to agree with him that leaving Iraq now will be a disaster no one has convinced me it won't be a worse disaster if we stay. I have yet to hear anyone state the simple truth that until the whole Israel/palestinian issue is resolved that nothing we do will ever stick or make a difference.
I do have concerns about Obama's experience but at this point I'd rather have a young idealist who tries than more of the same that we'd get with MCCain and Hillary.
It pains me that All the ethically defunct people waiving Reagan's legacy as thier rallying cry are the ones that have broken the Geneva Convention (one of america's best implemented ideas ever), rewritten what the constitution means to make us feel safe. Even though nothing our government has done in 9 years has made us one iota safer. (The fact is both before and after 9-11 you are and were more likely to die of a heart attack or in a car wreck than to be hit by a terrorist attack in the US.)
Add that to the Guantanamo debacle and I feel like i've slipped into a parallel universe where germany won world war II. And I think a lot of moderates like me feel the same way.
It's simple we vote for mcain and more of the same old constitutional errosion of our identity, or obama and his message of hope. (And cross our fingers and hope he can deliver)
There is no question people will vote solely for Obama because he is black. The same can be said for Hillary supporters voting based on her being the first woman President.
However, I disagree that the reason behind the majority of those voting for Obama is based on guilt. I would say those votes, which aren't the majority if you read the polls, are based on pure desire stemming from gender and race while policy isn't the main deciding factor. It is exciting to see two historical candidates actually have a shot at winning the US Presidency.
The inexperience argument against Obama is ludicrous. A blasted generalization by detractors, usually older, that fail to bring up his record and past, and compare it with some former US Presidents.
McCain has led a life of service. I admire his dedication to the US. I respect the fact that he has children who serve in our armed forces. You are right to point out McCain's best argument against Obama is his experience and dedication. However, in all the polls change is proving to be more important than experience.
Nontheless, McCain as the republican front-runner has left the GOP in shambles. His record shows that he will go across party lines to work with Democrats. Not a bad thing in my mind, but when you look at some of his proposals such as the z-visa bill, the ridicule by his own party is founded.
I don't agree with a lot of McCain's policies. The War being the main one. This country can't afford a war. The war was illegal to beign with. The US needs a no nation building foreign policy. McCain won't restore or repair our relationships with other countrines in this world. They are likely to worsen if McCain becomes President as you can expect both wars, if not others, to last his full term.
However, I disagree that the reason behind the majority of those voting for Obama is based on guilt. I would say those votes, which aren't the majority if you read the polls, are based on pure desire stemming from gender and race while policy isn't the main deciding factor. It is exciting to see two historical candidates actually have a shot at winning the US Presidency.
The inexperience argument against Obama is ludicrous. A blasted generalization by detractors, usually older, that fail to bring up his record and past, and compare it with some former US Presidents.
McCain has led a life of service. I admire his dedication to the US. I respect the fact that he has children who serve in our armed forces. You are right to point out McCain's best argument against Obama is his experience and dedication. However, in all the polls change is proving to be more important than experience.
Nontheless, McCain as the republican front-runner has left the GOP in shambles. His record shows that he will go across party lines to work with Democrats. Not a bad thing in my mind, but when you look at some of his proposals such as the z-visa bill, the ridicule by his own party is founded.
I don't agree with a lot of McCain's policies. The War being the main one. This country can't afford a war. The war was illegal to beign with. The US needs a no nation building foreign policy. McCain won't restore or repair our relationships with other countrines in this world. They are likely to worsen if McCain becomes President as you can expect both wars, if not others, to last his full term.
# posted by : 11/2/08 20:46
: 11/2/08 20:46
"Please don't read on if you are part of those people who think that just because somebody has a gaming blog he is disqualified from having any political opinions."
People wouldn't think that if gaming blogs did have something good to say about politics.
Sadly they don't. So I didn't read.
I demand a cookie for that.
People wouldn't think that if gaming blogs did have something good to say about politics.
Sadly they don't. So I didn't read.
I demand a cookie for that.
obama is like john f kennedy i agree. they just all talk and charisma. i think obama's fate will be just like kennedy's if he get elected.
# posted by : 12/2/08 06:40
: 12/2/08 06:40
Agreed that Obama doesn't have "I'm the black candidate" written on his campaign sticker. But if you think that race is inconsequential in this election, you are deluding yourself. What about the Obama camp attacking the Clinton camp for not being respectful enough towards Martin Luther King while talking up Lyndon B. Johnson? What about Clinton getting the Latino vote because latino-black tensions?
Obama doesn't need to shout "I'm black", the same way Clinton doesn't need to shout "I'm a woman". It's visible enough to everyone. You could think of somebody saying "I wouldn't have voted for JFK if I had known he was catholic", but you can't imagine anyone saying "Oh, I thought Obama just had a tan, I wouldn't have voted for an Afro-American". Race and feminism play a big role in this election in spite of there not being much talk about them.
You can say "omg don't read this post" all you want, but you're the one who writes a very popular blog, if you think people aren't going to read and comment on what you have to say, what have you been doing all this time?
I'm just saying that if you think that game bloggers should write about games, and not about politics, don't read their political blog posts. There are enough game posts around here. Robert saying "You should keep your political commentary to yourself" and saying he is happy I can't vote apparently isn't aware of the growing trend of pseudo-democracies in third-world countries. His "you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you don't agree with me" opinion is working on the same principles as the veiled tyranny of "elected" leaders like Robert Mugabe or Putin. For real democracy you need to allow freedom of speech even to people you don't agree with. Voltaire said 250 years ago: "I hate what you're saying, but I would die for your right to say it". *That* is democracy.
Obama doesn't need to shout "I'm black", the same way Clinton doesn't need to shout "I'm a woman". It's visible enough to everyone. You could think of somebody saying "I wouldn't have voted for JFK if I had known he was catholic", but you can't imagine anyone saying "Oh, I thought Obama just had a tan, I wouldn't have voted for an Afro-American". Race and feminism play a big role in this election in spite of there not being much talk about them.
You can say "omg don't read this post" all you want, but you're the one who writes a very popular blog, if you think people aren't going to read and comment on what you have to say, what have you been doing all this time?
I'm just saying that if you think that game bloggers should write about games, and not about politics, don't read their political blog posts. There are enough game posts around here. Robert saying "You should keep your political commentary to yourself" and saying he is happy I can't vote apparently isn't aware of the growing trend of pseudo-democracies in third-world countries. His "you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you don't agree with me" opinion is working on the same principles as the veiled tyranny of "elected" leaders like Robert Mugabe or Putin. For real democracy you need to allow freedom of speech even to people you don't agree with. Voltaire said 250 years ago: "I hate what you're saying, but I would die for your right to say it". *That* is democracy.
Happy to realize the guy writing about games all the time also has his wits together when it comes to other topics :)
I am also European and lived quite some time in the US and Canada and I mostly agree with you, Tobold. Saying skin color or sex doesn't have a big impact is complete nonsense imho.
Interesting enough that after the first Bush election oh-so-many people were puzzled because they couldn't imagine who voted for him. After his re-election this excuse seemed a bit lame...But today so many (Republican) voters pretending they never liked Bush is ridicolous. Somebody voted for him 4 years ago - and it were a lot of people that still live today.
I am amused by the fact that today virtually everybody is against Bush. Four years ago he was not very different from today and had a majority of people electing him.
I am also European and lived quite some time in the US and Canada and I mostly agree with you, Tobold. Saying skin color or sex doesn't have a big impact is complete nonsense imho.
Interesting enough that after the first Bush election oh-so-many people were puzzled because they couldn't imagine who voted for him. After his re-election this excuse seemed a bit lame...But today so many (Republican) voters pretending they never liked Bush is ridicolous. Somebody voted for him 4 years ago - and it were a lot of people that still live today.
I am amused by the fact that today virtually everybody is against Bush. Four years ago he was not very different from today and had a majority of people electing him.
# posted by : 12/2/08 11:57
: 12/2/08 11:57
One thing I find interesting with this election is how closely foreigners (non-US) are following it. I can't recall seeing so much interest in US politics before.
Tobold. I think in europe the race card is percieved as bigger than it really is. I'm a Genx born at the tail end of the baby boom. And from the South to boot.
What I see, in this election in the media and in person, is people over 45 think that the fact that obama is black and clinton is a woman is a HUGE thing. Most of us who are Younger could really care less. We are interested in the people.
Of course there are racists everywhere of all colors and beliefs. Even in Europe. I lived in germany I know. But to many of our media icons are still living in 1965 and haven't moved on like the rest of us.
What I see, in this election in the media and in person, is people over 45 think that the fact that obama is black and clinton is a woman is a HUGE thing. Most of us who are Younger could really care less. We are interested in the people.
Of course there are racists everywhere of all colors and beliefs. Even in Europe. I lived in germany I know. But to many of our media icons are still living in 1965 and haven't moved on like the rest of us.
Not sure if you noticed or not Tobold, but I did apologize for that part of my comment several comments ago :)
Electing somebody just because he is black seems like a bad idea to me.
No more a bad idea than electing someone because they are a woman.
And do you really think people vote because they feel guilty about past atrocities they had nothing to do with? If so, then the same argument could be said for men who vote for Hillary... it follows the same logic. They must be voting for her because they feel guilty about women not having the right to vote centuries ago.
C'mon Tobold.
No more a bad idea than electing someone because they are a woman.
And do you really think people vote because they feel guilty about past atrocities they had nothing to do with? If so, then the same argument could be said for men who vote for Hillary... it follows the same logic. They must be voting for her because they feel guilty about women not having the right to vote centuries ago.
C'mon Tobold.
# posted by : 12/2/08 18:27
: 12/2/08 18:27
First, disclaimers are useless, if you put it on your blog then you put it on your blog. If you don't like negative comments, disable comments on this post. Otherwise it's completely fair for people to call you out if you're making irresponsible generalizations. Dispute them as you wish, it's your blog, but crucify your own character at your own whim as well.
That Tobold is a conservative that would side with McCain is no surprise whatsoever.
The shock is that Tobold parrots cliched American-like views by choosing a candidate completely upon the shallow surface of appearances rather than any points of principle that they would use once in office.
That Tobold is a conservative that would side with McCain is no surprise whatsoever.
The shock is that Tobold parrots cliched American-like views by choosing a candidate completely upon the shallow surface of appearances rather than any points of principle that they would use once in office.
# posted by : 12/2/08 19:11
: 12/2/08 19:11
@ not surprised.
Could you give an as informed opinion of an election in Belgium?
Of course he repeats what he's seen in the media. That's his sole exposure. And sadly it's more than 40 percent of this country will voluntarily expose themselves too.
Could you give an as informed opinion of an election in Belgium?
Of course he repeats what he's seen in the media. That's his sole exposure. And sadly it's more than 40 percent of this country will voluntarily expose themselves too.
I live in the US.
Yeah, sorry to say, Tobold is right.
Voters here are shallow.
They actually believe politians.
Yeah, sorry to say, Tobold is right.
Voters here are shallow.
They actually believe politians.
# posted by : 12/2/08 21:19
: 12/2/08 21:19
Tobold, you may be confused by the fact that Obama is largely getting support from: 1) younger, college-educated people and 2) African-Americans (regardless of education level). The young are flocking to Obama because of his message of hope and change. Obama is himself young for a presidential nominee; he evokes the allure of JFK (and most of the Kennedy clan publicly backs him). As for African-Americans, I'm sure they see history in the making, and a chance to highlight their concerns.
You might be able to make a case for the black vote being based on skin colour, but the white vote is split just like in any other election. Guilt has nothing to do with it at all; you are simply wrong on this count, and merely speculating.
I find your disclaimer disingenuous. A person can find value in reading political posts on a gamer's blog in general, but not find value in *your* post.
You might be able to make a case for the black vote being based on skin colour, but the white vote is split just like in any other election. Guilt has nothing to do with it at all; you are simply wrong on this count, and merely speculating.
I find your disclaimer disingenuous. A person can find value in reading political posts on a gamer's blog in general, but not find value in *your* post.
# posted by : 13/2/08 01:26
: 13/2/08 01:26
A person can find value in reading political posts on a gamer's blog in general, but not find value in *your* post.
In political posts, even more so than in game posts, people tend to only "find value" in posts they agree with. Very few people are able to look at my post and say "Ah, interesting, so this is how the candidates appear to somebody in Europe". Instead they post agreeing comments if they happen to support the same candidate I like, and flame me if they support another one. Nobody notices that you can't hold any sort of political discussion when polarized like that.
In political posts, even more so than in game posts, people tend to only "find value" in posts they agree with. Very few people are able to look at my post and say "Ah, interesting, so this is how the candidates appear to somebody in Europe". Instead they post agreeing comments if they happen to support the same candidate I like, and flame me if they support another one. Nobody notices that you can't hold any sort of political discussion when polarized like that.
"you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you don't agree with me"
i agree , lot of ppl forget that democracy means different opinion. there is lot of tendencies on US left/liberal-left on supressing opinion that is different from their agenda. its like if you dont agree with them then you dont 'count'
streched it to gaming world, in WOW-US forum if you said you dont like raid but you want housing you will get jeered off and pressured to accept the status quo. granted WOW isnt a democracy but it is sad to see the state of mind from ppl who post there. i think lot of PPL from USA (not all mind you) has forgotten how different the rest of the world compared to USA.
@people who think obama is not playing the race card, they are (in tobold's word) deluding themselves. obama is foremost a politician and like all politician he is playing with all card on table. it is heart-warming to see a fresh face and charming candidate and it is easy to forget that this is politics. but imho selecting obama as US president will bring bad news all over the world. Good intention doesnt bring peace, it is a combination of STRENGTH and GOOD INTENTION that will bring peace.
There is no county in history that is like USA, it is the strongest country in the world but it is also got the nicest ppl in it. taking off the US military strength and the rest of the world will laugh at USA.
i agree , lot of ppl forget that democracy means different opinion. there is lot of tendencies on US left/liberal-left on supressing opinion that is different from their agenda. its like if you dont agree with them then you dont 'count'
streched it to gaming world, in WOW-US forum if you said you dont like raid but you want housing you will get jeered off and pressured to accept the status quo. granted WOW isnt a democracy but it is sad to see the state of mind from ppl who post there. i think lot of PPL from USA (not all mind you) has forgotten how different the rest of the world compared to USA.
@people who think obama is not playing the race card, they are (in tobold's word) deluding themselves. obama is foremost a politician and like all politician he is playing with all card on table. it is heart-warming to see a fresh face and charming candidate and it is easy to forget that this is politics. but imho selecting obama as US president will bring bad news all over the world. Good intention doesnt bring peace, it is a combination of STRENGTH and GOOD INTENTION that will bring peace.
There is no county in history that is like USA, it is the strongest country in the world but it is also got the nicest ppl in it. taking off the US military strength and the rest of the world will laugh at USA.
# posted by : 13/2/08 07:56
: 13/2/08 07:56
Well, I might note that in "Tobold's world", Europe, most (all?) governments are multi-party coalitions. In the US, there is a deeply-entrenched two-party system.
Therefore, where politicians (spelled it correctly that time!) in Europe *have* to negotiate, but the two parties in the US act as if they would rather divide, conquer, and destroy than negotiate.
To me, the most ironic thing about Obama is that his message about change in Washington is the same as a major plank of Bush in 2000. I'm old enough to remember vividly the bitter partisanship of post-Lewinsky politics, and Bush pointed out that he worked with Democrats in Texas as governor to get things done, and could bring civility back to Washington (he even tried that, including prominent Democrats in things like No Child Left Behind, and even granted Democrats an unprecedented vote upon the war in Iraq, which they agreed to). But eight years later few people seem to remember that (and Obama's younger supporters probably have no idea that Obama's borrowing a page from the Bush 2000 campaign), and the cycle is repeating itself.
The reality is that there is an overwhelming likelihood that deep partisanship will continue in Washington no matter who is elected, unless one side manages an overwhelming margin in Congress and the Presidency too.
Therefore, where politicians (spelled it correctly that time!) in Europe *have* to negotiate, but the two parties in the US act as if they would rather divide, conquer, and destroy than negotiate.
To me, the most ironic thing about Obama is that his message about change in Washington is the same as a major plank of Bush in 2000. I'm old enough to remember vividly the bitter partisanship of post-Lewinsky politics, and Bush pointed out that he worked with Democrats in Texas as governor to get things done, and could bring civility back to Washington (he even tried that, including prominent Democrats in things like No Child Left Behind, and even granted Democrats an unprecedented vote upon the war in Iraq, which they agreed to). But eight years later few people seem to remember that (and Obama's younger supporters probably have no idea that Obama's borrowing a page from the Bush 2000 campaign), and the cycle is repeating itself.
The reality is that there is an overwhelming likelihood that deep partisanship will continue in Washington no matter who is elected, unless one side manages an overwhelming margin in Congress and the Presidency too.
# posted by : 13/2/08 15:04
: 13/2/08 15:04
In political posts, even more so than in game posts, people tend to only "find value" in posts they agree with.
Fair enough. But you can't simply quote your disclaimer when someone doesn't like your opinion. Maybe if you had a different disclaimer, but what you used makes it sound like if someone doesn't like what you say, then they shouldn't have read your post in the first place.
You write a political post, people are going to disagree with you. Deal with it. And since people in the US feel understandably more involved in the politics there than you, be prepared for a contrast in intensity.
Fair enough. But you can't simply quote your disclaimer when someone doesn't like your opinion. Maybe if you had a different disclaimer, but what you used makes it sound like if someone doesn't like what you say, then they shouldn't have read your post in the first place.
You write a political post, people are going to disagree with you. Deal with it. And since people in the US feel understandably more involved in the politics there than you, be prepared for a contrast in intensity.
# posted by : 13/2/08 20:40
: 13/2/08 20:40
What a terribly ignorant post, Tobold. Obama running on the "race card?" That's a horrible misrepresentation. For myself and my friends (30-something WASPs) who are supportive of him the fact that he's black has absolutely nothing to do with it. We like him for his positive message and commitment to issues that are important to us.
Next time, how about reading each candidates website thoroughly and commenting on the issues they stand for? Or maybe listening to the televised debates and providing insightful commentary? You know, the kind of attention to detail normally do with MMORPGs. Simply parroting back soundbites you've heard on EU media is mark against your character in my book. Very disappointed.
Next time, how about reading each candidates website thoroughly and commenting on the issues they stand for? Or maybe listening to the televised debates and providing insightful commentary? You know, the kind of attention to detail normally do with MMORPGs. Simply parroting back soundbites you've heard on EU media is mark against your character in my book. Very disappointed.
# posted by : 13/2/08 22:21
: 13/2/08 22:21
Fester you act as if tobold personally attacked you as a racist pig. that is just as bad as if some racist pig came here and spewed his or her vitriol.
Race is a factor. To say otherwise is to affirm your ignorance in general. But I stand by my earlier statement that it is not nearly as big a factor as it once was. I think most people in the us under 40 don't really care what color the candidate is.
Post a Comment
Race is a factor. To say otherwise is to affirm your ignorance in general. But I stand by my earlier statement that it is not nearly as big a factor as it once was. I think most people in the us under 40 don't really care what color the candidate is.
<< Home
