Obama popular with 87% of the world... therefore I hate him

Trojan

Obama would be voted in with 87% according to http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results (I know some news companies have done more accurate polls but this was the easiest to find)

There's this phenomenon we've seen from a lot of people here on this board (and in a lot of other places): that so many people like Obama that they want McCain to win. But they're not McCain fans - they're just anti-Obama because a lot of people (the majority of the world's population, by a landslide) want him to win.

Is this like emo goth kids who want to be different (like everyone else)? Is it hip to be an Obama hater? Is it like it's cool to say you don't like U2, because they're popular?

Personally, I'm not a Democrat (I think the party is almost as despicable as the Republicans... almost). But McCain/Palin... I mean, to want these guys to win because Obama is POPULAR, wtf?

amacachi

I don't like U2 because they're ****, not because they're popular. I hate a lot of not very well-known bands as well.

Obama is popular with 87% of "the world" because "the world" is lot more left-leaning than the USA and because McCain (rightly or wrongly) is seen as a continuation of Bush.

Trojan

amacachi wrote: »

Obama is popular with 87% of "the world" because "the world" is lot more left-leaning than the USA and because McCain (rightly or wrongly) is seen as a continuation of Bush.

Hey amacachi, I think you're right. Major reasons that people are more pro-Obama are dislike of extremist religious right and more socialist leanings. However, that doesn't explain why intelligent people would want McCain to win just because Obama has a lot of supporters.

Ludo

Trojan wrote: »

However, that doesn't explain why intelligent people would want McCain to win just because Obama has a lot of supporters.

Well that statement I disagree with...the people you speak of are NOT INTELLIGENT. Juvenile morons is more appropriate...trolls if you will for want of a better word.

And this is not a dig at the people on the other thread here who expressed similar thoughts before anyone gets hot and bothered...I realise they support McCain and annoying Obama supporters is only a nice side effect for them.

Black Swan

Anti-Obama people are not all the same, but rather diverse in their characteristics, personalities, education, interests, and reasons for wanting to see Obama lose. The same could be said about pro-Obama people... they too are diverse.

amacachi

Trojan wrote: »

Hey amacachi, I think you're right. Major reasons that people are more pro-Obama are dislike of extremist religious right and more socialist leanings. However, that doesn't explain why intelligent people would want McCain to win just because Obama has a lot of supporters.

This might sound condescending, but I know you'll know most of this, but the vast majority of people are not intelligent. Look at the DNC, it was like a dodgy 70's disco movie. Then ya have people who have backed Obama from the start when the only word in his public-speaking vocabulary was "change". I know it's changed now that he has specified a lot of his policies, but many of his supporters still wouldn't be able to tell you anything specific. For these reasons some unintelligent people who were in the middle have shunned the democrats now.

I'd like to think of myself as intelligent, and I've supported McCain from the start, but a part of me would smirk if he won just to see the shock of the Obama supporters. 5 or 6 months ago I would've been happy for either candidate to win, but I've just completely gone off Obama and want to see the Democrats, who should have won easily, be sickened.

To sum up my point, Schaden Fraude

*EDIT* Heh, i said "cum" instead of "sum":P

MagicMarker

Fact of the matter is, the majority of Americans are probably just like the rest of the world, haven't got a ****ing clue what either of these two candidates would bring to the white house and so end up basing their vote on their colours and who comes out better at televised debates.

Most people will think McCain = Republican = Bush = BAD!! and Obama + Black + Young + Charismatic = GOOD + NOT BUSH = VOTE FOR OBAMA.

MisterAnarchy

87% of the world ?
Codswallop.
Am I missing something here .
This Obama guy is being heralded as the new Messiah ,compared to Jesus ,Lennon,Martin Luther King,Gandi.
What exactly has he achieved ??
He is all talk and very little action .He is full of it.
The way some people talk about him you'd think he could walk on water or stop time ,while Mc Cain on the otherhand is portrayed as a bloodthirsty warmonger.
Frankly I dont rate either of the two of them ,and its alarming how two very weak candidates managed to secure their parties nominations.

Black Swan

On second thought, no matter who wins, there will always be a few poor losers, some of whom will begin to vent and rant in anticipation of losing before the election?

Trojan

See, the argument is that there are plenty of dumb Obama supporters too. And that the intelligent McCain supporters are being edited out of the hundreds of video clips online.

Look, I'm sure there are some good reasons to vote for McCain. Actually I'm guessing, I'm not sure at all of that. I find that none of the standard pro McCain reasons appeal to me - I am politically and socially liberal, and anti-right wing religions. Technically I suppose that as a business owner, it might be good for my business and Ireland PLC in general, if McCain wins, but I see that as very short-sighted.

However, I think that the opinions expressed by people on this board that they want McCain to win because Obama is popular, frankly, stupidly moronic. I mean imagine Palin as president for 3 years because you want some moments of pleasure from schadenfreud?

Trojan

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

87% of the world ?
Codswallop.
Am I missing something here .
This Obama guy is being heralded as the new Messiah ,compared to Jesus ,Lennon,Martin Luther King,Gandi.
What exactly has he achieved ??
He is all talk and very little action .He is full of it.
The way some people talk about him you'd think he could walk on water or stop time ,while Mc Cain on the otherhand is portrayed as a bloodthirsty warmonger.
Frankly I dont rate either of the two of them ,and its alarming how two very weak candidates managed to secure their parties nominations.

Here's a perfect example of someone I agree with. I think that Obama is overrated - he certainly didn't blow me away with his debate performances like I expected after all the talking up in the media. However, when you compare Obama/Biden to McCain/Palin, there's simply no contest, it has to be Obama/Biden.

btw you're right, 87% is codswallop. In other polls I've seen it was closer to 94%.

amacachi

By your intuition the higher number is the more accurate one I take it?;)

Crash

Ah but here's the point - people are easily swayed by a strong public persona. We always have been. For instance, I've come across tons of politicians and business folk that are UNBELIEVABLE speakers - and I can't help but have respect and a like for them, because I am, and always will be, a semi sucker for someone who has a knack for public speaking, because its something I've been involved in and working on myself for a long time.

And this is a large part of any population of any country. They judge politicians on how well they speak, the random non-sensical promises they make etc. And they're on both sides.

To turn around, however, and hate or dislike a candidate thanks to these folk? Hell McCain Palin have a strong religious right base, if I wasn't somewhere to the left, i'd be against them simply because I dislike said folk, by the above standards.

P.C.

Trojan wrote: »

imagine Palin as president for 3 years

At least we would look forward to seeing her on TV.

Or, I would. :cool:

But, I think that Obama is the best of two

evils

.

MisterAnarchy

P.C. wrote: »

But, I think that Obama is the best of two

evils

.

Yes,thats quite correct.
One point that amuses me is that the majority of the blame for the meltdown in the US economy is being heaped on Bush.
While the man is arguably an imbacile it is unfair that the majority ruling Democratic party have come out of this affair almost unscathed.
8 years of Bush has also been 8 years of Democrats .

P.C.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Yes,thats quite correct.
One point that amuses me is that the majority of the blame for the meltdown in the US economy is being heaped on Bush.
While the man is arguably an imbacile it is unfair that the majority ruling Democratic party have come out of this affair almost unscathed.
8 years of Bush has also been 8 years of Democrats .

It is amusing - I personaly don't like the man, or his politics, but to blame him for the meltdown of the US economy????

Firstly, you would have to blame the whole Democratic Party, and second, how did it take them 8 years? Or, put another way, how did they manage to keep the US economy going for 7 1/2 years? Maybee they were just lucky for 7 1/2 years.

MisterAnarchy

P.C. wrote: »

Or, put another way, how did they manage to keep the US economy going for 7 1/2 years?

The US economy has been in trouble for the majority of those 7.5 years.
Their national debt has doubled in that time period.

Black Swan

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

it is unfair that the majority ruling Democratic party have come out of this affair almost unscathed.
8 years of Bush has also been 8 years of Democrats .

The facts do not support your statement? Let's see, there are two houses in the US Congress. The House of Representatives had a Republican majority rule until January 2007 (as a result of the Nov 2006 mid-term elections, when the first female Speaker was elected). So in the House, the Democrats had a majority for less than 2 of the past 8 years of Bush.

As to the US Senate, currently there are 49 Republican Senators and 49 Democrats, plus 2 Independent Senators, and Republican Vice President Dick Chaney, who has a one-half vote to break ties. So the US Senate is not controlled by Democrats but rather tied 49-49 with the Republicans.

Crash

Ah excellent. I was pretty sure that was the case but couldnt find dates to support my points - thanks blue_lagoon the dem's are like FG at the moment, they havent been anywhere near power during all the ****e periods, but its all too easy to blame ain't it?

P.C.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The US economy has been in trouble for the majority of those 7.5 years.
Their national debt has doubled in that time period.

Sorry, I forgot about the old 'print more money' trick, and the 'move the blame/problem to the future' trick that has been going on for the last while in the US.

MisterAnarchy

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The facts do not support your statement? Let's see, there are two houses in the US Congress. The House of Representatives had a Republican majority rule until January 2007 (as a result of the Nov 2006 mid-term elections, when the first female Speaker was elected). So in the House, the Democrats had a majority for less than 2 of the past 8 years of Bush.

As to the US Senate, currently there are 49 Republican Senators and 49 Democrats, plus 2 Independent Senators, and Republican Vice President Dick Chaney, who has a one-half vote to break ties. So the US Senate is not controlled by Democrats but rather tied 49-49 with the Republicans.

I stand corrected.
I could have sworn that the Democrats had a majority for longer than that.

Black Swan

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The US economy has been in trouble for the majority of those 7.5 years.
Their national debt has doubled in that time period.

By the time Bush leaves office January 2009, you will be very close to your "doubled" federal deficit estimate:

Jan 2001 $5,724,315,917,828.49 Clinton fed deficit passed to Bush

Oct 2008 $10,266,382,646,543.62 Current Bush era fed deficit (still growing)

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

FrankGrimes

I too find it very difficult to respect an opinion that would lead to voting for candidate A just because they think candidate B is too popular. The consequences of this election are far too serious for such petty behaviour.

My personal opinion is that a McCain/Palin ticket is so right-wing that it would be less likely to correct the US economy (even if he does a u-turn on 28 years of supporting dergulation, I just don't have confidence in his economic abilities), more likely to lead to long-term continuation of current conflicts and/or the commencement of new conflicts, and less likely to seriously invest in renewable energy research (the drill, drill, drill motto is more prominent and more short-sighted) and we will be affected in some way by all three matters.

I find Obama a very impressive person and on reading his policies I found I agreed with most of them (not so with McCain). That said, I agree he is relatively unproven and was surprised he got the ticket, but I think he has not just charisma, but more than that my view is that he clearly has calibre. And that for me is the difference - McCain has a track record to a certain level, Obama does not have the historical track record but I believe he has the calibre and that he will deliver on his potential and perform to a higher standard than McCain ever could. I also think Obama genuinely cares for the greater good of society whereas I just find McCain less convincing on this.

To compare the logic locally, I believe Enda Kenny genuinely cares for the greater good of society and I find most of his policies agreeable (though not that distinct from FF's), and he has a solid and lengthy Dail track record, but I just don't feel the man has the calibre to be truly effective on the international stage.

So, I'm more anti McCain, and in particular Palin (who charisma or no charisma holds views I find genuinely frightening/appalling and I also believe she is the candidate most prone to blatant lying in this race) than I am pro-Obama.

I agree though that I would have thought both parties would have more impressive candidates, but then I felt that way in 2004 too.

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is I'm sick of people calling anyone who is anti-McCain or pro-Obama an Obama a$$ licker. Some of the posts on here recently have been pretty offensive in that regard and have had me thinking about reaching for the 'Report Post' button for the first time ever. I think a lot of people not just on the left, but who also hold centrist views, are genuinely wary of right wing Republicans such as McCain so they are quite vehement about expressing that - that doesn't mean they have blinkers on when it comes to Obama. There's a certain amount of realpolitik going on methinks.

Trojan

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Anyway, the point I'm getting at is I'm sick of people calling anyone who is anti-McCain or pro-Obama an Obama a$$ licker. Some of the posts on here recently have been pretty offensive in that regard and have had me thinking about reaching for the 'Report Post' button for the first time ever.

You know, I agree with that. I gave it a lot of thought (you guys might have noticed I didn't post here for 2 days) after I got some pretty nasty responses to my "That one" query thread. I was wondering if I was stepping over the line. Well, if I was, screw it.

Just for the record, I will ban any poster that gets personally abusive on either team either pro-Obama or pro-McCain in future threads. Of course I'll respect the responsibilities of the local mods.

The Raven.

Trojan wrote: »

You know, I agree with that. I gave it a lot of thought (you guys might have noticed I didn't post here for 2 days) after I got some pretty nasty responses to my "That one" query thread. I was wondering if I was stepping over the line. Well, if I was, screw it.

Just for the record, I will ban any poster that gets personally abusive on either team either pro-Obama or pro-McCain in future threads. Of course I'll respect the responsibilities of the local mods.

I don’t think you did step over the line. For what it’s worth, I think McCain’s choice of words was merely off the cuff, nothing more. The resentment between the two candidates is undoubtedly mutual but Obama’s training as a lawyer would prevent him from letting his guard down in public.

On the issue of Obama’s popularity as the reason for voting against him, I think it is a bit simplistic to assume that those who hold this view are idiots. It is a natural reaction if one feels under pressure to accept opposing views. History is dotted with instances of reaction against the excesses of the previous eras, in politics, religion and the arts. The only difference here is the speed at which Obama’s popularity has spread, without the credibility of any proven track record.

While some of the language here is regrettable, the sentiment is undoubtedly genuine. With the predominance of pro Obama posting it was destined to ignite sooner or later.

bigstar

neither candidate is impressive, just like four years ago, and four years before that, and four years.......... the world is lacking in leadership and come january it still will be