Questions about Barack Obama as the Democratic President Nominee

[protege]

As for your religious quotes, you are using the quotes where the Christian God can and will take action against the humans. The quote I used is to direct us humans in how to treat other humans.

Here's something else to consider--the Bible may have been the *word* of God, but it was *humans* who actually put pen to paper. During the centuries, through all the translations, I'm sure some of humanity's own fears and prejudices found their way into there. We all know that the KJV was used for centuries to justify everything from discrimination to outright warfare.

[linguist]

This actually has raised a question for me in the past months.

Since when did the Presidents get to choose the VP? I want to know when that changed, because under the constitution it just states that whoever has the second amount of electoral votes gets the Veep nomination.

If anyone can answer me that, that'd be great. I'm really curious and I hope maybe one of you guys has an answer or can help me find it. I've researched a bit and have come up empty.

that method of choosing the vp ended in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th amendment. the amendment changed the method so that instead of the president/vp choice being a winner/runner up system, two separate votes are cast by electors, one for president and one for vp.

as for how we came by our current system, i'm not positive. though the president does not actually choose the vp, the vp is chosen by delegates of the party's national convention. granted, they do usually choose the presidential nominee's first choice.

[IDrinkaRum]

You are correct protege. (And for the record, I do not have a KJV of the Bible as I'm a Catholic, I have the Catholic version). Which of course, brings up a joke I've heard:

A young man comes to a monastery wanting to be become a religious man. He starts to talk to the old, old, old priest who is running the place. And the man assures him that the brothers at the place all have excellent memories and therefore can write loads of scripture from memory and that he can prove it to the young man.

The priest goes down to the basement and is there for a very long time. The young man is worried and with a couple of the brothers, goes down to the basement and there they find the old man staring out into space with a glossy eyed look repeating "Celebrate life. Celebrate life."

Ahem, just trying to lighten the mood of the thread.

What I'm hoping doesn't happen is the Democrats & Republicans try to revive the bill or whatever they wanted to do in 2003 to remove the 22nd amendment that limits the President's term in office. We could have either a King Obama or McCain or a Queen Clinton if that happens. It would definitely be a bad idea if that ever happened.

[the_std]

What I'm hoping doesn't happen is the Democrats & Republicans try to revive the bill or whatever they wanted to do in 2003 to remove the 22nd amendment that limits the President's term in office. We could have either a King Obama or McCain or a Queen Clinton if that happens. It would definitely be a bad idea if that ever happened.

They tried to do that?... Holy wow. How did they possibly justify that? Certain presidents have shown that the two four-year term thing is... Well, necessary. We have no set limit on term of the Prime Minister in Canada and it can prove to be interesting when people forget that change sometimes needs to happen. (Jean Chretien was PM from 93-03, as an example.)

Yeah, I can imagine King/Queen Anyone of the states would be a baaaaaad idea.

[IDrinkaRum]

the_std - we never had term limits for Presidents until World War II. The reason all other Presidents stepped down after a second term (if they were lucky enough to have a second term) was because it was a precedent set by President George Washington (the first President of the United STates for those with their history books out. ).

After FDR got sicker in his 2nd, 3rd & 4th terms, and what Americans saw what happened with Hitler taking over from Germany's Kaiser, we had an epiphany. With a President as sick as FDR was, we were lucky to have what are considered good people around him. What if there had been a Hitler-type person take over the reigns. Without the term limits, that could happen. With the 22nd Amendment, we could still get a Hitler or Stalin or any other dictator-type minded individual in office, but it would take a lot of rigmarole to get the 22nd Amendment reversed.

http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/bush050703a.htm
http://geekbuffet.wordpress.com/2007...esident-serve/

The second link concerns how President Putin may or may not remove the term limits for the Russian President and gives a little history on our Constitutional Amendment on term limits for our Presidents and how 2 Republican & 1 Democrat President either wanted the removal of that Amendment or a re-wording of the Amendment.

[Amethyst Hunter]

To me, Obama isn't the God-send that everyone makes him out to be and he can be ignorant. (This past weekend, basically admitted (though in not so many words) that 1. He didn't know what Memorial Day was and 2. He talks to/sees dead people).

As I said in the Voting for Bush = Stupid thread, Obama wants to declare war on friends and be friends with our enemies. He wants an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq (which I don't believe is advisable) and I really think he will be easily manipulated by Pelosi and Dean.

Plus, really look into his connection with Jeremiah Wright & William Ayres. Wright = controversial preacher and Ayres = connected to the Weather Underground. McCain wasn't a true member of Hagee's congregation for years and years and decades. Obama was a member for decades with Wright (who has ties to Louis Farrakahn and the Nation of Islam). Do we really want a President who more than likely hates the white race for the sins of their fathers?

Not picking on you, but...that is THE biggest crock of bullshit I have heard yet about Obama. (And I've heard some pretty fucked up things, not least of which was my SIL's comment "I don't trust a Muslim like him!")

Points:

1) I don't see how anybody running for President could NOT know what Memorial Day is. (Even Bush, dumb as he is, manages to put on at least the token show of respect)

2) I haven't heard anything about this, but even if Obama does believe in seeing/talking to dead people, how is this any worse than the idiot in office right now who claims he has a direct guidance from God?

3) Is it so wrong to want to make friends out of enemies? Beats the fuck out of watching your back all the time wondering where the next terrorist threat is going to come from. Doesn't it make more sense to fix the problems that are breeding terrorists in the first place? Right now a good half the globe hates our guts thanks to the Fuckwit-in-Chief's guns-a-blazin' cowboy policies.

Obama is NOT saying that he will concede left and right or appease psycho dictators. He is saying that he is willing to sit down and talk with the more levelheaded leaders of problematic countries and try to make some PEACEABLE progress in achieving the goals we want to see (namely, an end to terrorism), rather than bombing the shit out of everything just because we can. Maybe it's idealistic, maybe it's not, but it's a damn sight better than the aforementioned bombs policy. Bombs should ALWAYS be the very last resort when things go bad. Bush (and McCain) would rather shoot first and not bother to ask questions later. And in today's environment, that aggression doesn't cut it. It only makes things worse.

I would rather have someone who is smart enough to understand this instead of someone who boasts that we can "annihilate" another country (which Hillary said, and which I'm not at all pleased with her for having said that - bloody reckless as far as I'm concerned) or one who laughingly refers to another country as "Bomb, bomb, bomb, let's bomb [country]" as a song parody (which McCain did, and being that he's got his tongue so far up Bush's ass he can taste his breakfast I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him).

4) If Obama really was such a white-hating extremist as some people are claiming he is, don't you think this would have been picked up a long time ago when his career was really getting off the ground?

5) I freely admit I may get flamed for this, but I'm saying it anyway. There IS a fair amount of truth to Wright's words - IF you look closely at the context in which they were meant. There is no denying that America has treated people who were anything other than white (and Christian) poorly. It's written in literal blood in our history. Wright was saying that there is a tendency, particularly during certain times and with certain cliques, to deny this and pretend it never happened, or pretend that everything is magically okay now because supposedly everybody's got equal rights now. That is what he meant when he said "God damn America," because this country HAS mistreated its citizens in the name of self-righteousness.

The right-wings seized on that and blew it completely out of proportion and context, just like they do with everything that they hate. But when one of them gets caught doing the very thing they rail against, oh all of a sudden that's okay, they didn't really mean it, they were just joking, there's a reason for it.

Wright ain't my bag of potato chips, but between him and John Hagee, I'd feel a helluva lot safer with Wright around given that Hagee is such a diehard apocalyptic dominionist.

I can agree that it's a mistake to think of or expect Obama to be able to singlehandedly fix the disaster that's taken place over the past 8 years. Nobody can do that, no matter how talented or intelligent they are - they'd have to be superhuman to do it, and nobody can be superhuman. But I give him a lot of credit for recognizing and openly acknowledging that there ARE problems, which many people don't want to do. As they say, accepting that there's a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

[IDrinkaRum]

Amethyst - The Memorial Day comment was taken from Obama's Memorial Day speech, which in part went like this:

"We are here to commemorate our fallen vets; of which I see a few here."



I can understand if the speech was given at a cemetery, but I don't think it was. And if that was Dan Quayle talking, we'd be hearing it for at least a month from now. There hasn't been much brouhaha about it. Memorial Day is to commemorate the dead, not the wounded Vets or others who weren't wounded but participated in the military and wars (that would be Veterans Day).

Don't forget, almost 20 years after the fact we're still talking about how Dan Quayle spells potato with an "e".

[Slytovhand]

What really confuses me about US politics is basically what IDR said...

Vote 1 way for one person, but vote for the other side if it's the other candidate...

I just don't get that at all!

It just seems a bit ridiculous that 1 person has so much control over what should be party politics.. and really - the party dictates the policies, not just 1 person.

Though... I am under no illusions that some people out there will vote based on stupidity... ie - the gender or colour of a person's skin...

Slyt

[Pedersen]

*blinkblink*

*re-reads*

I'm stunned.

*re-reads again*

Yes, you really did say it.

You stated earlier that Barack Obama did not seem to understand the purpose of Memorial Day.

And then you quoted a speech in which he stated "We are here to commemorate our fallen vets". So, he obviously knew that much.

Immediately following that, included in part of his statement, he said "of which I see a few here". I can see that going both ways (the way you intended is that he says he sees a few fallen vets. I can also see him saying that he sees a few vets in general).

And then you equate this with Quayle not knowing how to spell an extremely simple word?

Words... They fail me...

[AFPheonix]

Ok, so he misspoke. I'm failing to see why that is a huge deal at all. At most it could make a quick gag on Leno, but hardly a reason to make a character assassination.

[IDrinkaRum]

What I'm trying to say is that Obama made a misspoke, and no one is harping on it. (And I'm pretty sure he's made other misspeaks before too). Quayle's Vice Presidency is wrapped up in how he spelled potato.

Also, how long has Obama been in politics? Especially at the federal level. At least Hillary has some inkling of what it means to be president by being the right hand woman for her husband. Plus, she's been a Senator a lot longer that Obama (if memory serves me better).

I don't care that Obama is black. He could be purple with green polka dots. But the Democrats are all up in arms because the reason Republicans and those Independents out there don't like him because he's a black man, and they point to the exit polls from Kentucky to prove their point. The more I hear about Obama, the more I don't like him. The more I hear about McCain, I don't like him. I might do a write in vote for Clinton if she doesn't get the nomination, but that's stretching it.

They're all wanting government oversight in everything from private sectors (with the companies making "obscene profits" never mind these people know people who run companies who make "obscene profits" and benefit from the campaign contributions) to what goes on in our living rooms/bedrooms/etc.

Plus, Obama's a little whiny. Can't talk about his ears. Can't talk about his wife. And don't tell me the wife thing is appropriate, I remember Hillary getting reamed by the media during both of Clinton's Presidential runs. We can't ask this and we can't ask that. What can we ask?

I mean, really. All I wanted were the original questions on my first post answered, and no one seems to be able to touch those.

[the_std]

IDaR, I find that you pointing out Obama's mistake like that as a character flaw pretty hypocritical, seeing as how you've defended Bush from people saying that his very similar mistakes make him a bad person.

I'm not defending or accusing either person (Obama or Bush), but if you're gonna play that card, you have to play it on both sides.

[Boozy]

Vote 1 way for one person, but vote for the other side if it's the other candidate...

I don't get it either.

The America you get with a Republican is vastly different than the country you get with a Democrat. The differences between McCain and Clinton are far wider than those between Clinton and Obama.

[AFPheonix]

The DNC is voting tomorrow to decide what to do with Michigan and Florida. There have been proposals floated to allow a portion of the delegates to be seated. Most of the ones representing the "uncommitted" votes would probably go to Obama. Even Obama himself has supported allowing seating of all or part of the delegates.
I hope that this year will create impetus to come up with a new primary system, preferably a rotating one that's more condensed.

Hilary hasn't been in the Senate that much longer. She's served a full term and most of another. She was originally elected in 2000, and this is her first government post. She has done a fair amount in the private sector, however. Obama is much the same, having served in state legislature and doing a lot of community work in the private sector as well.

Quayle had other issues besides his potato remark. Why would you want people going on to repeat stupid memes instead of actually getting to the bottom of a matter? We made that mistake with Quayle and also Gore, I think it's a good thing we're apparently stopping it now.

Kentucky wasn't the only state with exit polling that indicated that people weren't going to vote for a black man. Even more ridiculous were the people who wouldn't vote for Hilary because she's a woman. However, it's just as wrong to vote for them because they are female or black. I also support Obama's attempt to keep the campaign coverage focused on issues, not on extraneous cable news snippets about irrelevant crap. Good on him. It was extremely shitty of the 90's media to harp on Hilary when she was First Lady. Smacked of a bit of woman-hating, really.

Government oversight would have stopped Enron in it's tracks. We would not be having to deal with the housing crisis if there was stricter market oversight. If anything, Democrats are trying to get government OUT of homes and bedrooms, as they are socially far more liberal than Republicans.

Why would Dems be racist if they chose Hilary over Obama? Unless they expressly stated that they did so because of the color of his skin, you'd be reaching for straws there.

There. OP answered.

[Zyanya]

They're all wanting government oversight in everything from private sectors (with the companies making "obscene profits" never mind these people know people who run companies who make "obscene profits" and benefit from the campaign contributions) to what goes on in our living rooms/bedrooms/etc.

You have this way backwards. It is the republicans trying to dictate what goes on in our bedrooms and living rooms.

Plus, Obama's a little whiny. Can't talk about his ears. Can't talk about his wife. And don't tell me the wife thing is appropriate, I remember Hillary getting reamed by the media during both of Clinton's Presidential runs. We can't ask this and we can't ask that. What can we ask?

Which political party was it that cried foul when a certain president's children were caught involved in underage drinking and it got media coverage? I'm trying to recall here....... Funny, maybe it's just me, but I have this thing about if you can't even instill good morals in your children, maybe you have no right trying to force your morality on an entire country.

I mean, really. All I wanted were the original questions on my first post answered, and no one seems to be able to touch those.

Actually, some have been answered, and the others were meaningless rhetoric on your part. But you seem to be disregarding those answers the same way you do all the posts that demonstrate your misconceptions about Obama.

And the posts the demonstrate your double standard in regards to the man you support and your claims against the other candidates.