Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

Is there anyone in Ohio/Kentucky hearing more on this DHL thing that McCain pushed through a few years ago? If I'm understanding things correctly, its a merger that he helped push through a while back that may end up costing people there between 5,000-10,000 jobs. The news coverage hasn't been great, particularly when we've got the Olympics, the war in Georgia and this Edwards thing going on...

Not a lot said here in Kentucky, other than it could actually increase jobs at the Louisville UPS hub.

I heard more about it before the McCain involvement as they were basically saying that any of DHL's options would cause a loss of jobs. DHL has issues and the only thing that could fix them without losing jobs would to get a bigger market share, but up against UPS and Fed-Ex that is a tough market to get some share from.

McCain's problem is that he/his campaign manager shouldn't have gotten involved because it was going to be ugly no matter what and all he did was put his name on job losses. It was bad politically for sure.

Of course, I have to wonder why an American politician was anywhere near a private industry concern that involved a foreign owned company. I guess he thought he could save jobs and come out a hero?

 

[YSSMAN]

I didn't really understand any of it either. My only thought was that DHL would kick a big chunk of change into whatever campaign he was running (be it for the Senate, or now, President), or for that matter, bring some kind of DHL deal to Arizona. I think part of the problem is that now people are just starting to see what has happened, but not enough has unfolded to say anything too direct in either a positive or negative light.

====

A Small VP Discussion

I was watching CNN this morning and they were discussing the fact that Tom Ridge may end up as a VP candidate for McCain, and my first thought was "do they want to win or not?" Adding one more "moderate" (ha) candidate in there cuts the GOP "base" out completely, which really makes me question the people who are running McCain's campaign. They'll make it a lot easier on themselves if they just pick Romney (*shudder*) and get it over with.

As for Obama, there is supposed to be a big "underground" announcement campaign before it goes public via Facebook, text, and I believe Twitter as well. I still don't know who hes got on his list, I personally think it would be wise to get someone like General Wesley Clarke (sp?) on the list to combat McCain's "military experience," or maybe the guy from Virgina (I forget his name...) that pushed the GI Bill. I'm not too keen on some of the choices being discussed before, mostly because they don't have much of a national presence. Or enough of a slightly more conservative background to offset Obama just a fair bit.

...My guess is that after the Olympics, we'll hear from both of them...

 

[eiriksmil]

Vote Obama - Republicans are for rednecks and other people who like war.

 

[Sage]

Thank you for that wonderfully insightful post – you’ve taught us all so much!

 

[Tornado]

What a contributory post.

Edit: Gah!

 

[YSSMAN]

Vote Obama - Republicans are for rednecks and other people who like war.

Wow. Even as an Obama supporter I wouldn't touch that with a 9 1/2 foot pole.

 

[Solid Fro]

Vote Obama - Republicans are for rednecks and other people who like war.

You can tell me that when Norway becomes the 51st state.

 

[Joey D]

Vote Obama - Republicans are for rednecks and other people who like war.

There are many valid reasons to vote for Obama, however the ones you gave are not. Perhaps if you gave more of a reason why someone in Norway would prefer Obama over McCain for international reason I would love to hear it. We tend to only think how a leader will affect our country while the rest of the world, obviously, sees how it will affect them (as profound as that sounds).

 

[YSSMAN]

That would actually be a pretty interesting subject for study, tracking global feelings towards Presidential candidates and what effect they may have in any given year on an election. It seems fairly clear that Obama is the preferred candidate throughout most of the world, but even when that was the case for Kerry in 2004, that didn't get him very far.

Actually, now that I think of it, it would be a great paper topic for my elections class this semester!

 

[Solid Fro]

I got you covered YSSMAN.

 

[YSSMAN]

Is it bad when I do a spit-take and laugh uncontrollably at that video? I'm really beginning to think that the far-right is so far detached from reality that don't even realize which way is up or down anymore.

All I could say when watching it was "Really? I mean, REALLY???"

 

[Solid Fro]

The Left may be further away from reality than The Right if they believe Obama can stroll around the world browsing through Louis Vuitton stores, demanding energy bars while he works out, ignoring wounded American soldiers, and still win the election.

 

[YSSMAN]

*ahem*

The Pentagon essentially told Obama not to come.

Scott Gration, a foreign-policy adviser to Obama, said that the U.S. Defense Department told the campaign late yesterday that the visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center would be viewed as ``a campaign event.'' The military said that, while it endorsed a visit, it determined that Obama wasn't allowed to be accompanied to the medical center by campaign staff.

``Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go,'' Gration said in the statement.

===

In other news, one of the topics that is up for grabbs this election season is in fact Net Neutrality. Obama has stated consistently that he is for it, but there are some alarming new flags being raised about McCain and his opposition to it. No matter what your politics are, as a user of the internet, this should be very concerning to you.

 

[Solid Fro]

Obama couldn't ditch the campaign advisers and go by himself? In this video, Obama says he went to Walter Reed by himself only three weeks before. Like I said in a earlier post... Obama must have been strolling through Iraq just for the sightseeing, nothing more, right?

 

[YSSMAN]

So can I ask what your point is then?

It seems fairly clear that even if Obama were to visit the troops there, he would have been scrutinized just as much for making it a political event as he would have been for opting out and choosing to make it nothing at all. Considering that McCain opposed the new GI Bill (which passed the Senate easily, he skipped out on the vote), I don't take any of his word on anything towards the military seriously anymore. Beyond that, he has yet to receive the backing of any major veterans group that I know of... And as someone who claims that he is the be-all, end-all for veterans, that has to hurt just a bit.

 

[Solid Fro]

Obama visited the troops in Iraq. I heard zero scrutinizing of that and I'm sure the troops gave him their piece of mind. What hurt Obama the most that he chose not to visit wounded soldiers in Germany. If Obama really is a leader, he would have went by himself.

 

[Joey D]

In other news, one of the topics that is up for grabbs this election season is in fact Net Neutrality. Obama has stated consistently that he is for it, but there are some alarming new flags being raised about McCain and his opposition to it. No matter what your politics are, as a user of the internet, this should be very concerning to you.

This is actually a huge issue for me and one that will make me defiantly not vote for McCain. Although I wasn't planning to anyway because I find him to be a bit Bush 2.0, which I feel our country does not need right now. Plus his dealings with the oil companies make me a bit uneasy.

I'm still not sure who I'm voting for but McCain is not on that list. Obama might get kicked off once I hear who his running mate is.

 

[Pupik]

Vote Obama - Republicans are for rednecks and other people who like war.

Last I checked, none of the candidates were vying for the Norwegian vote. Next time Norway is an international player in world affairs, please get back to us with your opinion.

 

[Omnis]

Last I checked, none of the candidates were vying for the Norwegian vote. Next time Norway is an international player in world affairs, please get back to us with your opinion.

No, but they do have the idiot vote in mind.

 

[YSSMAN]

This is actually a huge issue for me and one that will make me defiantly not vote for McCain. Although I wasn't planning to anyway because I find him to be a bit Bush 2.0, which I feel our country does not need right now. Plus his dealings with the oil companies make me a bit uneasy.

I'm most-interested to hear how my "Young Republican" friends are going to defend that policy, particularly when our generation (who uses the internet more than anyone else) will be so greatly effected by it. At least in my opinion, this should be something that Obama drives home consistently to invigorate the youth vote, and generally, to just stick it to everyone else to "pay attention" to their candidate a bit more.

I just can't fathom anyone actually getting around to not supporting Net Neutrality.

I'm still not sure who I'm voting for but McCain is not on that list. Obama might get kicked off once I hear who his running mate is.

I hear ya. Apparently I'm supposed to get an e-mail when he tells everyone, but considering that his top guys (so far) are mostly people that I've never heard of, I'm not overly excited. If Obama is smart, he'll get a more conservative Democrat or someone with a lot of military experience, but I would not want to be in McCain's position. I'm under the impression that no matter who he chooses, its really not going to be a good one.

 

[Tornado]

In other news, one of the topics that is up for grabbs this election season is in fact Net Neutrality. Obama has stated consistently that he is for it, but there are some alarming new flags being raised about McCain and his opposition to it. No matter what your politics are, as a user of the internet, this should be very concerning to you.

Actually, it doesn't concern me at all. We could elect the head of Comcast as President and the Senate will still fight over it long after his term ended. Net Neutrality isn't something that is going to be decided in this presidential term, and it isn't honestly of particular importance in the grand scheme of things even if it was to be decided based on this election.

Besides, with anti-net neutrality's head ringleader (Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens) currently under indictment that will probably get him tossed from the Senate, very little is going to occur until a new head honcho is out in charge of the movement against NN.

I'm under the impression that no matter who he chooses, its really not going to be a good one.

Lieberman? Lot of rumours flying around about that. That would probably hand him a couple of traditionally democrat states, and the two actually share a lot of ideas.
I've heard alot of people in my area say they would probably vote for McCain if he had a women Vice President as well.

 

[Omnis]

I just can't fathom anyone actually getting around to not supporting Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality = government regulation of internet. No thank you.


As for Bush 2.0, Obama's foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski, for crying out loud. McCain and Obama are both "Bush 2.0". I wouldn't be surprised if McCain picked his butt-buddy Lieberman to be VP. It would help show how far the party has fallen.

 

[Joey D]

Except net neutrality, as I read it, protects the consumer from getting screwed by big corporations which I fully support.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Except net neutrality, as I read it, protects the consumer from getting screwed by big corporations which I fully support.

And that's the "dangling carrot above a cavern" that suckers so many people in it. But at what cost? You fall to your death. That little bit of 'false' protection comes at a HUGE cost.

Do you really think our Government is qualified to control our internet? With NN, all sorts of absurd and stupid laws can and will be created that hinder our internet use.

And when was the last time our Government ever controlled anything properly or honestly, with our 'true' benefit in question? The more control you give them, the more things get screwed up.

 

[Sage]

Yeah, the government works so great (*ahem*) that we should let them control our most valuable technology of all time.

Plus, people always forget how great the free market works. Imagine if, say, Comcast decided that its users could only use YouTube for half an hour each day, because of the bandwidth drain caused by that site – can you possibly imagine the uproar, the zillions of people who would instantly leave Comcast despite contractual agreements, and how every single person in the world would refrain from buying Comcast service? They would go bankrupt faster than you could say “Stupid”.

Free market forces have forced internet providers to play nice since the inception of the internet – there’s no reason it would be any different from here on.

 

[Danoff]

Yup, net neutrality = bad... very bad. But I think we have a thread on that.

 

[Omnis]

Except net neutrality, as I read it, protects the consumer from getting screwed by big corporations which I fully support.

The only thing that protects the consumer is markets.

 

[YSSMAN]

Except net neutrality, as I read it, protects the consumer from getting screwed by big corporations which I fully support.

Quite right, there is a time and place for some level of oversight or protection, and this is it. When TimeWarner is already tinkering with controlled internet plans and Comcast is already throttling their services (not like they ever deliver the proper speed anyway...), that's when something has to be done.

Like it or not, within their respective areas, they already have a monopoly on phone, cable and internet services. That is not a free market.

 

[Joey D]

Meh, I'll still just stick with how I personally feel about the whole thing. The internet companies are never going to play fair and the general population is full of people who just accept it. I believe in a free market to an extent but there will always be exploitation and I think there needs to be some control of it to protect the consumer.

 

[Solid Fro]

...and Comcast is already throttling their services (not like they ever deliver the proper speed anyway...)...

To be fair to Comcast... I routinely get around 15 Mbps down. Comcast advertises 12 Mbps. But, that's just my experience with Comcast.