Obama Policy Talk (a no gossip thread)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by .Andy, Sep 4, 2008.

  1. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #1
    To rip on GorillaPaw's thread (I hope it wasn't copyright GorillaPaws :)) this would be interesting too.

    Hopefully the Dem voters could put forth clear examples of Obama's policies that show how he "isn't more of the same." Something to the effect of:

    Issue "A"
    Bush's policy is "X" and Obama's is "Y";
    "Y" is clearly different from "X" because of "Z".
    "Z" is required because of "Q".....
     
  2. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #2
    I thought the other thread was daft, but this is utterly pointless. All you have to do is watch him or visit his website to discover the differences.
     
  3. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #3
    Like his re-wording on his Iraq withdrawal policies to be nearer to "stay the course" than "end this war now"? Or maybe it's his "tax the rich" stances. Or maybe it's his whole underestimation of the importance of a low capital gains rate. How about his progressive views on gay marriage? Oh wait, that doesn't work either. Besides a little more government transparency (always a good thing), he seems like he's towing the old party line pretty well.
     
  4. GorillaPaws macrumors 6502a

    GorillaPaws

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    #4
    Certainly not copyrighted, but I am a bit perplexed by this thread. I was not aware that anyone out there was claiming that Obama's policies were similar to Bushes. I suspect that the real intent of this thread is your added line: "'Z' is required because of 'Q'" which would turn this thread into a debate about the merits of his policies instead of its stated purpose (To see if Obama's policies are the same/different from Bush's). The bait and switch nature of what it looks like you're trying to do here strikes me as intellectually dishonest and frankly a bit childish.
     
  5. .Andy thread starter macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #5
    Really? I thought plenty of people are questioning whether Obama really is going to live up to his motto of change or if it's all just rhetoric.

    Why would you perplexed about wanting to know not only if the policies are different, but why they are needed and a debate about their effectiveness? Surely their merit means more than them just being different?

    Bit oversensitive there champion. It's just a thread to discuss the alternate presidential candidate's policies in the same manner as the McCain thread. I thought it would make a nice change to discuss actual policies instead of whose daughter is pregnant and whose religious nutjob minister said what now. You're reading way to much into it.

    However it appears I've overestimated what passes for political discourse in the united states - by all means let this thread fall by the wayside.


    *I'm Australian.
     
  6. GorillaPaws macrumors 6502a

    GorillaPaws

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    #6
    People are questioning Obama's ability to implement his ideas, but not whether his ideas are different from Bush's as you somehow seem to think is the case.

    Hey, it's your thread, do what you want. In the case of my thread, determining whether an issue is really different or not will provide plenty of discussion, there's no need to clutter that with additional arguments base on the merits of a policy and turn the thing into a flame war. I think the merits of policies are very important to discuss, but are best handled in their own threads to try to keep them as focused as possible.

    I'm not oversensitive, but still a bit perplexed by this thread. Why not just make one dealing only with policy issues instead of titling it the way you did, it just seems strange?
     
  7. .Andy thread starter macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #7
    You're perplexed far too easily. I'll change the title for you to save you further consternation.
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    Well, to be fair - there is what is said in the Campaign - and what one does when/if they are actually elected. Bush is a recent example of this - as what he said did during the campaign, were decidedly at odds with his priorities once President - to the dismay of many groups - supporters and opponents alike.

    Right or wrong, I find Obama's relative changeability to be part and parcel of the "pageantry" of our elections. Of course, depending on your views on certain subjects, you could find his positions to be patently rediculous from the get-go.

    Issues such as abortion and gay marriage (to name a few) are important Election issues, as people are passionate about them to a degree that it will color their voting - but often in Office, these issues recede into the background with other more general issues regarding Healthcare, taxes, Economic and Foreign policy taking the forefront - often as a matter of general and political necessity.

    In any case, as I have stated before - I find Obama's proposed policies on healthcare, education, and taxes superior to McCains. None of these proposals is close to perfect, however, and it remains to be seen how far these policies will proceed in said form if he is elected. As I said, the "value" issues of abortion and continued gay rights will continue to motivate constituencies - but from a practical standpoint, most people end up caring about the basic necessities of life, when you get down to it. Bad economic, tax or health policy will hurt all of us regardless of color, orientation or creed. Nevertheless, let's talk about these "value" issues...

    I am pro-choice, but I happen to agree with Obama's stance on abortion - that the real issue should be reducing unwanted pregancy - through education and a tackling of the root of the problem. McCain seems to wish to continue the abysmal abstinence-centric education, which does nothing to solve the problem. Even if he managed to overturn Roe vs. Wade, abortions would still be legal from State to state, as they decided. While it would make things more difficult for many, there is a decent chance that the total amount of abortions would remain at a comparable level to now (or in the ballpark) - something that I don't think pro-life advocates understand. Decent education and a realistic position towards why there are unwanted pregnancies could go much further in lowering abortion rates - which is why I side with Obama.

    As for gay marriage - I find it laughable that anyone would find it threatening to straight marriage - or that it would even effect straight people in any way. Marriage is threatened by poor choice, external pressures (such as economic), and the decline of divorce as a taboo in our society, if you're looking for potential reasons. If, unfairly, many americans are unwilling to accept gay "marriage" then I would at least wish for full equality of rights and responsibilities for gay couples in respect to their straight counterparts, whatever the name might be. This, wierdly, many more people can accept. I side with Obama, as he's at least going in the right direction.

    As for taxes and healthcare, for brevity's sake - i link to this(it is a long read). here

    Both sets of Plans by either candidate have some serious issues - but I just prefer Obama's - and it will cost less in terms of deficits.
     

Share This Page