Falling into the media trap

I was excited when Budski showed me the political forum. Though there are not many who frequent it - at this point - politics are a passion of mine, and I was excited to find a more neutral board to discuss them on.

As of late, I must say I have been very disappointed by the posts on this board, and I'm surprised at that. It would seem that most who visit this board would be open minded, being that it's a conspiracy board and all, but that does not seem to be the case.

From both sides of the court we see exactly what the media wants: A public that focuses and discusses the mudslinging aspect of politics, and more importantly, not the real issues.

I see posts about whether or not McCain is truly a citizen, or "OMG what did Hillary really say about teh snipers", or "Obama hates white people".

Really? Cmon people.

This is why we're failing as a nation. We allow out media to discuss this, instead of asking the tough questions. Then we sit here and discuss moot points that have no real weight.

So, honestly, what I want this thread to be is to discuss the positive attributes of each character - as that is what we should be making our decision based off of - i.e. not who's the least negative.

I will start it off by listing a few positive points of each candidate, and what I think they can bring to the table.

Disclaimer
I do not mean that one cannot critique about who's better than the other, or who's weak on what issue. What I don't want is off-topic yellow journalism style posts.

Let's discuss based on policies and politics, and keep this thread out of the dumpster that many have fallen into.

Key Issues for McCains Foreign Policy

McCain Outlines Foreign Policy

• National Security
  
• Malaria and Africa
  
• Interrogation Techniques (big star for me)
  
• League of Democracies (important to look into to see if you agree with him)
  
• Nuclear Proliferation (a half star for me)

Key Issues for Obamas Foreign Policy

Obama Foreign Policy

• Ultimate Iraq Solution
  
• Slowing Nuclear weapons proliferation
  
• Energy independence (big issue for me and a big
  )
  
• Change in US Cuba policy

There is a lot more. I think foreign policy is the strongest attribute Obama has going for himself. I will discuss this further for him in later posts.

I'm leaving Hillary out for now. It seems that she has all but lost. I could eat those words, but I don't feel like even viewing her policies at the time.


[edit on 14-4-2008 by Sublime620]

sorry, you must of posted before i wrote that.

[edit on 4/14/2008 by andy1033]

reply to post by andy1033


Nah, but I got the first one up anyway.

reply to post by Sublime620


Some good points. You are quite correct in your statements about the press focusing on the inane mud-slinging. There's plenty going on behind all that which should, but rarely ever, get's reported.
All the dross is used a smokescreen and perpetuates this idea that there are two main parties vying for position with quite different goals and ideologies, when in fact they are both the same. Two main parties with much the same makeup and a bunch of small independents creating the illusion of choice, but who in reality will never hold any power.
People get too hung up on partisan issues and, rather than rigorously demanding accountability when wrongdoing by their own candidate or party is uncovered, instead fall back on the argument that the other candidate or party is worse.
People seem to have lost all sense that the leadership is answerable to the people and that we pay their wages. Instead they have become all powerful and must be obeyed. The argument that we can vote them out at the next election is laughable considering the opposite party answers to, and receives money from, the same "special interests" and lobbyists.

The real cracker is that our leaders have the gall to demand that other nations adopt our own system

Could you list what solutions you think obama will bring to iraq, or namely Brzezinski will.

If your looking at how obama will do internationally maybe you should look at Brzezinski.

Do you guys think that is a fair point.

Also is the thread starter a part of Obama's or McCain's team in any way, so we know?

[edit on 4/14/2008 by andy1033]

reply to post by Britguy


I completely agree. I think democracy/republics are the best governmental system we have found, but we certainly have not perfected it yet.

I think we were closer to perfection 100 years ago.

Though it's the public's fault for allowing it to happen, the politicians and media conglomerates should be ashamed for taking advantage of it.

reply to post by andy1033


Sure, let me get a source for Obama's plan for Iraq. He wrote a foreign policy mission statement of sorts here:

Obama on his future foreign policy goals

It will take me a second to draw it up, it's like 8 pages long.

Summary of his policy

Summary: After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

MOVING BEYOND IRAQ

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place. We have now lost over 3,300 American lives, and thousands more suffer wounds both seen and unseen.

I agree.

Our servicemen and servicewomen have performed admirably while sacrificing immeasurably. But it is time for our civilian leaders to acknowledge a painful truth: we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.

Again, I agree.

It goes on to say that we should leave a minimal force in Iraq only to train Iraqi's forces. This leads me to believe that the US forces wouldn't be patrolling the streets, but only recruiting and training.

It goes on. It's a great read.

That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region -- a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient effort and the personal commitment of the president of the United States. That is a commitment I will make.

His stance on Israel, Iran, al Qaeda, and Hezbollah.

To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. Unfortunately, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, according to our military leaders, are facing a crisis. The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.

Conservatives may enjoy this. Obama wants to bring the troops home so that we can revamp the military.

But when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others -- as President George H. W. Bush did when we led the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. The consequences of forgetting that lesson in the context of the current conflict in Iraq have been grave.

Having the WORLD behind us is important. America is not the world, and we cannot act as if we are. We need the support of other nations in our policies.

We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest. Success in Afghanistan is still possible, but only if we act quickly, judiciously, and decisively.

Though many have seen me as anti-war, and I am, I have also stated that if we do go to war, then we need to do it full force. Obama appears to be advocating that here.

Taking the war TO al Qaeda, not letting them come to us.

I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.

Tough job, but somebody HAS GOT to do it.

Too often we have sent the opposite signal to our international partners. In the case of Europe, we dismissed European reservations about the wisdom and necessity of the Iraq war. In Asia, we belittled South Korean efforts to improve relations with the North. In Latin America, from Mexico to Argentina, we failed to adequately address concerns about immigration and equity and economic growth. In Africa, we have allowed genocide to persist for over four years in Darfur and have not done nearly enough to answer the African Union's call for more support to stop the killing. I will rebuild our ties to our allies in Europe and Asia and strengthen our partnerships throughout the Americas and Africa.

Strengthening our relations with our allies.

In addition, we need effective collaboration on pressing global issues among all the major powers -- including such newly emerging ones as Brazil, India, Nigeria, and South Africa. We need to give all of them a stake in upholding the international order. To that end, the United Nations requires far-reaching reform. The UN Secretariat's management practices remain weak. Peacekeeping operations are overextended. The new UN Human Rights Council has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel -- but not a single resolution condemning the genocide in Darfur or human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Yet none of these problems will be solved unless America rededicates itself to the organization and its mission.

Revamping the UN.

Okay, I'm done with Obama. Anyone got some stuff on Hillary or McCain so that we can compare?

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Sublime620]

All i can say is lol, do you really think he will keep to that.

Let me ask you, do you think obama will have the power to stop the war?

Do you think he would be allowed to talk to iran, while israel wants them bombed?

[edit on 4/14/2008 by andy1033]

reply to post by andy1033


I think so. We've seen what the Commander in Chief can do when he put his mind to it (i.e. see Bush 2000-2008).

Israel is a huge issue that we as a world need to be stern on. We need to force these regions to come to an agreement.

I don't think Obama alone can do this, but with good foreign relations and ally building, we as a world can put pressure on that region, but not one nation alone can accomplish anything in the Middle East.

As for withdrawal from Iraq. That remains to be seen. We've been lied to so often, I have no idea what would happen. I don't even know what the Iraqi people think about us being there anymore. It seems like every poll has been adjusted and altered to fit which news organization's agenda needs to be filled at the moment.

*Edited to add:

And of course he can talk to Iran. Mr. Carter is about to do it himself, and that's with almost no political backing.

Israeli Snubs Continue as Carter Prepares for Meeting With Terror Leader

WASHINGTON — Israel's top officials continued to brush off Jimmy Carter on Monday as he prepared to meet with Hamas chief Khaled Meshal, the first time a current or former U.S. president will have met with a recognized terrorist organization's leader.

That's inexcusable in my eyes. If Israel wants America's support to continue, then they need to be more flexible with our foreign policy. We should not be bending to what Israel wants, but more the other way around.



[edit on 14-4-2008 by Sublime620]

McCain on the Economy

People do not seem to be jumping in by the masses, so I will continue on and hopefully people will speak up.

So, I present you with McCain's stance on the economy:

Q: Have Republicans forgotten how to control spending?

A: Absolutely. We let spending lurch completely out of control. As president of the United States, I'd take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I'd veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. And we've got to stop it and stop it now. I look forward to it.

^^ Good to hear.

Pork barrel garbage ruins good bills.

We lost the election in 2006 because we lost our way. We began to value principle over power, and spending got out of control. Spending lurched completely out of control. Ronald Reagan used to say, we spend money like a drunken sailor. I never knew a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination of the Congress. I received an e-mail recently from a guy who said, "As a former drunken sailor, I resent being compared to members of Congress."

Don't know that I agree with this statement:

"We began to value principle over power".

McCAIN [to Bush]: You seem to depict the role of the president as a hapless bystander. [Clinton] is threatening to shut down the government and vetoing bills to force the congress to spend more money. An active president, i.e. me, will veto bills and threaten to shut down the government to make them spend less money.

Bush: It’s the president’s job to make sure Congress doesn’t have the money to spend in the first place. It is the president’s job to stand up to express the will of the people, advocate and fight for a meaningful real tax cut. And that’s what I’m going to do.

CNN on McCain's HOME plan

McCain introduced what he is calling his "HOME Plan," which blends elements of government-backed mortgage rescue proposals by the Bush administration, the Office of Thrift Supervision, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. (Here's a look at each of those proposals.)

McCain portrayed his plan as one that uses government support to help worthy borrowers who are struggling and not bail out lenders and borrowers who got "caught up in the speculative frenzy" and who should not be spared "the consequences of their own bad judgment."

"It offers every deserving American family or homeowner the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects the market value of their home," McCain said. "People decide if they need help, they apply for assistance and, if approved, the government under my HOME Program supports them in getting a new mortgage that they can afford."

To qualify for McCain's HOME Plan, a borrower's home would have to be a primary residence. In addition, the government would verify that the owner told the truth about his financial situation when he applied for the original mortgage and was able to make a down payment when getting his original loan, according to a campaign adviser.

Lenders would voluntarily write down the loans based on the home's current market value and give the borrower at least a 10% equity stake. If the borrower later sells the home at a price higher than the refinanced loan, the lender and the federal government each would receive a portion of the sales price. They would be entitled to as much as one third of the loan's reduction in principal.

So under McCain's plan, if a borrower owes $150,000 on a home worth only $100,000, the lender would have to reduce the loan to $90,000. The $60,000 difference in principal would be split three ways: The lender and federal government would get as much as $20,000 each, depending on how much the home sells for when the borrower moves, and the owner would get the rest.

The new mortgage would be a 30-year fixed rate loan, and the government would back 80% of the new loan.

McCain said he opposes funds to purchase homes in foreclosure and tax breaks for homebuilders - both features of a Senate proposal passed Thursday.

McCain also called for the creation of a Department of Justice task force to investigate mortgage crimes involving lending and securitizing home loans.

"If there were individuals or firms that defrauded innocent homeowners or forged loan application documents, then the punishments of the market are not enough, and they must answer for their conduct in a court of law," he said.

What do you think about this plan?

Originally posted by Britguy
reply to post by Sublime620

 

Some good points. You are quite correct in your statements about the press focusing on the inane mud-slinging. There's plenty going on behind all that which should, but rarely ever, get's reported.

You are right, I just came across this thread, and I was intrigued about it. The media barely reports ANYTHING good about any of the politcal canidates. Its a shame. We are looking at 3 of the most prospective people in America and all the press can do is take every picky mesy detail of there lives and critize about it.

I mean, its quotes like this get me excited by some canidates then they always let us down, lets have a canidates acually do something they promised.

"The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers. "

Thats a good thing, it doesn't deal on the major issues, but its things like this that will get our economey moving.


[edit on 16-4-2008 by wilmiester]

reply to post by wilmiester


Exactly! And I wouldn't even mind if they criticized that plan. It's not just the asinine about of critique that is put forth, but also what they critique.

Fine, tell me why Obama's plan is not good. What would make it better? What can we do to fix things?

Not, "Obama isn't black enough". "Hillary only had sniper threats, there was no fire", and McCain is so old will he even make it through office?"

Why do people on this board promote this mudslinging garbage? Then they go around saying, "Deny Ignorance" after they just displayed it.

Oxymoron abundant.

reply to post by Sublime620


Besides Obama and McCain, there's Hillary and she is not going anywhere. I still think she will somehow end up with the nomination and beat McCain. I feel like I'm back in high school and it's voting for class president time again. I'd like to see Obama get the nomination and he will beat McCain as well. The mass media political shows are fun to watch and the results of the elections in November will be pointless. I am not voting for any of them but I have to admit that the mass media circus, pointless debates and the overall popularity contest theme to win the hearts and minds of the millions of ignorant American citizens is fun to watch. It's the mindless sheep show and I am getting a kick out of being a part of it.

I was thinking about this today. I am not an American,but a Canadian. I am a pretty political guy however. I have been off and on watching this election, and it struck me today, that I haven't heard a thing in months of any kind of policy. In between the mud slinging, all I seem to be able to get out is empty rhetoric without direct policy statements.

Thanks you

Yes! It seems like that we have not heard any talk on policy in months! I mean, it is seeming that the media asumes that we are all knowing of the canidates policy. I am well-imformed about it, but I see many of my peers saying things like, somewhere along the lines to... I don't think Clinton should get elected because of "something bad that she did". It agravetes me sometimes when that happens. I am mostly a supporter of Obama, but we could get along pretty fine with any canidate. But what I see in the Obama camp is that he is really idealistic. I really hope he can acually go through the motions that he is saying that he will do, and that he isn't all talk.

I just want to thank the person who started this particular thread. There are good and not-so-good things about both candidates. There are things that I like about McCain and things I like about Obama. It's a tough election!

I do think that we have the very best form of government in the world but I do believe that it has been corrupted over time. For instance, George W. Bush's signing statements. Bush just overroad any Congression decisions that he didn't agree with, making a Constitional government nil and void. Clinton did his corrupting too. Both Dems and Repubs are guilty.

If we could just see there is no clear right candidate or wrong candidate. Whoever gets the most votes is the right candidate. Voters are so busy fighting and attacking each other that no one can see the tidal wave coming our way, a tidal wave that will engulf our country and everyone in it, both Dems and Repubs. For instance, Russia and China are hinting at dropping the US dollar. If this happens, we'll all be praying for a handout/help.

We need to come together, that's what I think. I fear that like every other empire that has gone broke, we will destroy ourselves from within. I think that our days are numbered, both Dems and Repubs.

Reading a European Bulliten the other day...On October 16th (after the Wall Street crash) the publication issued an alert that the US would default on it's loans by the summer of 2009.

The point is--We are in trouble and no Dem or Repub is going to be able to stop the crisis from hitting us. Our economy is still in a downward spiral.
Let's talk and not attack!! Let's vote without demonizing those who have the own preferences.

reply to post by ForPeaceUSA


You can see how much attention this thread got. All people care to argue about is mud. Not one republican who is against Obama showed up on this thread and argued with me.

None of them would even know where to start. They've spent the past year reading miscellaneous dribble that has nothing to do with politics. Sure, they can tell me little half-truths about his past, but none of them know dick about policy.

Sublime620
I was excited when Budski showed me the political forum. Though there are not many who frequent it - at this point - politics are a passion of mine, and I was excited to find a more neutral board to discuss them on.


Disclaimer
I do not mean that one cannot critique about who's better than the other, or who's weak on what issue. What I don't want is off-topic yellow journalism style posts.

Let's discuss based on policies and politics, and keep this thread out of the dumpster that many have fallen into.

People on this website need to know that there are paid people on this website whose job is constantly monitor new threads and "undermine their factual logic and premise."

look for an ATS video by Jhonny Anonymous from about 2009 where he reads quotes from a thred written by somebody who in turn quoted a goverment spokesperson saying that the goverment should insert people into chat rooms to 'undermine factual premise and logic' to quote the satement.