Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's Positive Influence Outside the US

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The idea of campaigning on the positive attributes of "hope" and "change" is nothing new. It's just that the negative campaign of "fear" and "threat" will usually win. Fear has been the great motivator now for about 8 years in the US. But people are tired of that. They're no longer buying it. A campaign of hope and change gives us something to look forward to. Something to work for and be motivated about.

Obama's presence on the US scene isn't just affecting US citizens, though. His energy and vision is contagious. This transformation from the darkness of the Bush Years to the lightness of an Obama-inspired future is having its effects beyond our borders.

Thank You, Barack Obama, for Transforming Politics



But the magnitude of the change that has occurred does not stop there. Barack Obama's campaign has eclipsed all fundraising records and has motivated young and black voters, traditionally high non-voters in the past, to both show up at the polls and to part with some of their hard-earned dollars via the Internet to support him.

Before examining the possibility that this transformation might spread to Canada, it is important to examine from a campaign strategist point of view what brought about this historical change.

After directing campaigns in and outside of Canada, my experience has been that voters everywhere (Canada, the U.K. and new democracies like Kyrgyzstan) are driven by either positive or negative forces. Hopes and dreams battle fears and disappointment. The outcome of each election depends upon the relative weight of those forces as perceived by the electorate.




posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Great thread, BH. Truely.

my favorite part, that rings oh-so-true


It's just that the negative campaign of "fear" and "threat" will usually win. Fear has been the great motivator now for about 8 years in the US. But people are tired of that.



That pretty much sumarizes why Im for Barack Obama. We could get into particulars, but if you want a nutshell analysis, ..... there it is



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Hope, Change, Future! Your local fortune teller would be so proud!


Would it surprise any of you that the "world" would want us in a weaker state? I'm sure Iran, Russia, China, and any half way developed country would love that. Wouldn't it be in their best interst for them to become more of a world influence at the expense of the United States. How would they get that? Surely not by their influence alone, it would have to happen from the inside, by the United States weakening itself. What is the best way to do that? By electing weak leaders.

If this is a consideration then there is no doubt that Obama would be the "world" favorite.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


The only thing wrong with this notion, though, RR, is that the 'rest of the world' doesnt think quite like America does.

There are very few countries out there that infringe their ideals and beliefs in a militaristic way upon the Entire world. Sure, there are bully neighboring countries that trifle and argue, and blow each other up, but you have to stand in AWE at the audacity of America these last 8 years.

So to say that other countries want to see a "weaker" America is to put a fear tactic into play to make weak-minded Americans afraid that if Obama is in the office, we'll be attacked.

Give me a break.

Obama would respond to an attack like any other president.
He would just go about it in much more intelligent, diplomatic, and true American way than his predecessor did with Iraq...i mean "afghanistan"

:shk:

Anyone can take a look at George Bush and realize he's a "cowboy president" who wouldnt mind throwing down in a war.

It doesnt matter WHO is president, if they want to attack, they are going to try. I mean, what casuality do they suffer? We bomb the country they are "hiding" in?

We're not being attacked by a "country" as you well know. So what influence, at all, would the president have in deterring an attack?

You have to be really dumb to think that Obama would slap them on the wrist and say "oh, stooooooppp ittttttt"

[edit on 7/4/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Another great find, BH...


The 'be afraid, be very afraid' crowd seems obsessed with the US being 'weakened' by the positive attributes of hope and change that Obama is talking about.

However, this 'weakening' is already rapidly being accomplished by the starting of wars of aggression, which results in massive deficit spending as the bones of what makes this country strong are shattered by abuse and neglect.

Remember that the Soviet Union did not end because of war - it ended, in part, because it spent itself into a hole in the ground. The economy of the SU was not up to the task of endless military adventurism.

Nor is ours.

Then there is the oft-repeated miscomprehension that a willingness to talk, even to potential enemies, means weakness. I've never understood this... that a mad dog, foaming at the mouth to have war war war, and ready to start another one, is equated to 'strong', while a more reasoned, more coherent and more intelligent approach, to actually really talk, is 'weak'. I grew up in a rough town, and I cannot count the number of blow-hard dill weeds who would strut around with their chest out proclaiming how tough they were, only to be proven the coward they really were by the mild ones. I see the same thing happening now on a national scale.

Stupidity is weak. Corruption is weak. An inability to learn from mistakes is weak. Starting wars based on fear and lies is weak.

The courage to actually talk, again, especially to enemies, actual and potential, is far from weak.

Personally, I've had about enough stupid corrupt weakness these last 8 years. I'll take something else, thank you.






top topics
 
3

log in

join