Hockey Fan Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
....at home according to his wife and acknowledged by him.:cheeky4:

But more importantly he has said several things recently that have brought me to question my leanings toward him.

Both he and his wife have said that if he doesn't win then he won't try again.

Then he said in a speech the other day that both he and his wife have only recently finished paying off their student loans.

One statement struck me as petulant, along the lines of "if I don't get my way I'm taking my marbles home and no one can play."

The other statement made me stop and think this guy has just paid off his student loan and he thinks he's ready to be President of the US?

I know I don't have a vote in the process but being a Canadian I feel I have an "honorary" vote so tend to follow US elections closely.

Now I'm wondering if I did have a vote would I use it for Obama? A couple of weeks ago I would have said "probably" now I'm in the :dunno: camp.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Dec 07
Joined
·
1,037 Posts
Obama is a lazy slob......
...that could be said for the majority of politicans out there, along with many other wonderful qualities.

As for just paying off student loans, depends on what deree he went for. I know folsk that are in their mid 30's and are still paying off loans for their schooling. Higher education doesnt' come cheap, even here.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
Obama and Huckaby won the Iowa caucuses for their parties last night. Very interesting.
yeah especial since hilary was leading the polls and got blown out and Romney had a signifigant lead for the reps and lost neck and neck. Once again cemanting that the polling system is meaningless
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,519 Posts
yeah especial since hilary was leading the polls and got blown out and Romney had a signifigant lead for the reps and lost neck and neck. Once again cemanting that the polling system is meaningless
The polling system is meaningless all the time, or just in the States? For Canadian elections, the polls almost always seem to be accurate.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
The polling system is meaningless all the time, or just in the States? For Canadian elections, the polls almost always seem to be accurate.
yeah I meant the states sorry. The problem is that in the US only about 35-45% of the eligible voters vote, but pollersters have to ask everyone, including people who may have little intention to vote, so they don't show up and pollersters once again look like fools
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,519 Posts
yeah I meant the states sorry. The problem is that in the US only about 35-45% of the eligible voters vote, but pollersters have to ask everyone, including people who may have little intention to vote, so they don't show up and pollersters once again look like fools
I don't pay attention enough to American politic enough to care. All I know is that I've been told that the Iowa caucus really sets the tone for the rest of the country, and that Obama seems likely to win New Hampshire as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I don't pay attention enough to American politic enough to care. All I know is that I've been told that the Iowa caucus really sets the tone for the rest of the country, and that Obama seems likely to win New Hampshire as well.
Actually the record does not support that statement:
Winners of the Iowa Democratic caucus:
1972.....Edmund Muskie won the caucus but George McGovern won the nomination
1976...Uncommitted, more people voted as being uncommitted than for any actual candidate, Jimmy Carter did come second and he won the nomination and the election
1980...Jimmy Carter who was the sitting President seeking re-election, he lost his re-election bid
1984...Walter Mondale won Iowa and the nomination but lost the election
1988...Dick Gephart won Iowa but Michael Dukakis came a distant third and went on to win the nomination, losing the general election.
1992... Tom Harkin won 76% of the Iowa vote but lost the nomination to Bill Clinton who had come in a very distant 4th with only 3% of the vote
1996...Bill Clinton as sitting president won Iowa unopposed
2000...Sitting Vice President Al Gore won the Iowa caucus and the nomination but lost the election
2004... John Kerry won Iowa and the nomination but lost the election
So of the nine previous elections five Iowa winners won their party's nomination but three of them were sitting Presidents or Vice President who ran virtually unopposed.
The only two other candidates who won Iowa and their party's nomination failed to win the general election..
A dismal record and a fairly strong indication of how irrelevant Iowa's caucus seems to be.
The latest Zogby poll for New Hampshire gives Clinton 39% to Obama's 23%. Zogby's polls for Iowa were spot on showing an Obama win and a third place finish for Clinton.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,519 Posts
Actually the record does not support that statement:
Winners of the Iowa Democratic caucus:
1972.....Edmund Muskie won the caucus but George McGovern won the nomination
1976...Uncommitted, more people voted as being uncommitted than for any actual candidate, Jimmy Carter did come second and he won the nomination and the election
1980...Jimmy Carter who was the sitting President seeking re-election, he lost his re-election bid
1984...Walter Mondale won Iowa and the nomination but lost the election
1988...Dick Gephart won Iowa but Michael Dukakis came a distant third and went on to win the nomination, losing the general election.
1992... Tom Harkin won 76% of the Iowa vote but lost the nomination to Bill Clinton who had come in a very distant 4th with only 3% of the vote
1996...Bill Clinton as sitting president won Iowa unopposed
2000...Sitting Vice President Al Gore won the Iowa caucus and the nomination but lost the election
2004... John Kerry won Iowa and the nomination but lost the election
So of the nine previous elections five Iowa winners won their party's nomination but three of them were sitting Presidents or Vice President who ran virtually unopposed.
The only two other candidates who won Iowa and their party's nomination failed to win the general election..
A dismal record and a fairly strong indication of how irrelevant Iowa's caucus seems to be.
The latest Zogby poll for New Hampshire gives Clinton 39% to Obama's 23%. Zogby's polls for Iowa were spot on showing an Obama win and a third place finish for Clinton.
And thats why people shouldn't listen to the media.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,086 Posts
First off...

http://www.youtube.com/v/_uCn6rFFJ2s&rel=1

Second...

winning Iowa isnt necessarily indication of winning the nomination.

but, its certainly nice to see the flawless machine that is Hillary's campaign falling apart over the last few weeks. Shes had all sorts of problems, and its really looking like she tried to get rolling too soon, and her timing was off.

And although Clinton's still getting a great number of the 45+age group, Obama has more female support, hes got the support of the youngins, and hes leading in all issues, as well as getting good numbers form all incomes, according to CNN.

Code:
Vote by age

                         Obama    Edwards    Clinton
    17-29          57%      14%        11%
    30-44          42       21         23  
    45-64          27       31         28
    65+            18       22         45

Rural versus Urban 

                          Obama    Edwards    Clinton
    Urban          40%      18%        23%
    Suburban       30       28         25
    Rural          31       25         33

 

Other Demographics 

                           Obama   Edwards    Clinton
    Women           35%      24%        23%
    Men             35       23         30
    Liberal       40/36    16/25       24/25 (very/somewhat)
    Moderate        33       22         31
    Conservative    21       44         22
    Democrat (76%)  32       23         31
    GOP (6%)        44       32         10
    Independ (20%)  41       23         37 17


Income

                           Obama    Edwards    Clinton
    Under $15k      37%       17%       30%
    $15 - $30k      32        21        32  
    $30 - $50k      33        20        32  
    $50 - $75k      35        24        26  
    $75 - $100k     31        22        24  
    Over $100k      41        28        19  


Issues

                         Obama    Edwards    Clinton
    Economy       36%       26%        26%
    Iraq          35        17         26
    Health care   34        27         30
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
First off...
http://www.youtube.com/v/_uCn6rFFJ2s&rel=1
Second...
winning Iowa isn't necessarily indication of winning the nomination.
but, its certainly nice to see the flawless machine that is Hillary's campaign falling apart over the last few weeks. Shes had all sorts of problems, and its really looking like she tried to get rolling too soon, and her timing was off.
And although Clinton's still getting a great number of the 45+age group, Obama has more female support, hes got the support of the young ins, and hes leading in all issues, as well as getting good numbers form all incomes, according to CNN.
quote]

-------------------------------------------------
Are these from the Iowa result or a recent national poll?

If from a national poll then it just points out, as a previous poster has said, how polls can be somewhat confusing.

Both nationally and in every state poll I have seen Clinton still leads. In fact Zogby is forecasting that Clinton will secure over 3300 delegates from the primary states at this point in the campaign. They do point out that this assumption is based on state by state polling and a number of those polls are fairly old so would not reflect Obama's recent surge.
Democrats
Clinton 3347.0.............
Obama 230.0............
Edwards 0.0............
Richardson 38.0....................

Richardosn must win his home state to get those delegates and Edwards must be lost somewhere in between his two Americas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,086 Posts
First off...
http://www.youtube.com/v/_uCn6rFFJ2s&rel=1
Second...
winning Iowa isn't necessarily indication of winning the nomination.
but, its certainly nice to see the flawless machine that is Hillary's campaign falling apart over the last few weeks. Shes had all sorts of problems, and its really looking like she tried to get rolling too soon, and her timing was off.
And although Clinton's still getting a great number of the 45+age group, Obama has more female support, hes got the support of the young ins, and hes leading in all issues, as well as getting good numbers form all incomes, according to CNN.
quote]

-------------------------------------------------
Are these from the Iowa result or a recent national poll?

If from a national poll then it just points out, as a previous poster has said, how polls can be somewhat confusing.

Both nationally and in every state poll I have seen Clinton still leads. In fact Zogby is forecasting that Clinton will secure over 3300 delegates from the primary states at this point in the campaign. They do point out that this assumption is based on state by state polling and a number of those polls are fairly old so would not reflect Obama's recent surge.
Democrats
Clinton 3347.0.............
Obama 230.0............
Edwards 0.0............
Richardson 38.0....................

Richardosn must win his home state to get those delegates and Edwards must be lost somewhere in between his two Americas.
Those are the Iowa entrance polls...

the exit polls can be found here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225980/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
I dont think anyone should criticize Mr Obama because he just paid off student loans and wants to try for president. Heck, people spend years paying off their loans (im a univ student myself) and I once knew a student who had $80,000 in loans to pay off. (and here tuition is cheaper than in a lot of those places in the us and canada actually btw)

and having worked as an elected member of our university's Students' Union, I can attest. We work for lowering tuition fees (although freezing them like our Danny Williams premier did isnt bad and it helps a bit)

but having just paid off student loans does not mean he wouldnt be a good president.

Guess everyone will just have to wait and see.

He cant be worse then George W Bush (man I hate that guy with a passion)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I dont think anyone should criticize Mr Obama because he just paid off student loans and wants to try for president.
I don't think I'm criticizing him becaue he just paid off his student loans.

My concern is just how experienced can he be and is he really suited for the presidency.

His voting record as a state senator, his single term as a US Senator, his questionable judgement in the choice of some friends and his at first refusal to disavow Rev Wright then a week later when he realised his mistake, his turnabout, his inability to put Clinton away for good and his complete and total lack of foreign policy and military experience all give me cause for concern.

His whole campaign is based on "change" but that's baloney. George Bush campaigned as the change candidate, look what he brought for change. In fact without checking I'd be willing to bet just about every guy trying to be president said he was going to bring "change" to Washington.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
You can' 'change' Washingtom.It's a fatally flawed,bloated,self-serving bureacracy that is destined to failure.Just like Ancient Rome was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,423 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
You can' 'change' Washingtom.It's a fatally flawed,bloated,self-serving bureacracy that is destined to failure.Just like Ancient Rome was.

All powerful great nations have their moment in the sun. The US is no different, I just hope their moment in the sun lasts through my lifetime.​
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts


I don't think I'm criticizing him becaue he just paid off his student loans.

My concern is just how experienced can he be and is he really suited for the presidency.

His voting record as a state senator, his single term as a US Senator, his questionable judgement in the choice of some friends and his at first refusal to disavow Rev Wright then a week later when he realised his mistake, his turnabout, his inability to put Clinton away for good and his complete and total lack of foreign policy and military experience all give me cause for concern.

His whole campaign is based on "change" but that's baloney. George Bush campaigned as the change candidate, look what he brought for change. In fact without checking I'd be willing to bet just about every guy trying to be president said he was going to bring "change" to Washington.​
A lot of what you say rings true, but as I listen to the speeches Obama gives in relation to Clinton or McCain, I can only quietly root for him. Reasons are simple:

1) I have a feeling for WHO Barrack Hussein Obama is, no idea what McCain and Clinton are. Obama has been consistant in the sense he does things that are unconventcional of politicans, he doesn't disown his preist simply because within a 35 year time frame he has issued controversical comment, it is only after being accused of being a politican that Obama is force to change their relationship. Clinton would have cut any political liability and moved on, but at least Obama isn't selling his soul for votes.

McCain confuses me, as a senator he was stonach opposition to Bush, he against his tax cut, preposed tax increases, and was one of the few anti-war republicans. Now that he is the presumptive republican nominee, McCain is pro-war, pro-bush economics, and seems to have forgotten who he is. I wonder how long this McCain will last if he even exists at all, bottom line is I don't know WHO McCain is.

Clinton has run her campaign like a sczophrenic. One day she is Barrack's best friend, next day she is launching attack ads. One day she is the soft emontional Hilary who cries, the next day she is the working man's hero, a fighter when the gloves are dropped. My problem with Hilary is that her policies seem lacking and her identity is hard to pin, she markets herself in so many ways its as if she is the Wal-Mart of Politicans, and I feel at least disconnected with her.

The second reason I like Barrack is simple, his polocies are best provided at the moment. His idea of health care is limitted I feel but a good place to start, give it to the child and hopefully the rest will follow. His economic stimulas is quite brillant really, I watch his speeches in Warren Michigan a veiw days ago while in Michigan, and I have to say he is providing realistic solutions to the economic striff caused by the fleeing auto industry. His dedication to exploring ulternative resources shows IMO a far superior understanding of oil dependancy that McCain and Clinton have been collectivally been able to muster. Barrack has a the ability to talk peace in foreign policy and not seem like a hipocrite like Clinton. He is willing to talk to the democraticly elected leadership of Palestine and does not throw the word "terrorist" around as liberally as his competition.

Bottom line is, I think that if I were American Barrack Obama would be my candidate.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top