SC goes to Obama, Clinton loses black supporters...

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Not reading someone's book(s). Barack Obama has a quite a few books and voters shouldn't have to read any of them.

None of these candidates are really that interesting as people (Obama says it's not about him but about change...but a lot of this is really about him) that their books should be expected to be read by the masses.

"A vote for Obama is a vote for...his books?"

I'll give you books. I tried to read Hillary's autobiography and couldn't get past chapter 3. But definitely other resources.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by scbelle

I'll give you books. I tried to read Hillary's autobiography and couldn't get past chapter 3. But definitely other resources.

Imagine if you were blasted for not finishing her book and therefore being a lazy, unintellectual, and uninformed voter.

Definitely other resources.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Except that this is a state and local issue, not a federal issue (which Michigan tried to fix and it's still really messed up).

It is not as if the federal government has never had influence over state & local education. I hate to use No Child Left Behind as an example, as it is such a bad one, but there you go.

Even if it isn't a program with a name, there is a lot that the federal government can do to help education. For instance, perhaps the federal government could provide a heavily funded grant program to districts that receive less than X dollars per pupil through its local funding. An application process for the funds could make sure the money goes to the districts that need it the most. I don't know, I'm just throwing that out there.

My point is that you can't just say "that's a state and local issue" and assume that a presidential candidate can't or won't step up and be a leader on an issue. It hasn't stopped presidents before, and I doubt it'll stop a president in the future.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Voters shouldn't have to pick up a candidate's book to find out their in depth plan. The average voter does not have the time (or even interest) to read these people's books but rather expect for the candidates to lay their plans out so everyone can access and be informed if they so choose.

I don't think that voters should have to read books by every candidate if they don't have the interest, but I bring up Barack's book to people who say that they want a more in-depth plan from him. If you're interested enough to complain and fault a candidate about "not having an in-depth plan" but are too lazy to spend a couple hours reading a book, then I guess that is your loss. But I'd stop blaming a presidential candidate who doesn't have the opportunity or media time to make sure you are fully informed on his or her positions simply because you expect to have these things spoon fed through commercials during American Idol or whatever.

Simply stated: if you don't have interest in detailed plans, that's fine. But don't falsely tell others that candidate A doesn't have a plan because you're too lazy to read a book that has it there, waiting for you to read it.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Imagine if you were blasted for not finishing her book and therefore being a lazy, unintellectual, and uninformed voter.

Definitely other resources.

Cliffs Notes?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

I don't think that voters should have to read books by every candidate if they don't have the interest, but I bring up Barack's book to people who say that they want a more in-depth plan from him. If you're interested enough to complain and fault a candidate about "not having an in-depth plan" but are too lazy to spend a couple hours reading a book, then I guess that is your loss. But I'd stop blaming a presidential candidate who doesn't have the opportunity or media time to make sure you are fully informed on his or her positions simply because you expect to have these things spoon fed through commercials during American Idol or whatever.

Simply stated: if you don't have interest in detailed plans, that's fine. But don't falsely tell others that candidate A doesn't have a plan because you're too lazy to read a book that has it there, waiting for you to read it.

In the name of redundancy, voters don't have to read any candidates' books.

Elections are about social policies and a presentation of these policies and courses of action, regardless of political party or whether or not a candidate is "cool enough." Elections are not about candidates' books and whether or not voters are "interested enough" to devote time to searching for a particular candidate's detailed plan for America.

What gets me is that many people who are devoutly Dem or Repub did not make this decision based on the details of candidates' platforms. And their support for a particular candidate either wasn't based on having reads books or doing extensive research OR wasn't based on having read all the information available for every single candidate to do a compare and constrast before dismissing candidates. Why read Obama's book if you haven't read others candidates' books or literature that they put out? Because you're automatically an Obama fan? Maybe the others have more details or other tidbits in their writings, too.

What we're discussing in this thread is one reason why Americans are so disenchanted with politics and voting. There are a lot of adults (some otherwise extremely educated and accomplished) who have never and probably will never vote. I still say everyone should say to hell with these candidates as PEOPLE and go Independent (we rock!) so these candidates will TRULY battle it out. Of course it's more complex than that but it would make the current bickering between Obama and Hillary seem like a love fest.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Cliffs Notes?

You read my mind. Cliff notes are what news sources, candidate speeches, and internet sources have been giving us...supposedly.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You read my mind. Cliff notes are what news sources, candidate speeches, and internet sources have been giving us...supposedly.

or.....

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

I don't think that voters should have to read books by every candidate if they don't have the interest, but I bring up Barack's book to people who say that they want a more in-depth plan from him. If you're interested enough to complain and fault a candidate about "not having an in-depth plan" but are too lazy to spend a couple hours reading a book, then I guess that is your loss.

This is grossly disingenuous at best, and nonsense at worst - and, to boot, you're entirely missing the point.

If Obama's 384 pg. missive gives a platform-style plan that explains his plan as President, great - why is that information not given in a condensed fashion on his website or given as outline to his plans when he speaks?

The milquetoast descriptions or sunny descriptions without substance do not do this - why?

Originally Posted by skylark

But I'd stop blaming a presidential candidate who doesn't have the opportunity or media time to make sure you are fully informed on his or her positions simply because you expect to have these things spoon fed through commercials during American Idol or whatever.

Simply stated: if you don't have interest in detailed plans, that's fine. But don't falsely tell others that candidate A doesn't have a plan because you're too lazy to read a book that has it there, waiting for you to read it.

Right - so if I've exhausted every reasonable avenue (a 384-pg book seems like a stretch here), and I'm not making a judgment but rather an observation, I should probably suck up my couch-potato gut, quit everything and get myself informed? Right.

Ad hominem here is ridiculous - again, it's my responsibility to seek out information, but putting that info in a book released in '06 seems an awful lot like the facts are being relegated to the back page, which is my entire problem and screed to date, if you'll recall.

He doesn't have the opportunity? I disagree that in this digital age of unlimited server space and instant web access, he can't find time to put up where he'll balance the budget against his tax credits. This seems MUCH more likely, given the comparative resources, than having each American who is interested read his book.

There is no reason for the candidate to be the limiting factor in the flow of information from candidate to voter - after all, the candidate has much more wide-ranging control of this flow. Once again, this is not specific to Obama - in fact, it's pretty much the status quo for American politics over the last 20 years. That's the frustrating part - even the guy who is supposedly doing things differently is falling into the same trap.

A book? Seriously?

[DSTCHAOS]

You book haters just aren't ready for BRAIN WARS. Chuck Norris is.

Chuck Norris was on Hannity and Colmes last night and he looked tired. BRAIN WARS are exhausting.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

You book haters just aren't ready for BRAIN WARS. Chuck Norris is.

Chuck Norris was on Hannity and Colmes last night and he looked tired. BRAIN WARS are exhausting.

wait chuck does more than martial arts?

**gasp.**

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

wait chuck does more than martial arts?

**gasp.**

I wish your computer would explode.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I wish your computer would explode.

you almost had your wish a month ago....hehehehe...

but...why do we really need all of these celebs muddying the political waters when it's already hard enough for people to figure out the people they are trying to vote for....some of these characters need to stay on the infomercials that they are doing and get in the political arena only if they are running...otherwise...I am simply looking at these B and D list celebs and wondering how much are they getting paid to endorse these politicans whether they believe their views or no.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

you almost had your wish a month ago....hehehehe...

but...why do we really need all of these celebs muddying the political waters when it's already hard enough for people to figure out the people they are trying to vote for....some of these characters need to stay on the infomercials that they are doing and get in the political arena only if they are running...otherwise...I am simply looking at these B and D list celebs and wondering how much are they getting paid to endorse these politicans whether they believe their views or no.

Celeb and politician endorsements are just to confuse people even more and sway the easily influenced. Some of the Kennedies like Obama...welp...I guess I need to start giving a damn about Obama now. No.

But Chuck Norris is not meant to confuse or sway. He already owns our thoughts and actions.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Celeb and politician endorsements are just to confuse people even more and sway the easily influenced. Some of the Kennedies like Obama...welp...I guess I need to start giving a damn about Obama now. No.

But Chuck Norris is not meant to confuse or sway. He already owns our thoughts and actions.

Yeah....

to channel momoneymike:

"Dat Walker, Texas Ranger was da isht booooiiiiyyyy"

Not.

I saw that last night with Obama and my wheels got to turning...hmmm...how long before the 1st assassination attempt?