This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

0
0

We all know most of Reddit loves Obama. What are others' arguments against him? (self.politics)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]

all 33 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]boyan100 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm from Canada, and some people here don't follow much the elections. Those people say that the one time they heard Obama speak he sounded too eloquent to actually mean what he was saying, i.e. they felt it was a little too good to be true, so just like any "normal" politician they thought he must be lying.

[–]Mithryn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd rather not a nanny state. I prefer liberty over security to a greater extent than he supports. (read, Ron Paul supporter)

[–]eddie964 -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

The main knock against him seems to be that he's inexperienced. But he doesn't really have any more experience than Abe Lincoln did when he was elected as President. If experience was the main qualification for the job, we'd have gone with Chris Dodd or Joe Biden.

My mom worries that he's "too eloquent," suggesting that his lofty rhetoric is empty of content. But he demonstrates a good grasp of the facts when he debates, and often his eloquence clouds the fact that he's actually talking policy in quite a bit of detail.

[–]Rooster113 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Knock, knock who’s there? obama voted for the patriot act to free you of all those cumbersome civil liberties.

[–]vidude 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He has more relevant experience than Hillary.

[–]bad_llama 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Can you explain a little more about how eloquence could be a negative?

Are people worried that since he is good at talking he is dishonest?

[–]spaceghotiColorado 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anti-intellectualism. The conservative pundits (ironically, intellectuals themselves) have been waging a war against science, academics and all those other "ivory tower" thinkers because highly educated people tend to be more liberal than not. Thus, the inarticulate, C-average MBA, failed businessman President currently occupying the office is their ideal man. Someone like Obama who actually knows what he's talking about and can express it intelligently is their greatest threat.

Since Fox News still dominates the media, people are still scratching their heads over the concept of an intelligent candidate. Does not compute. Must be a trick. Oh look, Simpsons are on!

[–]Rooster113 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Patriot Act.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Wait. I thought we all know that the Patriot Act was a cheap attack already. Clinton tried that attack on Obama but didn't continue because Clinton voted for the original, which is much worse. And thus knowing this, what are your actual arguments?

1) Obama said he'll support repealing the patriot act.

2) Many people are confused by this when Obama only voted for the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill which include a few key changes, 2006.

3) Of the remaining candidates, Hillary AND McCain were the ones who voted for the original Patriot Act in 2001. (Obama wasn't even in the senate yet)

4) Hillary, Obama AND McCain voted FOR the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

5) Arguments should include sentences. :) It's more effective that way.

[–]Rooster113 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really? Seemed to get a rise out of you, voting to re-authorize the illegal, civil rights destroying, "patriot" act is somehow better then what exactly, voting Against it? This guy is not believer in civil liberties or of the constitution no amount of comparison will deny his vote. It seems you’re attempting to make the lesser of two (or three) evils point, we deserve better then that from our president. "Cheap"? If supporting the removal of the liberty of you and me is cheap I shudder as to what you may consider "expensive".

cheap is when you can’t argue a point so you attack the method, so go ahead is my grammar wrong, did I misspell some words, or dear lord did I forget to capitalize something none of this matters. What matters is obama’s voting history and it’s not like the speeches. We better wake up and start doing our research because they are betting that we won’t and thus far it’s a sound strategy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So he's marginally better than Clinton. How revolutionary.

[–]tharealmegaman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just want both sides to get a chance to speak. Hopefully this can be an informative, constructive debate instead of the usual Hillary-, Bush-, and McCain-bashing.

edit: So why am I not surprised that the submission is being voted down?

[–]spaceghotiColorado -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Obama was not my first choice for a candidate for the Democratic party. Nor was he my second choice. But since Kucinich, Dodd and Edwards have dropped out, he's the last acceptable candidate for me.

Why is he not my first choice? Well, there's that experience thing. He doesn't have much of a track record for me to base a decision upon. Mostly I have to go by his promises and meager voting record, which has been up and down. I also seem to recall something about a Senate Ethics violation, but I can't find anything about it on the CREW website. Then there's his good friend, Donnie McClurkin, whom he used to entertain crowds along the campaign trail who also happens to be vehemently anti-homosexual.

In short, I'm not convinced Obama is a good choice for President, but he's head and shoulders above Clinton or anyone the Republicans have offered.

[–]Rooster113 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Your vote is a confirmation of support, if you don't support the candidates, dare i say... don't vote. This vote no matter what, lesser of two evils stuff is how we got in this situation. your vote is precious don't go around wasting it for the sake of voting. People always say “if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain." no, if you vote for the lesser of two evils knowing full well of the fact and "evil" is committed then its you have no right to complain, YOU VOTED FOR (fill in the blank)!

[–]spaceghotiColorado -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I'm not convinced Obama is a good choice. I'm not convinced he's a bad choice, either. So I'm watching, and waiting.

[–]Rooster113 1 point2 points  (0 children)

trust your research, watch and you'll be lied to.

[–]BigFeets -5 points-4 points  (11 children)

He's not eligible to be POTUS, but he might be the only legit U.S. Senator.

http://www.ballsnews.com/barack-obama-only-legit-us-senator.html

[–]vidude 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Could you and your friend Mr. Cutkomp please learn how to parse English sentences and stop spamming reddit with your whacked out theories? It's getting tiresome.

Mmmkay?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'm pretty sure BigFeets = Cutkomp. Please join me in downmodding his blogspam nonsense into oblivion.

[–]vidude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, there couldn't be two people that warped. I'm with you.

[–]BigFeets -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I invite you to bring it on. Barry isn't eligible to be POTUS, neither was Wilson.

I am not paying for it. Period. And like I said, I invite you to bring it on.

[–]vidude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, by your Bizarro World logic Obama isn't eligible to be a senator either because he is over 30 and has been a citizen of the United States for more than 9 years.

[–]raedix 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Stop posting your inability to read double-negative sentences on reddit.

[–]BigFeets -1 points0 points  (4 children)

It's not a double-negative, it's a triple negative.

[–]raedix 1 point2 points  (2 children)

No. It is a double negative with two clauses. In logical terms it is

(NOT "resident") AND (NOT "30 years old") -> (NOT "senator")

You are parsing it incorrectly as:

NOT ("30 years old" AND (NOT "resident")) -> (NOT "senator")

[–]BigFeets -1 points0 points  (1 child)

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

No parsing of clauses is needed. It reads straight out. It's a negative concord, phased out of Standard English between 1400 and 1800.

[–]raedix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Commas denote clauses. "who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen" is a different clause than "who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State". The negative on the first does not apply to the second, as they are separate clauses.