How Obama Got Elected Video: Does this represent Obama voters?
Watch the "How Obama Got Elected" Video which interviews a bunch of Obama voters who don't who controls the Congress, but knows Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter. All of these Obama voters were...
Watch the "How Obama Got Elected" Video which interviews a bunch of Obama voters who don't who controls the Congress, but knows Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter. All of these Obama voters were asked the same questions and seemed to know nothing about their candidate of choice, but all the negatives of the Republican candidates they wouldn't vote for. Interesting, especially after the fact. The video is from howobamagotelected.com if you're interested.
What do you think about these Obama voters? (more)
What do you think about these Obama voters? (more)
Top Comment
View thread
-
I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
How McCain would have gotten elected if smart people hadn't voted for Obama.
No. The "How Obama Got Elected" video does not represent Obama voters correctly.
Ok, 12 people do not accurately show the opinions of the masses! its only 12! try it again with like, 12hundred or more. I bet i can find 12 people who voted for McCain that are equally ignorant and "stupid" seriously, its not that hard to find 12 ignorant voters... for anything. thats the was people are now-a-days.Yes! Obama voters are ignorant! That's how Obama got elected.
IMO many voted the way they did simply because of race. I say that because soo many didnt have a freakin clue. The only thing they had to cling to was change........Yes! Obama voters are ignorant! That's how Obama got elected.
There are 3 types of people that voted for Obama:1 Ignorant, did not know facts
2. Stupid, knew the facts but ignored them(change&hope;)
3. Oportunistic weasel politician or business person
I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
Portrays a great many Obama voters. But not all, some know exactly what his policies will do and hope to profit by it.Yes! Obama voters are ignorant! That's how Obama got elected.
moderated...Yes! Obama voters are ignorant! That's how Obama got elected.
Most people who voted for Obama lacked the ability to tell you the basic 3 groups of government, who was on what ticket, or what he stood for. JUST THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A BLACKMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Ignorance is bliss as they say.Yes! Obama voters are ignorant! That's how Obama got elected.
why ignorantI think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
Begins when Obama went to Chicago and became an organizer, this man has an intense drive to succeed. The documentaries that I have seen shows a man with a great determination to achieve his goals, failure is not ian option for him. In spite of being young, he had the common sense to learn and be instructed by the best. He has a lot of confidence in himself, and a lot of hope and faith in his christian belief. This mind set to dare to hope, even against the odds is what gave him (his advisors, and his wife) the ability to stand firm in opposition and adversity. Persistence is a strong characteristic that he thrives on, so much so, that he was able to engage people who would not normally find themselves caught up on the words of a Black man. Plus someone, somewhere in his lifetime has taught him the principle of there is a time to speak and a time to be quiet, and he did this well during the election. A lot of mud slinging was going on, but rarely did he retaliate. From video's that I have seen of Obama during the election, were of people of all ages, nationalities, even outside of the American jurisdiction were individuals clinging to his articulate word of promise and change. The nit-picking got to be old hat, the people was tired of that. A man born to a White mother... Begins when Obama went to Chicago and became an organizer, this man has an intense drive to succeed. The documentaries that I have seen shows a man with a great determination to achieve his goals, failure is not ian option for him. In spite of being young, he had the common sense to learn and be instructed by the best. He has a lot of confidence in himself, and a lot of hope and faith in his christian belief. This mind set to dare to hope, even against the odds is what gave him (his advisors, and his wife) the ability to stand firm in opposition and adversity. Persistence is a strong characteristic that he thrives on, so much so, that he was able to engage people who would not normally find themselves caught up on the words of a Black man. Plus someone, somewhere in his lifetime has taught him the principle of there is a time to speak and a time to be quiet, and he did this well during the election. A lot of mud slinging was going on, but rarely did he retaliate. From video's that I have seen of Obama during the election, were of people of all ages, nationalities, even outside of the American jurisdiction were individuals clinging to his articulate word of promise and change. The nit-picking got to be old hat, the people was tired of that. A man born to a White mother and a Nigerian father, and later raised by his maternal grandparents. They instilled a core of values in him, and from his immediate family (which is like the rainbow coalition) gave him the ability and know how to get along with people from all racial backgrounds. Not to mention that in America we are down to "two" classes of people, Rich and Poor, the "middle" class because of the economy is slowly falling to the wayside. So people from all walks of life, even in "lily White" communities and States found themselves chanting "Yes We Can," and the end results of the election was "Yes We Did." That's how I see it. (more)I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
First of all even though the black vote was irrelevant at 14% let us not deny those whom are black and voted for Obama did so because he is black. They knew none of his policies and they don't know what he is doing now. Is it racisim you bet but due to liberalism it will be passed along as ok. Everybody voted for him because of thier weakness for not fail for falling into the cult of Obama and the personality that is mistaken to be great. The man seriously thinks he is a God and his supporters see him as a God. They drank the cool aide by the pitcher I just wish they would all wear black sweatsuits white sneakers lie down and fall asleep never to wake upNo. The "How Obama Got Elected" video does not represent Obama voters correctly.
This film is about as bogus as Ben Stien's "expelled."I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
Its a fair representation of those that voted for him just because he's half black and muslim.I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
I like this video. It shows that not everyone is as informed as they think they are. I didn't know much about either candidates so i made sure to do the research before my decision. Most people jumped on the bandwagon for one reason or another when it came to voting for Obama. I think a lot of people simply felt that it was time for a change in president's party. 8 years of one party tends to inspire a surge of support in the other naturally. especially, if said party has been seen as unsuccessful in the past 8 years. unfortunately, a lot of people voted for obama for the wrong reasons, but time will show if they made the right choices or not. just as many who were not aware of his policies versus mccain's, there were many who strove to make their policies clear and many who listened. hopefully, future voters will take more initiative in their government and try to understand how their decisions will affect their future. finally, the media did give an uneven amount of attention to the candidates. i remember having to look twice as hard for positive coverage on mccain's campaign than obama's. in the end, i turned to the internet. either way, the information one obtains is bound to be riddled in bias. no wonder people are so misinformed (i wouldn't necessarily call all of them i... I like this video. It shows that not everyone is as informed as they think they are. I didn't know much about either candidates so i made sure to do the research before my decision. Most people jumped on the bandwagon for one reason or another when it came to voting for Obama. I think a lot of people simply felt that it was time for a change in president's party. 8 years of one party tends to inspire a surge of support in the other naturally. especially, if said party has been seen as unsuccessful in the past 8 years. unfortunately, a lot of people voted for obama for the wrong reasons, but time will show if they made the right choices or not. just as many who were not aware of his policies versus mccain's, there were many who strove to make their policies clear and many who listened. hopefully, future voters will take more initiative in their government and try to understand how their decisions will affect their future. finally, the media did give an uneven amount of attention to the candidates. i remember having to look twice as hard for positive coverage on mccain's campaign than obama's. in the end, i turned to the internet. either way, the information one obtains is bound to be riddled in bias. no wonder people are so misinformed (i wouldn't necessarily call all of them ignorant).ps: the intro music is creepy. too much adulation of one man really freaks me out >.> so he's the first black president. that's really amazing and a great step for the American people. but i question if we were ready to make that step. i believe, in years to come, as long as God wills this nation to exist, there will be many other black presidents and many women presidents as well and people will think how strange overexpressive
"obamites" were. (more)
I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
Hey obama voters,how much change do you have in your pockets now??? You bunch of rooster fish!!!Fascism is defined as: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. With a Congress that has rolled over and played dead, Obama seems to have these powers. Centralized control over banks, car manufacturers, pay czars, etc. Obama seems to be on track. And when he tries to stifle Fox news, fires watchdogs, etc, he is heading to suppression of opposition. So, I don't think that Hitler analogy fits as well as the Mussolini analogy.
Do you find it curious that MSNBC and NBC are owned by GE which is heavily invested into a) health information systems and b) green energy technology, both of which stand to profit greatly from Obama's agenda?
Anyway, just so you'll know, I don't really care what Obama does. Hate to see what will happen to the country but they... The President does not have any authority to control who manages corporations. The Congress is the primary authority on budget items, although they may have delegated some control to the President on specific issues. But that delegation can be taken back by Congress. If there is something different, please let me know the Section and paragraph in the Constitution.
Fascism is defined as: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. With a Congress that has rolled over and played dead, Obama seems to have these powers. Centralized control over banks, car manufacturers, pay czars, etc. Obama seems to be on track. And when he tries to stifle Fox news, fires watchdogs, etc, he is heading to suppression of opposition. So, I don't think that Hitler analogy fits as well as the Mussolini analogy.
Do you find it curious that MSNBC and NBC are owned by GE which is heavily invested into a) health information systems and b) green energy technology, both of which stand to profit greatly from Obama's agenda?
Anyway, just so you'll know, I don't really care what Obama does. Hate to see what will happen to the country but they elected him. And they elected congress. I have gone John Galt, have stopped paying taxes, and live off of government aid of one kind or another. I feel bad about not pulling my weight but the only way to stop this guy is to stop working and contributing.
Starving the beast now will save things in the long run. It is a technique learned from the Chicago radicals that Obama came from. (more)
It is a firm belief of mine that most America... The president, as head of the Executive department of government, as the overall head of the Treasury Dept. has the authority to propose solutions for bankrupt corporate reorganization when such bankruptcy presents a danger to the economic health of the country (too big to fail) , though, legally, the actual implementation of any such plan is only by authority of the bankruptcy judge. Obama proposed a solution to the pending bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM; he had no authority to impose it on his own. Any one of the stakeholders in these corporations could have objected to Obama's plan and forced the bankrupty judge to make a ruling, which may have resulted in something far different from what Obama wanted. However, all parties agreed. There was no usurpation of authority here. As to fascism, you don't have a clue. If the USA were anything close to a true fascist state, you couldn't "go Galt." Right now, you'd be in the interrogation rooms being tortured to see if there were any more "Galters." Just look at what is happening in Iran now to get a clue as to what a proto-fascist state does when confronted with opposition. Suppress Fox News? Give me a break. In a fascist state, any media opposition would have been suppressed long ago.
It is a firm belief of mine that most Americans take their freedoms for granted. They have no idea what it is like to live in a dictatorship and think that because Congress passes a bill that they don't like, that means we'rte in a fascist state. Get your head out of Ayn Rand and go read some history about Mussolini and fascism. It will do you good. (more)
After hearing all of the "Bush is Hitler" comparisions over the past 8 years you should forgive some people who like to return the favor against Obama.
Our freedoms are being lost daily, it seems. My father was a victim of the McCarthy era and the stuff going on now is similar. You don't notice because you are not on the receiving end of it, apparently. I remember years ago entering the USSR while on a train from Helsinki. I was reading Solzhenistyn's book at the time of crossing. No one noticed. And my going Galt hasn't been noticed yet. Even Fascists are't perfect.
Obama is not Mussolini yet, but he seems to be heading that way. He has the blood of hundreds of Pakistanis on his hands already. And the % of the US economy controlled by the Feds is going up geometrically.
But it is not my problem. It is yours. I wish you well with it.
I frankly do not see freedoms disappearing. You say that is so because I am not on the receiving end. Well, who is? I really want to know just what freedoms are being threatened. Please be specific. The disappearance of freedoms during the McCarthy era was clear. Many people lost their jobs; some went to jail. Some were physically assaulted. Who is undergoing that now?
I would think that as a conservative you would support Obama fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Af-Pak. Many righties on SH think Obama is weak and even has sympathy for terrorists. Obama's conduct of the Af-Pak war gives the lie to these accusations but you still think he's wrong?
Although I appreciate your observation that some on my side of the fence went overboard in their criticism of Bush, it does no good to do the same to Obama. Obama is no Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin and anyone who says he is is ignorant at best, or just provocative. The facts are not there to support such wild and hystrical accusations.
I just want to respond to your 2nd to last paragraph. I am very disturbed by this indiscriminate killings of civilians and am at a total lost to understand why there is sometimes no or very limited public outcry over "collateral" damage, to use a nice word. You call me a conservative and want me to fit into a nice category. But I am opposed to air campaigns against civilian areas. It is ironic that the words "weapons of mass destruction" were first used to describe the fascist air bombings in Guernica made famous by Picasso. I was opposed to Clinton's 1999 air war with Serbia. I think that these are war crimes. Yes, I know that they were NATO approved and by that approval, they were UN approved. But a reasonable objective person would call the attempt to stop random ethnic cleansing by aerial bombings of Serbian ethnic enclaves to be "odd", at least. Perhaps 5,000 civilians were killed. No americans cared because no Americans died. I am totally against the Bush-Obama drone war against Pakistan. Perhaps 700 innocent Pakistanis have died, plus maybe 14 Al-Qaeda members. I understand that sometimes air bombings are acceptable for some "greater" good. But I just can not understand a war that relies entirely on dr... Sorry for the late response but I have trouble following my emails.
I just want to respond to your 2nd to last paragraph. I am very disturbed by this indiscriminate killings of civilians and am at a total lost to understand why there is sometimes no or very limited public outcry over "collateral" damage, to use a nice word. You call me a conservative and want me to fit into a nice category. But I am opposed to air campaigns against civilian areas. It is ironic that the words "weapons of mass destruction" were first used to describe the fascist air bombings in Guernica made famous by Picasso. I was opposed to Clinton's 1999 air war with Serbia. I think that these are war crimes. Yes, I know that they were NATO approved and by that approval, they were UN approved. But a reasonable objective person would call the attempt to stop random ethnic cleansing by aerial bombings of Serbian ethnic enclaves to be "odd", at least. Perhaps 5,000 civilians were killed. No americans cared because no Americans died. I am totally against the Bush-Obama drone war against Pakistan. Perhaps 700 innocent Pakistanis have died, plus maybe 14 Al-Qaeda members. I understand that sometimes air bombings are acceptable for some "greater" good. But I just can not understand a war that relies entirely on dropping bombs on civilian targets. To be honest, I would prefer to see American soldiers dying if the trade-off is reducing innocent civilian deaths. Except in Philadelphia in the 1970's police in this country do not normally drop bombs on civilians to get at criminals.
To my knowledge, the Bush-Obama drone war with Pakistan has not been approved by Congress nor by any UN resolution. I am not some "eye for an eye" person. I am not a supporter of pre-emptive strikes. I support ground troops supporting the Afghan government. I support ground troops supporting the Pakistani government. I support limited air power in those areas, if approved by the Pakistani and Afghan governments. Do we have those? Have the leaders of those countries publicly expressed support for these bombings?
I suspect that I am much more progressive than you if you support these operations.
One comment on your last paragraph. As long as we talk about "your side of the fence" we will have problems. Maybe I am odd but I agreed with c. 50-60% of Bush's agenda and 40% of Obama's agenda. The future of this country rests with the independent people who fluctuate and try to decide who to bet on when all candidates are significantly flawed. The two special interest groups that scare me the most are the Republican and Democratic Parties. (more)
The drone war, if done right, can, and has proven effective in that some important Al Qaeda leaders have been killed. However, you make a good point about "collateral damage" and perhaps, if the accuracy of the drones isn't perfected, their use will be counterproductive, not to mention the moral issues of killing civilians. On the other hand, it is standard operating procedure for Islamic terrorists deliberately to situate themselves in civilian areas so as to produce collateral damage when anyone tries to take them out, as is seen in Israel and Palestine. So they are, IMHO, ultimately responsible for civilaian casualties.
As to the legality of the drone war, the President has the authority to conduct the war as he sees fit under his constitutional war-making po... Wow, this is a first on SH: I am to the Right of someone. I, in general, support the drone war because of the near impossibility of getting to Al Qaeda leaders on the ground. We don't have enough intelligence to pinpoint just where these terrorists are for any length of time and even if we did, it's likely they would get warning and disappear into the hills before our troops could get there, not to mention the diplomatic issues of US troops operating on foreign soil without a clear mandate from the host government.
The drone war, if done right, can, and has proven effective in that some important Al Qaeda leaders have been killed. However, you make a good point about "collateral damage" and perhaps, if the accuracy of the drones isn't perfected, their use will be counterproductive, not to mention the moral issues of killing civilians. On the other hand, it is standard operating procedure for Islamic terrorists deliberately to situate themselves in civilian areas so as to produce collateral damage when anyone tries to take them out, as is seen in Israel and Palestine. So they are, IMHO, ultimately responsible for civilaian casualties.
As to the legality of the drone war, the President has the authority to conduct the war as he sees fit under his constitutional war-making powers; he does not need congressional apporval to approve his strategy or tactcs, with the proviso that certain conduct that is regarded under international law as war crimes isn't done. The drone war doesn't come under these proscriptions because drones are not deliberately targeted to kill civilians. (more)
I think that the Constitution requires the president to ask Congressional authority to engage in warfare. The War Powers clause gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. I would hope that you would see the advantage of this clause. Clinton did not ask for it re. Serbia but Bush did for Iraq. Congress has given too much power to the President, beyond the intent of the Constitution but I think that this is very unfortunate, whether a Republican or Democrat is President. Yes, I understand that the President has tactical and strategic powers after Congress approves the overall war policy.
Another belief that you probably hold that puts you well to th... Wow! It is OK to drop bombs on suspected (not tried and convicted) terrorists, based on some intelligence estimate (the type that said Iraq has WMDs) and it is not a war crime if civilians are killed? Wow! Glad that I don't live in Pakistan, Sudan, Serbia, Afghanistan, etc. So, you are in favor of Israelis targeting civilian areas because the terrorists are hiding in these areas? Do you support or oppose the Bush era consideration of assassinating terrorists? Is it OK to try to kill terrorists non-surgically by dropping bombs on civilian areas while aiming for the terrorists or is it better to directly assassinate them?
I think that the Constitution requires the president to ask Congressional authority to engage in warfare. The War Powers clause gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. I would hope that you would see the advantage of this clause. Clinton did not ask for it re. Serbia but Bush did for Iraq. Congress has given too much power to the President, beyond the intent of the Constitution but I think that this is very unfortunate, whether a Republican or Democrat is President. Yes, I understand that the President has tactical and strategic powers after Congress approves the overall war policy.
Another belief that you probably hold that puts you well to the right of me regards Obama's tax policy. He wants to REDUCE taxes for those making under $250,000. Now do people who opposed Bush tax cuts for the rich support the idea of tax cuts for people making more than 90% of the population? I can not understand Obama's tax cuts when we have these deficits. I feel like I am in some Roman era when the Ceasar provided bread and gladiator games to keep the masses shut up. If you are from Brooklyn, perhaps you have read the following:
http://www.city-journal.org/2...
Obama seems to want to buy votes through hand-outs. He has turned JFK's saying into "Ask not what you can do for your country but what the country (or Obama) can do you." You ruin democracy when you are buying votes, with public money. I wish that he would stand up and say "health care, education, etc costs money and we will pay for it with revenues, with a majority paying for it. I don't mind progressive taxes but I am opposed to most people being exempt from taxes. (more)
I am personally right with the Lord Jesus Christ so I don't really care I am going to the promised land to be with my Saviour. Enjoy your change.
Yes! Obama voters are ignorant! That's how Obama got elected.
Hey, Brklynguy, you know that TARP was a Bush thing, right? It is amazing, and sadly true, that we learned more about Sarah Palin in two weeks then we have about Obama in the whole 1 year campaign.Yes! Obama voters are ignorant! That's how Obama got elected.
Absolutely. So, to all you nobama supporters: How's that change working for you???I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
By fighting "dirty" and by shutting up opposing opinions with charges or inuendos of racism. He had an awesome PR machine. I think there was an element of "American Idol" with the voters.No. The "How Obama Got Elected" video does not represent Obama voters correctly.
This Interview was far more influential in the past election.An extract:
I do hope she runs again. Please!
Then some unrepentant Paleo Reps could have a chance to lose again (and again) and split and destroy their own party at least until 2016!
I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
really shows just how ignorant a Republican presidential candidate can be by choosing a running mate without proper vetting, that he barely knew and who, obviously, provided so many memorable negative images as to leave little room in the minds of intellectually challenged Democrats for anything else. A running mate who is a dead ringer for a SNL cast member that wasted little time in presenting such a realistic portrayal of the parodied Sarah Palin that, a year later, is easily confused with the deeds of the real Sarah Palin! Thanks McCain!I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
All of the information was there before the election, but sadly, most Americans would rather read about some celebrity fashion blunder than research anything a politician says. Worse, in this case, is that many of the celebrities got on board the Obama express. I don't know about you, but the last person I want telling me who to vote for is someone who always plays someone else. You never really know who a celebrity is. The media in this nation has become a joke as well.I think the video "How Obama got Elected"....
Is a joke. Take 12 ignotrant people anywhere and you'll get the same answers. The Republicans are so "besides themselves" that they cannot let this man shine, for the beacon that he is. Shame on you, Republican, Rush Limbaugh listening, haters!!!