A plea for the coming election
I really don't care who you vote for, but please PLEASE... research for yourself the candidates... don't listen to what CNN or Fox or Jon Stewart or Rush Limbagh have to say about the candidates... it's party politics and that can't be trusted...
Case in point:
Me: Dad, if you don't like McCain, why not vote for Obama.
Dad: I won't vote for Obama, he has no experience.
Hillary said the same thing... Ah... he heard this from Hillary...
Dad, please read this message:
Barak Obama: Member of the Illinois State Senate from the 13th distrct: January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004, Junior Senator From Illinois, Assumed office January 4, 2005
Total time holding office: 11 years (January 1997 to present)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy: United States Senator from Massachusetts In office January 3, 1953 – December 22, 1960 Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts's 11th district In office January 3, 1947 – January 3, 1953
Total time holding office: 13 Years (January 1947-December 1960)
Abraham Lincoln: Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 7th district In office March 4, 1847 – March 3, 1849
Time in office: 2 years (1847-1849) Note; this is half the time Obama has spent in almost the same exact position
George Washington: ------
Time in office: 0 years...
I don't mind the mud, I don't mind the slinging... I only mind it when intellegent people only listen to the mud...
Folks, vote for who you like... it's your choice... but, for our country's sake, vote smart! Question everything!
I don't know where I'm going yet. I may not decide until the last minute... but I will research everything before I cast my vote. I encourage you to as well.
Labels: Politics
posted by Aabh @ 6:37 PM
8 Comments:
I kind of understand what you were trying to do with these "years of experience" comparisons, but the world, the US, the complexity of the US role in the world and the advent of globalization, I would argue, has distorted the world in such a way that I think your comparison is actually quite inappropriate.
Mal -- who has her ideas on who should be in office, but it doesn't really matter because she's a Canadian-Polish citizen anyway, so she doesn't have a say.
Actually, I totally beg to differ... America wasn't less complex during the civil war... it was even more complex... it's just that we can't hold all the data in our heads for today's world and the historical world at the same time... it always seems like today is more complex than yesterday... :)
No no no, Guy, sorry but no. (Do you get the feeling that I think that you are wrong again?)
The US _was_ indeed less complex because it wasn't a world power and it didn't have financial and military presence all over the map.
If you think that the world and the US role in the world hasn't changed since some arbitrarely long time ago (such as the Civil War), you must be living in some time period bubble.
Wish I had more time to elaborate, but I need to go and teach at the U right now. Will come back to this later tonight (hopefully), would be helpful if I could dig out some of Pol Sci books (although Le Prince and Contract Social are already unpacked, but they are in French, so I can't quote directly from them...maybe Gia can translate!)
-- Mal.
Yes, but conducting a war on your own soil is a rather complex and difficult thing to do... perhaps it is apples and oranges, but the point is no less appropriate; in fact, it may be even MORE appropriate because of the ever-changing face of the world today, you may not want someone who is dug into 1970's politics. The point that I was making was that the statement is a poor one; you might as well say "The minimum age for being president has been increased to 75 because no one has the experience needed until they have been in politics for at least 50 years..." right now the minimum age is 35... which is silly because if I ran for president, no one would even look at me... I qualify, though! :D But even if I got into politics straight out of college (And you can bet that college is required for a presidential candidate), I still would have less years in politics than Obama... Many people do amazing things without experence... Erm.. Mal... George W Bush has all of 5 whole years experience... but hey! That's three more years than Lincoln... It's a stupid argument, Hillary said it, the Republicans are clamped onto it, and it's dense.
Obama has twice the experience of Bush...
And you are still one of my favorite Canadian-Polish citizens, and as much as I think you are outright wrong (See how safe I feel being over here in Japan? I'm SO dead when I get back to the States, aren't I?), I still love you! :D
Ahem.
First of, yes, you are so so dead once you cross the ocean, but let's not prevent us from having a civilized discussion until such time is upon us. :-)
Secondly, the main thing that differentiates Obama from Clinton and Bush Jr. (ugh, sooo glad his reign is nearly over) is world experience. Hilary gained hers during hubby's terms (and if memory serves right, he wasn't president during the 70's), and Jr. gained it from Sr.
Who is Obama going to gain it from? These so-called "advisers"?
And yes, people can do extraordinary things without much experience, I totally agree with that statement (see we CAN agree). And, hey, perhaps Obama will even end up being one of those people. I just think that your comparisons are flawed.
As flawed as you find your Dad's argument, so I find your argument flawed. Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree (no offense intended, Mr. Davis Sr!)
-- Mal :-)
Actually, it occurs to me that once again we are talking past each other:
Mal, do you think that people properly research the candidates prior to voting? And do you think that the ruling political parties (Republican and Deomocrat alike), do not steer the American people away from the opposing candidate by using misinformation?
Of course, THAT was the point of my post.
I actually worked from the claim "Obama has no experience". The claim does not say "Obama has no experience with Terrorists." Nor does the claim say "Obama has no experience with politics", "Obama has no experience with the global operations", "Obama has no experience with war" or even "Obama has no experience raising an orphan raised by Wolves." it simply said "Obama has no experience." Which, I disputed, and did so correctly. You, just like me, are chosing WHAT experience Obama has none of... I chose to pick a different "What" that Obama has none of, we differ on that What... but since the original statement says nothing of what that "What" is... you or I could both be right.
And the point, then, that I'm making, is very, very correct. Because in the end, you and I both proved it; we don't know WHAT experience that Obama supposedly doesn't have... and thus, if we listen to that line of reasoning, and vote accordingly, we are not making a correct choice, we are acting on misinformation. Spawned by people who do or do not want that candidate in office for their own reasons, which might be because Obama took their toy truck from them in 1st grade. Thus, we are giving our vote away to another person. :)
According to my research, Obama has more experience than Bush, and Lincoln and Washington, therefore it stands to reason (Since he has more experience than two of the greatest presidents, and the one prior to him), that this is a flawed argument. In making my decision, I shall disregard this complaint. There may be other things that I will regard, but "Experience" will not be one of them.
Guy, what the hell???
You can't make an argument out of "experience". Experience needs to be qualified. Some experiences that Obama may or may not have had (such as whether he is able to start up the BBQ without Ms. Obama's help) is rather irrelevant when we are talking about being the leader of the American people and a major world-wide influence.
I will strongly disagree with your "logic" that experience is experience.
What I _will_ agree with you on is that few people truly research candidates prior to voting on election day. I will also agree that American politicians do tend to run their campaigns with misinformation about their opponents.
Going back to your original post. I now understand, in view of your last comment, a bit more clearly the point you were trying to make. However, I will still say that JUST because someone claims something about a politician that their opponent might have said about them (i.e., in this case, "Obama has no experience"), does not mean that this may not be the same conclusion that someone who HAS done their research could not come to by themselves. (Now whether your Dad came to that conclusion by himself or due to Hillary's words will remain a mystery.)
-- Mal.
Mal... sometimes I wonder if you skim my posts or if I am really this unclear.
That was exactly the point I was making: The argument was "Obama has no experience" with no quantifiers... so I chose to take it to where I took it. You took it somewhere else... the point I was making was; I'm not sure that was what they were saying... because it was so vague...
Anyway, I think you and I agree on the initial point I was making... where we took the example Obama statement... well, we probably agree on that, too, but are (As typical) too busy arguing with each other to see that point :D (At least we are consistant!).
Anyway, happy anniversary, my dear one! I wish you many more! :D I love you and tell Franke that I love him too (And see if he gives you THAT look! :D)
Post a Comment
<< Home