For all the "Obama is the lesser evil, McCain is the devil!" people

[Lenin's Law]

During the debate, Obama went out of his way to state his agreement with John McCain no less than 11 times. On issue after issue, whether it be foreign policy, the economy, Obama concurred with the "evil Republican" McCain repeatedly ad-nauseum:

On the Financial Crises:
"Senator McCain is absolutely right that we need more responsibility.”

On spending:
“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused.”

On taxation:
“John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right.”

On the federal budget:
“John is right, we have to make cuts.”


On threatening military action in Pakistan: “
John ... you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say.”

On Iran:
“Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.”


The "change agent" Obama, the lesser of the two evils, going out of his way in a debate (where one would think it would be an opportunity to distance yourself from your opponent) to cozy up and in fact affirm how in sync they are with issue after issue, over and over again. What a fraud.

[GPDP]

I noticed this as well. I can't believe he actually kind of had me at one point.

Of course, his left-liberal apologists will likely excuse this on grounds of "pragmatism" and "respect".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I noticed this as well. I can't believe he actually kind of had me at one point.

Shockingly, me too. :blushing:

I suspect that his constant agreement with McCain will be seen as weakness, if nothing else. Objectively, it means he ain't that much different!

[Sendo]

Sadly, I've been vindicated. When I said Obama was hardly "lesser" of a evil was dismissed by a couple friends (most of my real life US friends aren't really political, fewer are left in any degree). Now one totally agrees and another won't bring up Obama anymore. But this is the sad vindication, like when you say Earth is going through global warming. Being correct in a world like this is more tragedy than anything else. I'd rather look like a fool than be right and see the South Pacific drown in a couple decades, and I'd rather be wrong then see Obama retread our old mistakes, but he's going to.

:(

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Don't give a shit. Still wouldn't vote McCain.

[Dr Mindbender]

it's official, the US is now a single party state. :laugh:

[BashTheFash]

In a different thread it says that Obama hinted at sending MORE troops to Afghanistan, which If I remember correctly he opposed when he began campaigning.

Now at the top of this page it says he agreed they could not tolerate a nuclear Iran. I'm sure I remember him saying he didn't support the sanctions on Iran and that dialogue not sanctions was needed :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

Words from your fellow Communists: (the UPUSA website.)

The Communist Party USA views the 2008 elections as a tremendous opportunity to defeat the policies of the right-wing Republicans and to move our country in a new progressive direction.

The record turnout in the Democratic Presidential primary races shows that millions of voters, including millions of new voters, are using this election to bring about real change. We wholeheartedly agree with them.

While we do not endorse any particular candidates, we do endorse and join in the anti-Bush/anti-right wing sentiments that are driving so many people to activism.

The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies.

Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

[jake williams]

On taxation:
In the interest of complete honesty, Obama said this in the context of saying, well, you shouldn't look at taxes "on paper" because that's not an accurate measure, really they're very low, and so on.

That said, I haven't had any respect of or trust for Obama for about as long as I've known about him. I think it would be fantastic to elect a black president, and sure he's said things I agree with and done things I think are good (or at least he may have twenty years ago), but mostly he's a great big brand, empty of any real substance. But we should be fair.

[IcarusAngel]

u5WiE6MnmCM

mwYKA12s9VE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q8jm0to5Os

[Killfacer]

Ah, but with Mcain likely to die in a couple of months, then it will be Sarah Palin. Obama is certainly better than that freak.

[pusher robot]

Ah, but with Mcain likely to die in a couple of months, then it will be Sarah Palin. Obama is certainly better than that freak.

What? This isn't Logan's Run, there are no sandmen. 72 isn't even beyond the average life expectancy.

[Killfacer]

Yeah but it's around about. A year in power and your gonna be stuck with Palin.

[spartan]

Well McCain has been chipping away at his lead in the polls so Obama obviously believes that some of McCains position on things is whats leading people (especially vital floating voters) to his camp.

Therefore he does what comes naturally to a politician and steals some of his popular opponents positions on things to remedy the problem.

It's called politics.

[Glenn Beck]

I noticed this as well. I can't believe he actually kind of had me at one point.

Of course, his left-liberal apologists will likely excuse this on grounds of "pragmatism" and "respect".


Yes, because centrism and "triangulation" have been working so fantastically for left-liberals and social-democrats :rolleyes:

So are the Democrats stubborn because of stupidity, or do they do it on purpose?

[Lenin's Law]

Well McCain has been chipping away at his lead in the polls so Obama obviously believes that some of McCains position on things is whats leading people (especially vital floating voters) to his camp.


Oh I see, so when faced with a right wing extremist, the correct tactic is not to launch a campaign mercilessly attacking his views and exposing him to the American people but adapting them in the hope of winning his voters...thus agreeing to limit the spectrum of debate into a narrow-right wing polemic leaving no room for working class opinion.



Therefore he does what comes naturally to a (bourgeois, ruling class) politician and steals some of his popular opponents positions on things to remedy the problem.


Yes, stealing right-wing extremist positions will surely "remedy" the problem.



It's called (bourgeois) politics


Correct. And it usually involves the Democrat lurching more and more to the right to the point where he's virtually indistuingable from the Republican.

Which is why revolutionary leftists are against it and must demonstrate to the working class why this farce in no way represents their interests.

[spartan]

Oh I see, so when faced with a right wing extremist, the correct tactic is not to launch a campaign mercilessly attacking his views and exposing him to the American people but adapting them in the hope of winning his voters...thus agreeing to limit the spectrum of debate into a narrow-right wing polemic leaving no room for working class opinion.

That's the nature of American politics.

If the Democrats don't shift radically to the right come election time, then they wont get into power (and even then it sometimes doesn't work like with Kerry).

The majority of Americans are so braiwashed that they happily uphold and support stuff that is bad for them (except for the recent bailout bill where I was happy to see that the majority of Americans were against bailing out the fat cats).

So even if a progressive party has some good ideas which we could identify with (gay rights, supporting abortion, etc), the chances are it will just leave them in the political wilderness.


Yes, stealing right-wing extremist positions will surely "remedy" the problem.

I am not saying that it is good, I was simply pointing out the fact that the Democrats won't win an election saying "we support abortion, gay rights, etc, etc" because Americans are, by and large, fucking reactionary to the extreme.:(

Which is why we see the shift to the right where they pander to the Evangelists and come out with chauvinistic foreign policy statements.

I wasn't arguing for the Democrats or anything, I was just giving my two cents on why the Democrats shift to the right come election time.

The real question is are the Democrats merely doing this to win votes and get into power, by which time they will abandon the reactionary shit?

[Lenin's Law]

That's the nature of American politics.


Why? Because the American worker is naturally right wing or because of a powerful bourgeois domination of media and and its two main political parties?




The majority of Americans are so braiwashed that they happily uphold and support stuff that is bad for them


That is actually bourgeois propaganda; most Americans, despite near total unanimity between the major capitalist parties and the corporate media have opinions far to the left of either party.



So even if a progressive party has some good ideas which we could identify with (gay rights, supporting abortion, etc), the chances are it will just leave them in the political wilderness.


Again you have no class analysis here. Is it because the American people are inherently right wing or because of a ruling class monopoly on the media, the main political parties. Very cynical political outlook by the way.



I am not saying that it is good, I was simply pointing out the fact that the Democrats won't win an election saying "we support abortion, gay rights, etc, etc" because Americans are, by and large, fucking reactionary to the extreme.:(


Not true. Most Americans are for gay rights and abortion. There may be certain elements of it that cause controversy like "partial birth abortion" but on the main issue abortion itself most are for it. Again this sounds like a lot of the bash-Americans (all Americans, not just the ruling class or the bourgeoisie) that is popular among some sections of the radical-left.



I was just giving my two cents on why the Democrats shift to the right come election time.


The two big business parties of capital reflect bourgeois interests and bourgeois values...do you really think they would reflect the values of "the people?" When does the bourgeoisie represent the people in any country?

If a poll came out and said "90% of Americans support socialism!!" Do you really think Obama (or McCain) would suddenly become socialists? No, right? Why then? Because they represent the interests that are funding and supporting their campaigns; Wall street and big business.



The real question is are the Democrats merely doing this to win votes and get into power, by which time they will abandon the reactionary shit


When have the Democrats not been reactionary?

[Bud Struggle]

Obama is as close as America will ever come to Revolutionary Marxism. That seems to be the belief of the Communist Party of the United States.

Personally, I think they nailed it.

Get out the VOTE!

http://americandigest.org/obama.jpg

[Plagueround]

Obama is as close as America will ever come to Revolutionary Marxism. That seems to be the belief of the Communist Party of the United States.

Perhaps they've finally realized what other organizations have realized about them long ago: The CPUSA is now a joke.


Personally, I think they nailed it.

Or they'll be extremely wrong when Obama reveals himself to be another Clintonian centerist democrat (which I feel he already has, I guess others haven't caught on).


Get out the VOTE!

http://americandigest.org/obama.jpg

I must agree when I saw this poster, I couldn't help but think how "old school commie" it looked. ;)

[pusher robot]

That is actually bourgeois propaganda; most Americans, despite near total unanimity between the major capitalist parties and the corporate media have opinions far to the left of either party.

Just curious - where do you live?

[IcarusAngel]

Where does the CPUSA explicitly state that Obama is the closer we've ever come, or ever will come, to communism TomK?

And FDR was technically far more left-wing. Some of Jefferson's ideas, of Jeffersonian democracy, are also leftist in nature.

[IcarusAngel]

I recommend MSNBC for the VP debate tonight...

[Bud Struggle]

Where does the CPUSA explicitly state that Obama is the closer we've ever come, or ever will come, to communism TomK?


What I said was:
Obama is as close as America will ever come to Revolutionary Marxism. That seems to be the belief of the Communist Party of the United States.

From what I see--the CPUSA isn't looking for "revolution" they are looking for liberal. Also, I agree with your point about FDR--his Four Fereedoms speech dehumanized mankind into a meat machine of wants and needs. Quite Marxist.