BF2S Forums Why vote for Obama?

So far, I'm going to vote for the real black guy, Herman "twice as black as Obama" Cain

here or here

Twice as black, twice as smart, more educated, and he actually has a decent resume.

Obama couldn't win against him.

oug wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

So far, I'm going to vote for the real black guy, Herman "twice as black as Obama" Cain

I just saw this Who is Herman Cain video, don't know anything else about this guy so I'm not gonna jump to any conclusions, but what exactly does he mean by "this country needs to be run like a business"?

As far as I know a company's success is determined solely on whether it's making a profit. Scary for a government agenda that... What do you think...?

Efficient and lean.

just because its run like one doesnt mean it will be

That sounds very un-American, rdx.

Jay wrote:

oug wrote:

Yeah but... ok so he's gonna be the CEO and the government will be the board? And where does that leave the voter? The worker? The expendable tool? And how does this profit get distributed?
I don't know... the whole idea behind a government running like a business seems dodgy. The efficiency part is ok, but for a government to be successful there are so many more factors it needs to get right other than profit...

How is it that you think a company becomes profitable? By screwing the customer? Customers only take so much before they rebel and go to a competitor. Good customer service is far more important than you seem to credit.

>implying there's really a competitor when it comes to government

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-10-08 11:27:59)

Jay wrote:

How is it that you think a company becomes profitable? By screwing the customer? Customers only take so much before they rebel and go to a competitor. Good customer service is far more important than you seem to credit.

Unfortunately, all of the corporations are legally obligated to screw their customers, in order to service their shareholders.
(As an aside - All of them are also putting out cheap, shitty products - designed by brain-dead committee and assembled in China)

Hard to take your ball and go elsewhere, when all the players are playing the same game.

To my view, the legal obligation to the shareholder is a key flaw in our current system.
Results in a short-sighted obsession with maximizing near term profits, at the expense of the long term well-being of the company. This shareholder first fixation sacrifices company reputation, product quality, customer satisfaction, employee motivation, and R&D.
"Build a quality product, profits will follow"

A corporation should have legal obligations to their employees and customers, not the shareholders.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Jay wrote:

oug wrote:

Yeah but... ok so he's gonna be the CEO and the government will be the board? And where does that leave the voter? The worker? The expendable tool? And how does this profit get distributed?
I don't know... the whole idea behind a government running like a business seems dodgy. The efficiency part is ok, but for a government to be successful there are so many more factors it needs to get right other than profit...

How is it that you think a company becomes profitable? By screwing the customer? Customers only take so much before they rebel and go to a competitor. Good customer service is far more important than you seem to credit.

>implying there's really a competitor when it comes to government

For people? Not so much. For business? Very much so.

Macbeth wrote:

So I was reading about how the Fed's increasing pressure on the pot industry in Cali and I began to wonder what has Obama and the democrats actually done the last 3 years?

I am a bit to the right when it comes to economics and am pretty hawkish but am also far left when it comes to social issues. Social issues are the things that decide who I vote for.

Under Obama the pot industry is getting harrased more, illegal deports are up, states are making abortions harder to get, etc. So on the social front what has Obama and the democrats done to make me vote for Obama instead of a social moderate Repub?

That makes no sense to me. Social issues don't run the country, make the economy successful or a failure, make for solid domestic or foreign policy. You can't effectively legislate an individual's values.

And where do you get that the Obama administration has made abortions harder to get? If states are doing it, it's not the Obama administration.

oug wrote:

As far as I know a company's success is determined solely on whether it's making a profit. Scary for a government agenda that... What do you think...?

I get it. A government's agenda should be to lose money.

It all makes sense now.

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That makes no sense to me. Social issues don't run the country, make the economy successful or a failure, make for solid domestic or foreign policy. You can't effectively legislate an individual's values.

I could move to find a better economy. I can move to a country that has a foreign policy more in line with my views.  Moving to a freer country that is also American isn't possible. China's economy is doing well, for now, but I wouldn't want to live in China.. It's the same way here.

You could also move to a place with social mores more in line with yours. You wouldn't want to live somewhere where they legislate them. Voting based on that is ludicrous.

Macbeth wrote:

And it's not about changing people world views. It's about making sure people can't force their world down everyone elses throat. Which the social cons seem hell bent on.

But the libs aren't?

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And where do you get that the Obama administration has made abortions harder to get? If states are doing it, it's not the Obama administration.

I didn't. There has been a flurry of bills in multiple states putting restrictions on abortion. The Obama administration hasn't so much as even commented on them.

Could be because it's the Supreme Court's role, not the administration's.

Again it's not about forcing anyone to live in a certain way. It's about making sure people who want to live a certain way can regardless of what the majority believes. I believe every human being has total authority to do as they please with their bodies. A law removing restrictions on what people can do with their own bodies as long as it doesn't harm anyone else isn't forcing anything on anyone. It's not legislating social norms, it's protecting human rights.

The President enforces the law and rulings of the SCOTUS. The DOJ can very well at least try to legally block some of the bills, as it does with some of the immigration stuff, along the lines of making sure RvW isn't subverted. The admin can also use some of that soft power of theirs and try to sway public opinion against such bills. But they have done neither.