Obama candidacy stirs racist/white supremacist web sites

#77
#77
volinbham said:
He's still a powerful speaker. He's young. He's AA. He's the better looking candidate (research shows people go for the more attractive choice).

On the other hand, his great speeches are full of claiming to be above the fray while his actions are square in it.

I would have assumed that the intensity of his support would have waned by now as people realize he is a typical politician but so far it doesn't seem to have happened.
Click to expand...

he is the perfect storm. And that does not mean it is a good thing.
 
#82
#82
KB5252 said:
energy, economy, defense, illegal immigrants/ guest worker program w/no amnesty......... In that order.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think if he hammers the energy and gas issue non stop from here to Novemeber, he would win. People have put up with these environmental wackos as just a nuissance for a long time. Now that it is impacting their wallets, they are sick of them.
 
#83
#83
VolByBirth said:
Not true. The introduction of GSE's (Fannie/Freddie) into the market has and will forever change the mortgage industry. Excluding exotic loans that didn't require income documentation the debt-to-income ratios required by these entities is significantly higher and has remained higher even through this tight credit market -- higher than "old school" mortgage guidelines. This means an individual can qualify for more than they used to in the past with no actual income increase. That being said, it is, for the most part, a one-time event. So I'm splitting hairs.

The GSE's didn't change the fundamentals of underwriting a mortgage and those who believed that they did are now paying a significant price for their stupidity. Housing prices are fundamentally tied to income levels and that is never going to change. Those who forget that are destined to get creamed on the downswing every time. The GSEs simply provided a balance sheet to the market so that mortgage lenders could broaden their appetite for paper, then made it such that the mortgage business turned into a fee driven world. Bad set of facts.

As for housing destroying artificial wealth -- you might get away with that argument when people are counting the equity in their homes but that's only when people actually have equity in their homes. You seem to forget that the prevalence of 100% financing and adjustable rates has created a disgusting amount of individuals in a negative equity position. The overall home equity position in the U.S. is at an all-time low.

Your negative equity argument absolutely supports my point that housing valuations are tied to income and anything over and above that should never have become equity (hence it was just paper equity with no value), so only perceived equity was destroyed. Inflation destroyed purchasing power and diminished asset values much more broadly and quickly.

- Savings are being spent on attempting to maintain a home with an inflating payment and no ability to refinance. Deflation of wealth.
- Savings are being spent on liquidating homes that are "under water". Deflation of wealth.
- Portfolios are being destroyed by enormous stock losses in the financial services arena - directly attributable to MBS's, CDO's, and other mortgage related security instruments. Deflation of wealth.

There is no doubt that the housing correction has been material to our economy as your overblown points suggest, but had pricing moved as it should, this correction wouldn't have been necessary. Rampant speculation in all markets eventually causes this sort of pain, but in the end, pricing will end up back on course with where it was originally headed. So your wealth deflation points are simply moot. It's similar to the wealth falsely created in the tech boom on Wall St. It had no fundamental basis and had to end. It is now ending.

Mortgage related CDO's are imploding for exactly the same reason - everyone forgot the reasoning behind underwriting a mortgage. Again, the wealth being destroyed was simply overblown in the first place. The bank valuations will return and the CDO market will iron itself out.

.

- Bonds and stocks are no longer inverses in this market as we struggle with equity losses and inflation. Though bonds are starting to post minor gains. Diversification is not salvaging a portfolio.

I don't get this point in the least. While the two are different investments and tend to be inverses, the adage has only held true based upon capital flows. The capital now flows to different spots and much of it has now flowed to the commodities arena. The demand for bonds hasn't driven their pricing, even though the capital has left the equities markets. The old adage will prove to be less and less true over time as more and more investment options exist.
- The weakness of the dollar is leading to massive foreign investment as our fixed assets (real estate) continue to fall. This movement of assets to a balance sheet outside the country is an enormous loss of wealth.

The cheap dollar and increasing fuel pricing are definitely impacting us all. We have artificially cheapened the dollar in an effort to provide liquidity to the market. That liquidity has been sucked out by good money chasing bad mortgages. Again, same problem.

The dollar had to deflate at some point relative to the other currencies because of the BOP account problems it generates and the cyclical nature of relative pricing. It won't last forever and speculation in fuel has as much to do with the price of oil as does the weakened dollar.


Simply put, the housing market crisis has forced the Fed to cut rates and stave off temporary stock market collapses. These rates cuts have led to the weak dollar which leads to massive foreign investment. Foreign investment is nothing more than picking up U.S. assets and placing them on foreign balance sheets. At least we get the tax revenue though....

the Fed has not cut rates to avoid stock market collapses. They have cut rates to retain some liquidity in the market and it has been necessary because the fed itself has so hampered lending practices in its typical knee jerk overreaction style. The weak dollar is impacted by those cuts but is also impacted in about 5,000 other ways by many other factors (mostly demand, which has fallen off because of the massive overinvestment when the dollar was a safe harbor).

US assets heading to foreign balance sheets is always going to happen and is a typical ebb and flow. Alarmists claimed the demise of America was imminent when the Japanese were investing piles of capital in the US back in the 80s. How'd that work out?
Click to expand...

see bold above.
 
#86
#86
volinbham said:
I would have assumed that the intensity of his support would have waned by now as people realize he is a typical politician but so far it doesn't seem to have happened.
Click to expand...

Big picture - I honestly think he'd be a great leader - someone who will help change the tenor in this country and make a bold statement to the world. I think he'd inspire people to do more. And I think the more his detractors see him lead, they might actually come around to him. That's just one man's opinion.

No candidate is going to be perfect. He wants to win the election.
 
#87
#87
TennNC said:
Big picture - I honestly think he'd be a great leader - someone who will help change the tenor in this country and make a bold statement to the world. I think he'd inspire people to do more. And I think the more his detractors see him lead, they might actually come around to him. That's just one man's opinion.

No candidate is going to be perfect. He wants to win the election.
Click to expand...

oh please. that's the "Obamassiah" complex. If being a great leader was all about getting in front of a teleprompter and causing people to faint, then Bruce Springsteen should have been President a long time ago.

Obama's socialist policies and his desire to make the US look more like Europe should be red flags to anybody.
 
#88
#88
volinbham said:
FYP
Click to expand...

In some aspects, yes.

He's atypical in the amount of support, grassroots support especially, and fundraising. I think he's the first president in my lifetime who truly speaks to my generation (X). Clinton played the sax, but he's a Boomer who plays to Boomers. A whole bunch of people obviously are enthusiastic about his campaign and the thought of him as president. I don't think he's drawing the type of support from a typical politician.

In fact, 9 years ago I would've said McCain was atypical, but not now. Perhaps unfortunately for him, as you've pointed out, his race, his age, his tenure in Washington and his relatively poor speaking abilities make him appear far more typical in comparison.
 
#89
#89
MG1968 said:
oh please. that's the "Obamassiah" complex. If being a great leader was all about getting in front of a teleprompter and causing people to faint, then Bruce Springsteen should have been President a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I work in advertising. What I do is to help create and foster brands. He's got one hell of a brand, whether you like him or not. I happen to think it's an important trait -- perhaps the most important trait. Even those who hated Reagan agreed he had a great brand and was very effective at using the power of the Reagan brand.

Let's draft the Boss for president - I'm in.
 
#90
#90
TennNC said:
Big picture - I honestly think he'd be a great leader - someone who will help change the tenor in this country and make a bold statement to the world. I think he'd inspire people to do more. And I think the more his detractors see him lead, they might actually come around to him. That's just one man's opinion.

No candidate is going to be perfect. He wants to win the election.
Click to expand...

I respect your view but to me he has only shown the ability to capitalize on a negative sentiment and make an inspiring speech.

The more I see him do exactly what he says he's above, the more cynical I become. He's used a populist message at a time when people are tired of the status quo.

In short, I don't get a bit of inspiration from him. In fact, the more I listen to him make claims of one thing then do another the more discouraged I become that he might win.
 
#91
#91
TennNC said:
I work in advertising. What I do is to help create and foster brands. He's got one hell of a brand, whether you like him or not. I happen to think it's an important trait -- perhaps the most important trait. Even those who hated Reagan agreed he had a great brand and was very effective at using the power of the Reagan brand.

Let's draft the Boss for president - I'm in.
Click to expand...

I think the brand analogy is a good one. What I question is the substance behind the sizzle. To me, there are already too many incongruities to maintain the brand.
 
#92
#92
TennNC said:
I work in advertising. What I do is to help create and foster brands. He's got one hell of a brand, whether you like him or not. I happen to think it's an important trait -- perhaps the most important trait. Even those who hated Reagan agreed he had a great brand and was very effective at using the power of the Reagan brand.
Click to expand...


that's terribly shallow. To think that we're going to elect a man president because he looks good in an Armani suit.

I was taught that the clothes don't make the man, I guess that's why I never worked in advertising.
 
#93
#93
MG1968 said:
that's terribly shallow. To think that we're going to elect a man president because he looks good in an Armani suit.

I was taught that the clothes don't make the man, I guess that's why I never worked in advertising.
Click to expand...

... but it does explain why some people will vote for Obama. Style over substance.
 
#94
#94
MG1968 said:
that's terribly shallow. To think that we're going to elect a man president because he looks good in an Armani suit.

I was taught that the clothes don't make the man, I guess that's why I never worked in advertising.
Click to expand...

Correct. He is like the pretty lights, the kids are amazed by him.
 
#95
#95
TennNC said:
Big picture - I honestly think he'd be a great leader - someone who will help change the tenor in this country and make a bold statement to the world. I think he'd inspire people to do more. And I think the more his detractors see him lead, they might actually come around to him. That's just one man's opinion.

No candidate is going to be perfect. He wants to win the election.
Click to expand...
I know we've had this debate before, but your basing this on a very tailored messages and actions from a guy who delivers it well (depending on your viewpoint). I have seen nothing from the man that screams this leadership of which you speak.
 
#96
#96
I will say this about a thousand times but Obama will be our first American Idol president!
 
#97
#97
MG1968 said:
that's terribly shallow. To think that we're going to elect a man president because he looks good in an Armani suit.

I was taught that the clothes don't make the man, I guess that's why I never worked in advertising.
Click to expand...

You're misinterpreting what "brand" means. It's not just the logo or packaging. Here's one definition: "A brand is a collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer." Boil it down to a consistent theme:

Reagan stood for something - balls.

Obama stands for something - change.

Since you brought it up, though, here's an interesting blog interview about Obama and branding in a design sense:

Stumper : Expertinent: Why the Obama "Brand" Is Working
 
#98
#98
BigPapaVol said:
I know we've had this debate before, but your basing this on a very tailored messages and actions from a guy who delivers it well (depending on your viewpoint). I have seen nothing from the man that screams this leadership of which you speak.
Click to expand...

And thus more proof that we have different perspectives.
 
#99
#99
TennNC said:
You're misinterpreting what "brand" means. It's not just the logo or packaging. Here's one definition: "A brand is a collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer." Boil it down to a consistent theme:

Reagan stood for something - balls.

Obama stands for something - change.

Since you brought it up, though, here's an interesting blog interview about Obama and branding in a design sense:

Stumper : Expertinent: Why the Obama "Brand" Is Working
Click to expand...


CHANGE?????????

It is the same old crap to the 9th degree!
 
#100
#100
volinbham said:
I think the brand analogy is a good one. What I question is the substance behind the sizzle. To me, there are already too many incongruities to maintain the brand.
Click to expand...

It's getting dinged for sure. But brands have an amazing ability to come back.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top