Barack Obama's type (old discussions)

[tcaudilllg]

In 2004 there was a concerted effort by network producers at the Big 3 television networks to show the immediate reaction of either candidate to the other's stance. This was a departure from the tradition of giving the speaking candidate either the undivided attention of the cameras, or, in the case of interruptions by either candidate, casting either in a panoramic view.

It's just a feint, and quite frankly boneheaded ploy to create an semblance of artificial restraint by the candidates. The radical side of saint influence at work: masking the problem because it's too hurtful to hear about, I guess. People were upset -- all of a sudden -- when they saw Kerry and Bush go at it. That said, I think that it was just the conservative communitarian swing voters who were upset, because they think they have to be the final judges of how people react to each other. In any case, an itty bitty minority is a voting minority, so there ya go.

[ann2430]

I don't think that means that much, actually. First, they know each other from the Senate -- McCain has said that in an YouTube interview early in the campaign. Second, it won't be the first time candidates don't attack each other; for instance, the Cheney-Lieberman debate of 2000 was noted by the mutual courtesy and even appreciation. Even the Gore-Bush debates weren't particularly aggressive. I think candidates know that if they appear as too aggressive they will put people off.

Okay, well maybe their abscence of personal attacks doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I still definitely think McCain is an ISTj. I'm almost positive about that. I'm not sure about Obama but I think he could be ENFj. Most likely he is some sort of ENFx because of his charisma and ability to talk.

[Drommel]

If you'd paid attention to supersocion theory you'd understand by now that theories of incentive are largely non-existent. The people who actually pay for these drugs to be researched aren't only looking to make money -- they want to solve the problem of their non-existence primarily. Money is something that they get in return for the service, but only so that they can invest it toward new problem solving techniques. Those cash sums are so huge anyhow that it doesn't really matter whether they are taxed by an extra 2%. If the drug is any good, they'll make more than enough to recoup their investment. If it turns out bad, then that's their fault and they should bear the responsibility for the loss of being taken in by a nutcase. (e.g. radicals and ambitious persons)

It goes without saying that the success of socialized medicine in Europe destroys your arguments.

I think you're here just to stir up trouble, not to talk socionics.

It takes billions of dollars to develop and test a drug. It takes a long time to recover that investment even with patent protection. Without patent protection, generic drug manufacturers would be able to piggy back that research, undercutting the researcher, driving them out of business. This has nothing to do with personality theories and everything to do with basic economics.

Define success. Britian has universal coverage, but a worse cancer survival rate than America. Canada has universal coverage, but waiting lines that are so long that illegal private practices are booming. You can't escape basic economics. You can have universal coverage or quality care, you can't have both.

You're right that I'm not here to talk socionics. I'm here to inform the uninformed.

[force my hand]

Hmmm................duh!

You didn't answer the question dumbass - I don't care about your government, I'm asking you if you believe the economy is doing well. Clearly you think so, which means you deserve whichever lying douche bag you vote in.

[Nexus]

You didn't answer the question dumbass - I don't care about your government, I'm asking you if you believe the economy is doing well. Clearly you think so, which means you deserve whichever lying douche bag you vote in.

People make bad bets every day. That one major corporation did does not mean that the entire economy is failing. Why is it that corporate value is always blown out of proportion on Wall Street, and when it cannot be justified due to the limitations of the company then everything else collapses, and the government is blamed?

[force my hand]

People make bad bets every day. That one major corporation did does not mean that the entire economy is failing.

Nor was that suggestion made, if I'm not mistaken. I certainly didn't make it. It's an issue of how strong it is, and the idea that those who believe it's doing well are mistaken.

Four headlines right in a row on Yahoo! business news:

- Stocks open sharply lower ahead of bailout vote AP
- Bush confident bailout bill will stabilize economy AP
- Fed takes fresh steps to battle credit crisis AP
- Consumer spending weakens as stimulus fades AP

Why is it that corporate value is always blown out of proportion on Wall Street, and when it cannot be justified due to the limitations of the company then everything else collapses, and the government is blamed?

This is a good point. Largely because that's what constitutes political discourse in North America. Had the Democrats been in power during this crisis, Republicans/conservatives would be screaming bloody murder. Plus, while I'm not very well versed in economics (it's one thing I'm planning to study a bit more so I actually *can* debate), I think it would be a hard argument to prove that the declining USD was not in any way linked to the actions of the Bush administration.

[Nexus]

Nor was that suggestion made, if I'm not mistaken. I certainly didn't make it. It's an issue of how strong it is, and the idea that those who believe it's doing well are mistaken.

Four headlines right in a row on Yahoo! business news:

- Stocks open sharply lower ahead of bailout vote AP
- Bush confident bailout bill will stabilize economy AP
- Fed takes fresh steps to battle credit crisis AP
- Consumer spending weakens as stimulus fades AP

This is a good point. Largely because that's what constitutes political discourse in North America. Had the Democrats been in power during this crisis, Republicans/conservatives would be screaming bloody murder. Plus, while I'm not very well versed in economics (it's one thing I'm planning to study a bit more so I actually *can* debate), I think it would be a hard argument to prove that the declining USD was not in any way linked to the actions of the Bush administration.

The relative value of money in a country (as far as I know) is directly related to the amount of production (capital) and export (demand) from that country.

[force my hand]

The relative value of money in a country (as far as I know) is directly related to the amount of production (capital) and export (demand) from that country.

...as well as demand for the currency, based on outstanding loans and confidence in this currency?

[Nexus]

...as well as demand for the currency, based on outstanding loans and confidence in this currency?

Perhaps, but the government can only ensure confidence to a small degree in the form of social stability. Everything else is directly related to the factors that I mentioned. Remember that currency is only a trade medium to facilitate bartering, it represents the value of what can be bought and sold, and that is what is really important.

[Expat]

Perhaps, but the government can only ensure confidence to a small degree in the form of social stability. Everything else is directly related to the factors that I mentioned.

But the point force my hand raised had nothing to do with what the government does or not. For instance, if people have more confidence in the longer-term perspective of the dollar than the euro - rightly or wrongly - they will prefer to buy longer-term bonds in dollars, which increases the present demand for the dolllar - and that may go totally against present levels of demand in terms of export and production.

[Nexus]

But the point force my hand raised had nothing to do with what the government does or not. For instance, if people have more confidence in the longer-term perspective of the dollar than the euro - rightly or wrongly - they will prefer to buy longer-term bonds in dollars, which increases the present demand for the dolllar - and that may go totally against present levels of demand in terms of export and production.

That is exactly what happens to stocks. However, I believe that his original point was to discredit McCain and I could not see the correlation.

[Expat]

That is exactly what happens to stocks. However, I believe that his original point was to discredit McCain and I could not see the correlation.

*shrugs* I think that anyone who tries to blame any single administration, and/or any single Congress, for the present crisis is just being opportunistic.

[Hitta]

I don't know if you fools have noticed, but Obama isn't a fucking ENFj .. He is ILI-Ni . Who watched the debate ? Obama rationally dissected McCain . .. ENFj does ~not~ speak that way , at all . He also VIs as ILI-Ni . Go reread the descriptions for VI on ILI .

Now I'm trying to completely disassociate myself from Socionics, because I don't think it really describes a person completely; but you actually think that Obama is an INTp. That has to be the craziest typing I have ever seen.

[tcaudilllg]

It takes billions of dollars to develop and test a drug. It takes a long time to recover that investment even with patent protection. Without patent protection, generic drug manufacturers would be able to piggy back that research, undercutting the researcher, driving them out of business. This has nothing to do with personality theories and everything to do with basic economics.

20 years is a long time. If private industry doesn't fund it, the government will. Why are you talking about it in this forum, of all places? Anything Goes is the place for this. Generic drug manufacturers... hmm. Then in the meantime, we pay these companies huge billions to complete their research? Why not award contracts from the government then? Who are these wealthy scions of man to decide what drugs do and don't get funding? Eh I want the drug but I don't want to pay ridiculous sums for it. I have to wonder why it takes billions and billions for a small cadre of researchers to repeatedly test the effects of a drug on a focus group. Something doesn't add up. I'll bet if you took marketing out of the mix, you'd end up with a MUCH smaller sum.

Define success. Britian has universal coverage, but a worse cancer survival rate than America. Canada has universal coverage, but waiting lines that are so long that illegal private practices are booming. You can't escape basic economics. You can have universal coverage or quality care, you can't have both.

A worse rate... I have to believe that it wouldn't have survived if it wasn't the most optimal solution. Waiting lines are long in the States, too, depending on where you live.

By universal coverage, we're talking about getting your pills for a big discount. No one's saying your back surgery will be free. Nobody.

You're right that I'm not here to talk socionics. I'm here to inform the uninformed.

And we aren't listening. Health insurance ain't cheap, and it only takes off part of the edge of health care's cost. The problem is the ridiculous cost of health care. Somebody needs to have a pay cut.

[Expat]

Now I'm trying to completely disassociate myself from Socionics, because I don't think it really describes a person completely; but you actually think that Obama is an INTp. That has to be the craziest typing I have ever seen.

Indeed.

[discojoe]

Now I'm trying to completely disassociate myself from Socionics, because I don't think it really describes a person completely; but you actually think that Obama is an INTp. That has to be the craziest typing I have ever seen.

Not so crazy when the fact that crazedrat is literally retarded is taken into account.

[crazedrat]

i am going to rape you to death discojoe . then i am going to cut you open and bury your ribs in places where only I know about .

[discojoe]

i am going to rape you to death discojoe . then i am going to cut you open and bury your ribs in places where only I know about .

So which taxes were you talking about raising?

[force my hand]

However, I believe that his original point was to discredit McCain and I could not see the correlation.

That was not my point at all, seeing as how I never stated anything of that nature and explicitly said, "I don't care about your government" - which, in all honesty, isn't entirely true, but was said clarify that the whole McCain/Obama didn't enter into my satire.

(That said, if I have an opinion, I usually don't balk in giving it.)

My contention is with the predominantly-conservative notion that there's nothing wrong with the US economy, or perhaps more true to the argument, that the problems aren't really 'problems' at all for x, y, z reasons. But the fact remains is that no matter how much spin is involved, the economy is 'not good' and/or 'worse than before'.

As someone who is admittedly unequipped to debate economics, I can't back my feeling up, but it is such that I think the Bush administration is more responsible for the current economic conditions within the US than McCain supporters are willing to admit. Were I an American I would have researched the issue to the extent of being able to make that link; as it is, I may still do so in the near future if I continue to see such sentiment around the internet.

[discojoe]

@crazedrat: Your silence is revealing.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

isn't more inherently manipulative than any other function. Your weaknesses are showing. I think I'll take advantage of you now.

[crazedrat]

does it reveal that i have a life discojoe? maybe it reveals that i don't have a girlfriend on here. or maybe that i'm not a fag. either way, i do want to chop off your head

[discojoe]

does it reveal that i have a life discojoe? maybe it reveals that i don't have a girlfriend on here. or maybe that i'm not a fag. either way, i do want to chop off your head

You're not going to answer me, are you?

lols!

[crazedrat]

i don't know enough about it , so a debate would be useless . the other folks on here seem to know much more so i am listening to them and watching them talk about it . but no discojoe , i'm not going to answer you , because you have said nothing of value on this thread and know nothing about this topic , and you're once again sponging onto the thoughts of your friends as if you have any clue what the fuck is going on . i enjoy thinking of killing you . that is what i am focused on right now . i want to kill you , and watch you scream .

[discojoe]

i don't know enough about it , so a debate would be useless .

I never would have guessed.

the other folks on here seem to know much more so i am listening to them and watching them talk about it . but no discojoe , i'm not going to answer you , because you have said nothing of value on this thread and know nothing about this topic , and you're once again sponging onto the thoughts of your friends as if you have any clue what the fuck is going on . i enjoy thinking of killing you . that is what i am focused on right now . i want to kill you , and watch you scream .

LOL

[Expat]

How can anyone NOT vote for BHO after watching this?

[marooned]

ya . and that is one reason why people like him . he comes across as more authentic , and less manipulative , than other politicians today ; and that he says what he genuinely thinks .

Yes he's really a master at how he comes across. It's his . leading, especially EIE imo, can be very talented at coming across whatever way it wants to.

[crazedrat]

it is possible he is IEI . IMO He is too logically articulate for IEI , but I'm not going to argue that .. it is too subjective of a point . I think it is obvious he is not an extravert , though

[discojoe]

it is possible he is IEI . IMO He is too logically articulate for IEI , but I'm not going to argue that .. it is too subjective of a point . I think it is obvious he is not an extravert , though

Hey, just like you!

[Gilly]

lol

"logically articulate"...ahahaha that's a good one.

[crazedrat]

he is way too intelligent to be ENFj ... sorry tcaud .. (i still dont buy it for you , .. but w/e)

[Nexus]

he is way too intelligent to be ENFj ... sorry tcaud .. (i still dont buy it for you , .. but w/e)

I think that I can agree that he is not my dual, but not because he is too intelligent. I think he could actually be IEE.

[tcaudilllg]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...ipt/index.html

God, Sarah Palin is stupid. Very stupid.

But she's stupid in a radical, extreme way. All of her attacks are against Obama for expressing dissent. That's dangerous. I can't think of a time a politician was attacked in such a forum -- or even in public -- for dissenting with the president's strategy. Yes, in the halls of Congress where there are too many radicals already, but never in a presidential campaign.

If there is a difference between Sarah Palin and Barry Goldwater, then it must be their sex. I can't see any differences otherwise, and everyone knew Goldwater was an avowed conservative extremist.

These statements are damning. She is a scary, scary woman.

[Nexus]

I could see IEE, too, but the EIEs I've known, a lot of them, anyways, come off as intelligent.

That's funny...me too.

[Rick]

I think I agree with you, and I happen to be reading "The Audacity of Hope" right now. There are a number of anti-EIE aspects. For one, he emphasizes over and over again his ability to see things from different perspectives and relate to different views and to where people are coming from, as well as an ability to clearly separate the person from their views and not demonize them for holding 'wrong' views or pursuing wrongheaded policies. Not that EIEs can't do this, but they seem to be inexorably drawn to a 'single right answer.' Obama seems to be an un-polarizing figure rather than a polarizing one, which EIEs (in my experience) seem to strive to be. He talks about values and ethics a lot, but the 'answer' is not in any particular set of values, rather a mental recognition of the importance of values. Plurality of viewpoints seems to be a very strong theme in the book.

There are personal anecdotes in the book as well that may point away from EIE, such as him being a dispassionate person -- one who does not get caught up in emotions. His story of teaching constitutional law for 9 (?) years also did not sound like something where he was getting any gratification.

This could point to a type such as IEE or ILE, but his book is full of story after story with wry, low-key humor. In my experience, these types are not such good storytellers, and tend to emphasize analysis over the experiences themselves. I have a slight preference for LIE, but I can see where the EIE typing comes from. I might consider EII, too.

[munenori2]

He talks about values and ethics a lot, but the 'answer' is not in any particular set of values, rather a mental recognition of the importance of values. Plurality of viewpoints seems to be a very strong theme in the book.

I might consider EII, too.

The above, particularly the bolded was what struck me the most in reading it. Also, I remember it was my first introduction to Obama (I read it without knowing who he was and before the limelight was really cast on him). My first impression of the work was something along the lines of, "Oh, this guy thinks so much like I do!". So much so that I went out and bought his memoirs that week and read it back to back in a couple of days. Since I generally find memoirs boring, that says something to me personally.

[duality is cringe]

IEI, because I think he's Fe creative and Beta.

[Creepy-]

I would not be at all surprised if he had a ghostwriter; in fact, I would be more surprised if he didn't. That would explain some things, and make typing him from that book more of a challenge.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I would not be at all surprised if he had a ghostwriter; in fact, I would be more surprised if he didn't. That would explain some things, and make typing him from that book more of a challenge.

Wouldn't suprise me. Puts me in mind Of Tony Blair's old PR and spin machine.

[Rick]

The humor in the book seems very much like his humor in person, though - self-deprecating, wry, and low-key.