|
On March 09 2008 14:48 Skye_MyO wrote:
-----
War
McWar wants to stay forever, and blow trillions of taxpayer dollars.
Obama is slightly better here, saying 16 months is the best case scenario. And knowing how useless the democratically controlled congress is, we can expect a couple more good years in the sunny middle east.
I know how you'll respond, we can't leave until things have settled, but here's something cool, they attack us because we're over there.
-----
Economy
McWar - how are you going to cut spending with your wonderful war raging on? Oh i know, print more money. But doesn't that inflate the currency and wipe out the savings of people who have saved, especially the middle class?
Obama - If you win the election, you'll preside over a very bad recession. Some of your policies are okay (make working pay tax credit), but how do you intend to tackle the falling dollar? how do you "double federal funding for basic research", "provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles", etc etc
the real question is how do you intend to expand federal funding when you have no money?
Oh yeah, get Bernanke to print more money!
PROBLEM SOLVED!
-----
On the whole, Obama > McCain. But lets be frank, you're gonna get shortchanged on the whole "Change" rhetoric. Things will stay the same, folks.
Hey, don't fall for the democrats' spin! McCain is not keeping Iraq going indefinitely. He's just saying that even after they pull out a ton of troops, there will need to be some bases there, like in Japan and Korea. Both of them are saying the same thing, really: the surge is working, they'll keep the troops there till the country is safe, then they'll start to withdraw the troops and finally they'll keep a manageable number of troops there (because even Ralph Nader would not leave the US Embassy unguarded).
They've just spun it to sound like whatever their supporters want it to sound like =)
That also goes to show that both sides have similarly unrealistic ideas about the economy, because they won't be able to end the war so soon and start using that money to pay for their policies.
I don't know how McCain would handle it; I haven't paid enough attention to him. But I suspect he will start by vetoing bills which have high earmarks in them, thus slowly balancing the budget. It won't be as flashy as throwing aid around, but on a macro scale it will be effective.
Obama would probably handle it by reintroducing the pay as you go policy. Everytime Congress wants to spend on something, they have to save the same amount of money somewhere else. He's explicitly said this in Texas. And I think he would take his own sweet time renegotiating NAFTA. He would probably mitigate the pain caused by it by doing what the Singapore government is doing, and introduce a lot of worker retraining schemes.
The falling dollar should not be a big deal for either. A cheaper dollar leads to cheaper exports, leading to increased employment in companies like Boeing.
|
On March 09 2008 08:01 Funchucks wrote:
For those curious about why two Canadians are arguing about the American presidential primaries, you should know that Canada is a smallish and rather boring place, and our national sport is imagining what it would be like to be American and have an interesting place in the world.
haha
i find the US election fascinating because in many ways their election has a larger effect on canada than a canadian election.
after all it's really less the election to decide the president of the united states, but rather the election to decide the emperor of the world.
On March 09 2008 07:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I see Clinton either winning the nom by lawyers or by a backroom deal.
why? have you seen obama's pledged delegate lead recently? it's gigantic, 150ish delegates. clinton would have to really kick some ass in the upcoming contests in order to change the ballgame here, of the remaining 12 contests, Clinton is favoured in six (Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and Guam) and Obama six (Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota).
if he wins the ones he's supposed to win, then he only needs %40 of the remaining superdelegates to ratify him as nominee. clinton can win up to %60 of the remaining superdelegates and still won't have enough to ratify her. which is unlikely, seeing as he's been raking in superdelegates at a 2-1 ratio over clinton in the last few weeks.
the only thing that might change is if florida and michigan re-hold contests.
anyways, clinton's a very long shot to prevent obama from winning the nomination. i'd be more worried about the damage she's doing to obama's general election chances by echoing all of mccains attacks against him for the last while.
|
On March 09 2008 22:14 a-game wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2008 08:01 Funchucks wrote:
For those curious about why two Canadians are arguing about the American presidential primaries, you should know that Canada is a smallish and rather boring place, and our national sport is imagining what it would be like to be American and have an interesting place in the world. haha i find the US election fascinating because in many ways their election has a larger effect on canada than a canadian election. after all it's really less the election to decide the president of the united states, but rather the election to decide the emperor of the world. Show nested quote +On March 09 2008 07:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I see Clinton either winning the nom by lawyers or by a backroom deal. why? have you seen obama's pledged delegate lead recently? it's gigantic, 150ish delegates. clinton would have to really kick some ass in the upcoming contests in order to change the ballgame here, of the remaining 12 contests, Clinton is favoured in six (Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and Guam) and Obama six (Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota). if he wins the ones he's supposed to win, then he only needs %40 of the remaining superdelegates to ratify him as nominee. clinton can win up to %60 of the remaining superdelegates and still won't have enough to ratify her. which is unlikely, seeing as he's been raking in superdelegates at a 2-1 ratio over clinton in the last few weeks. the only thing that might change is if florida and michigan re-hold contests. anyways, clinton's a very long shot to prevent obama from winning the nomination. i'd be more worried about the damage she's doing to obama's general election chances by echoing all of mccains attacks against him for the last while.
I just don't think Clinton will actually obey the rules. Just don't see it happening.
|
obey what rules? she doesn't really have a choice as long as obama maintains a big lead in pledged delegates.
if it gets closer, then the door opens on foul play. but as long as he's got a big lead, she has no room to make those kinds of manoeuvrings.
maybe she can rig some of the elections lol, that's about all the rules she can break for now.
|
She is already trying to snatch the Florida and Michigan delegates and Fox keeps saying she trying to tell her super delegates to persuade Obama's delegates to go her way. Or something of that nature. I just don't trust a viper until it's head is cut off if you catch my drift.
|
What do you all think of the Clinton's talk about a joint ticket? I think it shows weakness, like they are hoping Obama will bite and be VP.
He hasn't and he won't. Truthfully, given the electability polls I really don't see why people aren't just flocking to him. Hillary can't be McCain. SHe just can't, Obama can.
|
On March 09 2008 23:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
She is already trying to snatch the Florida and Michigan delegates and Fox keeps saying she trying to tell her super delegates to persuade Obama's delegates to go her way. O rosmrthing of that nature. I just don't trust a viper until it's head is cut off if you catch my drift.
i hear that haha, i don't count her out either, although it would take some kind of miracle (or disaster) for her to win
On March 09 2008 23:40 pooper-scooper wrote:
What do you all think of the Clinton's talk about a joint ticket? I think it shows weakness, like they are hoping Obama will bite and be VP.
it's tactical, she's trying to gain votes by reassuring people on the fence that a vote for her is also a vote for obama.
it's clever and may be effective to some degree, although it's a bit hilarious seeing as she's so far behind she realistically only has a shot at the bottom half of the ticket. but the mainstream media is letting it slide for now seeing as she has momentum from march 4. she only has momentum because mainstream media has reported that clinton won texas, when in fact obama won texas.
did you see this earlier in the thread? lol + Show Spoiler +On March 09 2008 13:47 Servolisk wrote:
|
This is how Obama answered the question "Can you ever see yourself on the same ticket as Hillary Clinton?"*:
"Well, you know, I think it’s premature. You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate. You know, I’m running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count."
/Obama
I think the Clinton VP offer is a trap and Obama has been very careful not to step in it. When you publicly accept the possibility of taking 2nd spot on a ticket you're not running for President anymore you're running for VP. It acts as an endorsement of your opponent over yourself as being the better suited to lead the country. Furthermore you can't categorically refuse such an offer for fear of appearing overconfident or not giving the opponent enough credit.
Clinton loses nothing by making the offer, even possibly gains by appearing conciliatory, while giving Obama a chance to make a gaffe. That's why she made the offer.
*: Link
|
if the MSM ever takes a second look at the texas caucuses and finally reports that obama won texas, then that might be the last we hear of Veep offers from clinton. once she's slotted back into the underdog role by the media then talk of Veep will just come off as valedictorian.
|
The media reported Clinton won because she got the most popular votes in the primary. The caucus election of delegates in Texas isn't even over yet. They have all these steps and conventions and stuff for months before the final tally of delegates won in the Texas caucuses will be officially decided.
|
On March 10 2008 00:05 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The media reported Clinton won because she got the most popular votes in the primary. The caucus election of delegates in Texas isn't even over yet. They have all these steps and conventions and stuff for months before the final tally of delegates won in the Texas caucuses will be officially decided.
it is over. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/TX-D.phtml
if we're going to talk about the actual state conventions then why did the MSM report obama's win in washington's caucus? that hasn't gone to state convention yet either.
|
Popular vote is the biggest reason. When Clinton won in Nevada by votes but lost by 1 in delegates that was declared a win and the same is true for Texas.
|
On March 09 2008 14:48 Skye_MyO wrote:
The two biggest issues are the war and the economy, i could give a rat's ass about where Obama went to church or which anal probe the viet cong used on McCain during 'Nam.
-----
War
McWar wants to stay forever, and blow trillions of taxpayer dollars.
I think he will, even if it is not in Iraq.
Obama is slightly better here, saying 16 months is the best case scenario. And knowing how useless the democratically controlled congress is, we can expect a couple more good years in the sunny middle east.
I know how you'll respond, we can't leave until things have settled, but here's something cool, they attack us because we're over there.
It is easy for a congress to look useless when Bush has veto power. Not that I'm big fan either, but if Obama or Clinton is President they will be much more effective.
I'm not sure what "best case scenario" entails, but Obama is definitely not of the mind to stay until we have "won", and he agrees with your italicized point.
I'm personally not worried about Obama staying in Iraq. I'm worried about him staying in Afghanistan. For whatever reason, only Iraq makes the news when Afghanistan has been a ongoing disaster. And it is not only because, as the Democrats say, Bush went to Iraq. Afghanistan, like Iraq, is a unwelcome occupation.
Afghanistan is the one thing I don't like about Obama. He seems to have supported the war all along, and he supports continuing, and I think both of those are ridiculous positions. On the other hand, it would be political suicide for him to be as against Afghanistan as Iraq.
Obama - If you win the election, you'll preside over a very bad recession. Some of your policies are okay (make working pay tax credit), but how do you intend to tackle the falling dollar? how do you "double federal funding for basic research", "provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles", etc etc
the real question is how do you intend to expand federal funding when you have no money?
Oh yeah, get Bernanke to print more money!
PROBLEM SOLVED!
Some of that is beyond Obama, and beyond anyone. There is no short term fix. He can slow down the damage of what Bush has done, and prevent McCain from continuing them. If McCain is president I'd have to consider leaving the US for purely economic reasons.
Sadly, Bush's damage can't be undone overnight, or likely in one term, and the things that were just waiting to become major problems before Bush will take even longer (big trade deficit, lack of manufacturing). These can be slowly reversed, and I think that is all that can realistically be expected.
When he goes in the reverse direction of the Bush tax cuts by raising them on the wealthy, that will reverse what has caused the majority of the deficit (which is like ~10 trillion in total iirc?).
He will also put more funding into science. I'm not too knowledgeable about economics really, but I'm sure this will be a major plus. Most of the microbiologists, for example, haven't had sufficient funding during the Bush administration, and a lot of projects have gone overseas, and we have lost some of lots of our import of overseas talent. The easiest example is probably stem cells. As a result of the Bush policy on stem cells, scientific development here has been somewhat slowed, industry in that area has gone overseas, when the US would have been in a prime position to be the leader.
I'm not going to touch the green jobs and auto industry aid atm, I hope someone better qualified than me takes that up. :o
An interesting article that fusionsdf posted a while back, "The Audacity of Data", pointed out that Obama was the only candidate to incorporate much behavioral economics in his policy. The example of the article was "people will cut their lawn to save 10$, but not cut someone else's to make 10$". An example of an Obama policy would be the IRS mailing you a bill that you don't have to do anything with unless you disagree. This would save Americans and the IRS time, saving the IRS tons of money, and I believe it would also help eliminate tax evasion. Admittedly that is done in other countries already, but as far as proposing it as American policy it is unique.
With Obama as President I also expect a pretty bad recession, but I like the long term direction.
|
On March 09 2008 23:58 NovaTheFeared wrote:This is how Obama answered the question "Can you ever see yourself on the same ticket as Hillary Clinton?"*: "Well, you know, I think it’s premature. You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate. You know, I’m running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count." /Obama I think the Clinton VP offer is a trap and Obama has been very careful not to step in it. When you publicly accept the possibility of taking 2nd spot on a ticket you're not running for President anymore you're running for VP. It acts as an endorsement of your opponent over yourself as being the better suited to lead the country. Furthermore you can't categorically refuse such an offer for fear of appearing overconfident or not giving the opponent enough credit. Clinton loses nothing by making the offer, even possibly gains by appearing conciliatory, while giving Obama a chance to make a gaffe. That's why she made the offer. *: Link
I agree w/ you and a-game on this :O
|
On March 10 2008 00:23 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Popular vote is the biggest reason. When Clinton won in Nevada by votes but lost by 1 in delegates that was declared a win and the same is true for Texas.
right, but in nevada both campaigns claimed victory and some of the media started reporting it as a draw.
same in this situation, both campaigns have claimed victory but i don't hear any of the media calling it a draw. besides, at the end of the day you'd think the media coverage would have evolved by now into realizing that the delegates are the primary measuring stick. (although pop. vote matters too)
edit: it actually bugs me that on election maps the media paint nevada for clinton when obama won more delegates, texas for clinton when obama won more delegates, new hampshire for clinton when they tied in delegates, missouri for obama when they tied in delegates. i mean really, delegates are what matters.
|
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/03/08/it’s-over/
IT'S OVER
The real message of Tuesday's primaries is not that Hillary won. It's that she didn't win by enough.
The race is over.
The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then? But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates? No way. They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party's chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.
John McCain's nomination guarantees that the superdelegates wouldn't dare. A perfectly acceptable alternative for most Democrats, McCain would harvest so large a proportion of Obama's votes if Hillary steals the nomination that he would probably win. Even putting Obama on the ticket would not allay the anger of his supporters; it would just make him complicit in the robbery.
Will Hillary win Pennsylvania? Who cares? Even if she were to sweep the remaining primaries and caucuses by 10 points, she would move just 60 votes closer to Obama's total of elected delegates. And she won't sweep them all. Even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania, the largest prize up for grabs, Obama will probably win North Carolina, which is almost as large. He's likely to win Mississippi and Wyoming and has a good shot in Oregon and Indiana. The most likely result of these coming contests is that Obama will be roughly where he is now, about 140 elected delegates ahead of Hillary.
Suppose that Hillary will carry those states by enough to offset Obama's delegate lead. The proportional representation system makes a knockout impossible and so mutes relatively narrow victories as to make them almost inconsequential. Little Vermont, with 600,000 people, gave Obama a net gain of four delegates, half of what Hillary won from the Texas primary, a state with 20 million residents. Even after Hillary won big-state victories in Ohio and Texas, she drew only 20 closer to Obama's total of elected delegates.
Hillary won't withdraw. That much is for sure. The tantalizing notion that 800 insiders can offset a season of primaries and caucuses will drive both Clintons to ever-escalating rhetoric. Will their attacks hurt Obama? Likely all they will achieve is to give him needed experience in the cut and thrust of media politics.
Left out of the entire equation is poor John McCain. Unable to get a word in edgewise and unsure of which Democrat to attack, he will have to watch from the sidelines as Hillary and Obama hog the headlines. If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to Hillary in the dead of night without leaving fingerprints at the crime scene, McCain's nomination will be worth having. If Obama prevails, it won't be worth the paper on which it is written. The giant killer, Obama will have soared to new heights of popularity and McCain won't be able to bring him back to Earth in the nine weeks that will remain.
Suggestion for Obama:
The next time Hillary uses the recycled red phone ad, counter with one of your own. When the phone rings in the middle of the night, have a woman's voice, with a flat Midwestern accent, answer it and say, "Hold on" into the receiver. Then she should shout, "Bill! It's for you!"
Because with Hillary's complete lack of any meaningful experience in foreign affairs, and her lack of the "testing" that she boldly claims, she'll be yelling for Bill.
|
I found this funny: the girl from Clinton's 3 am phone call ad is an Obamanaut 
"I'm just enjoying the irony. I'm an Obama supporter," said the high school senior, who will turn 18 next month, well before the election in November. Still, Knowles made it clear she disliked Clinton's ad. "What I don't like about the ad is it's fear-mongering. I think it's a cheap hit to take. I really prefer Obama's message of looking forward to a bright future," Knowles said. "I think that's a much stronger message." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4416390&page=1
^_^ ;p
|
think the Clinton VP offer is a trap and Obama has been very careful not to step in it.
I think she knows she is going to lose the nomimation and is opening up the door for herself to step in the VP slot. I think most people would agree it would be a winning ticket.
|
Hillary is a horrible running mate for Obama.
|
On March 10 2008 04:26 TeCh)PsylO wrote:Show nested quote + think the Clinton VP offer is a trap and Obama has been very careful not to step in it. I think she knows she is going to lose the nomimation and is opening up the door for herself to step in the VP slot. I think most people would agree it would be a winning ticket.
that's just silly, she's been saying McCain would be better for the country than Obama. the only VP slot she's opening the door up for is a McCain/Clinton ticket, lawl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8664/pcohbm3.jpg)
