[QUOTE]On September 26 2008 01:12 Jibba wrote: [QUOTE]On September 25 2008 08:01 Savio wrote: [QUOTE]On September 25 2008 07:54 fusionsdf wrote: [QUOTE]On September 25 2008 00:56 fusionsdf wrote: fuck all this politics bullshit
mccain is going to continue the Iraq war mccain is going to cut taxes for all groups mccain is going to continue the bush tax cuts The economy is in bad shape and is requiring money from the government the US has a record debt
where the fuck is he going to get the money?[/QUOTE]
Cut all the fluff programs that allow perfectly healthy people to sit on their ass and collect a check that's paid for by people who are responsable enough to make their own way in the world. I really don't see how giving handouts is going to help when all that does it perpetuate the mentality that they don't have to do shit because Mr.Government is going to do the work for them.
Cut healthcare to ANYONE who smokes. If you smoke--you're a moron and deserve to die a slow painful death while you wheeze away in your bed. (That's YOUR bed not some hopital bed I help pay for).
Bring back some personal responsability on indivual level and a whole lot more to the government level.
Savio there's nothing respectably risky about asking for the town hall format when conventional wisdom is that town halls are mccain's strongest format, and that in general he is a bad debater. Town halls would have been his best environment for debating and he knows that well.
Also the campaign suspension is again widely believed to be done because he was getting beat up on the economy, and this was just his attempt to make a political move to regain control of the narrative. Not much respectably risky about looking at your sliding polls and flailing campaign, see you have nothing to lose, and decide to roll the dice.
I respect mccain for when he takes risks that aren't in his political interest. I don't see anything laudable when he's simply taking the politically expedient choice though.
This goes both ways, when during the primary obama used to mention how he stood against the war in iraq "before it was a popular stance", I heard the commentary that Illnois was actually pretty fertile ground for an anti iraq war stance, and also he wasn't even in the federal senate yet so he was able to "make a stand" without having any actual say in the matter. So I think obama's claim in that regard is bullshit too.
On September 26 2008 03:51 Last Romantic wrote: After reading Savio's post history I agree with most of his points.
Yay for voting in California, though.
You agree that abortion, gun control and gay marriage are more important than the global economy, foreign relations, health care, education, etc. ?
BTW, Frank just destroyed McCain (and Palin) on the bailout issue. For those that don't know, Frank (D) is a 27 year congressman and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said that "nobody mentioned McCain" during the several-hour-long meeting on the $700 billion market rescue plan, other than Frank and that his Republican colleagues "winced" when he did.
"He’s been irrelevant to the process. He remains to be," said Frank. "I was afraid that his dropping in here, like Andy Kaufman’s Mighty Mouse—'here I am to save the day'—I thought that would slow things down. I didn’t see any sign of our Republican colleagues paying any attention to him whatsoever."
Franks went on. "Nobody mentioned him. The man’s irrelevant to the whole process. No Republican mentioned his name. I’m the only one who raised his name. They winced when I did," he said.
"I don’t think anyone takes that seriously," said Frank of McCain's suggestion that Friday's debate be delayed. "Sen. McCain trying to use the necessity for his presence to reach a deal that we’ve already reached as a reason to duck the debate is unworthy of him. There is absolutely no reason not to go to the debate."
Frank was equally cool about today's meeting with the White House. "The White House isn’t show and tell. We’re going to the White House because the president asked us to go. Nobody thinks at this point that anything useful’s going to happen. But we now have to get things drafted and worked on. The White House meeting is just an interruption in our schedule," he said.
Though he said McCain's presence would be unhelpful, he did say, getting a dig in at McCain's running mate, that there "were times when I was ready to suggest that, when we got to some of the more complicated issues about how do you price these sophisticated instruments, that we ask him to make Sarah Palin available to give us her expertise."
Look at all the effort that the republican supporters have to go through to try to justify their candidates. Isn't that a sign that maybe the candidates aren't the best choice to begin with? Why exactly are the republicans trying to grab hold of anything on their way down? Is it THAT bad to get a party change, switch up this administration, get some new blood?
Don't we want what's best for America?
This goes beyond being Republican or Democrat. So much depends on this election. How can you rationalize that McCain will restore America's integrity at home and abroad when he cant even run a campaign with integrity?
On September 26 2008 03:53 Savio wrote: Its hard for me to argue that she doesn't sound and look unsure of herself during her press interviews. That is no doubt the downside of the Palin choice that McCain made. She generated a bunch of interest in his campaign and motivated the base better than his other options would have, but she doesn't bear herself well under the pressure of an interview.
Also, in fairness to Obama (since earlier, I drew comparisons to their amount of experience), I have noticed that Obama has never faltered during a high pressure interview. I watch part of his interview with O'Reilly and he was really grilling him on his "associations". It was high pressure, but I think Obama looked strong during the process.
It does seem to me that McCain has been pretty "ballsy" during this campaign. Obama made what you could call a standard VP pick, wanted the traditional style and number of debates. While McCain definately made the "risky" VP pick. Bigger payoff if it works, but a disaster if it doesn't (we'll know in Nov). He also wanted to have 10 debates rather than 3 and wanted to have them in a risky "townhall" format where the candidates can confront eachother under less moderation, and most recently, he did the whole "suspend the campaign thing" which again, could be very good, but could also be a disaster.
I think its because he knew that if everything in this campaign stayed standard, the republican would lose (thats how much trouble our party is in).
First of all Savio, kudos to you for fighting steep odds and for continuing to make good points. Many people in your position would have given in or have been banned for flying off the handle long ago.
I don't see the Palin pick as a high-risk, high-reward pick. It was risky, because politically it involved a greater amount of potential upside AND downside.
For me, it represents more of a decision where they they were maximizing their political gain while purposefully sacrificing the potential quality of a McCain administration. Let's face it, if there wasn't a question of getting elected, no one in their right mind would have come near Palin with a 10-foot pole. So, it represents a purely political choice: a choice with NO upside other than potential political benefits.
I feel the choice of Biden by Obama was, in some sense, the opposite. Clearly the Obama campaign would not have picked Biden had they thought it would hurt their chances of getting elected. But it was also a choice that flew in the face of his "change" message. But it's also hard to argue that there was a better choice, from the point of view of the effectiveness of an Obama administration, if he is elected. If Obama wanted to go for pure political points, I'm sure that there may have been better choices out there.
As a contrast, therefore, I think the VP picks are a clear demonstration. McCain picked on politics, while weakening the prospects for his presidency. Obama's pick maximized the strength of an eventual Administration.
It actually reminds me a little of Bush's election in 2000, where a lot of people said they voted for him because he could "put together a better team of advisors". That ended up being a serious advantage for Bush, if you looked at the post-mortem polling.
- Debates during a Presidential Election were not delayed during: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Civil War, The Great Depression.
- Neither McCain nor Obama are on the Banking Committee.
- McCain has missed 412 votes of the last 643 in the current Senate session..
- McCain has not voted in the Senate since April 8th. Since March, he has missed 109 of the last 110 votes. He also missed the G.I. Bill which he previously apposed but now tries to claim he was always for it and had something to do with it's passing.
On September 25 2008 00:56 fusionsdf wrote: fuck all this politics bullshit
mccain is going to continue the Iraq war mccain is going to cut taxes for all groups mccain is going to continue the bush tax cuts The economy is in bad shape and is requiring money from the government the US has a record debt
where the fuck is he going to get the money?
also, someone supporting mccain please address this
I'm not supporting McCain, but i'll throw my 2 cents in the pot.
Right now, Obama is cutting taxes for every bracket except for those earning over $250,000 whom he says he wants to increase their taxes by a modest amount. According to the economists I've heard on the matter, neither candidate's tax plan will be able to afford their budget, and both candidate's budget will be massively in debt. From what I've seen on campaign rhetoric, McCain wants to pay for this by cutting spending. He just said in an interview recently that he believes there is a lot of extra defense spending that can be cut, as well as other government agencies like the Department of Education. On the other hand, everything I've heard from Obama seems to indicate that he wants to increase the size of government. For some reason he doesn't get into specifics but he keeps bringing up these "people" that are "working 10 hours a day" and are "barely getting by" and that they deserve a "leg up from the government." I'm not quoting him, but that's the gist of what I hear from him a lot. Another example is that a few months ago Obama proposed doubling foreign aid to $50 billion a year. If we can't afford our own budget, maybe we shouldn't be giving away another $25 billion a year.
To be honest, I have a ton of respect for the Republicans. They are simply waaaaay better at elections than the Democrats.
How else can you explain Americans' abilities to vote against their best interests? I mean that from a polling standpoint - that party preference never seems to mirror the actual candidate voting. And it always seems to be a debt for the Democrats. Many people want to vote for the Democrat, but they just can't. So you end up with a majority of party support based on policy, but your candidate loses.
It's impressive, in all seriousness.
The Republicans must know that in a face-less, party-only system, they lose. So they make the other guy, the face of the opposition, unelectable. We're talking about the guys that made a three-time Purple Heart winner into a coward in the eyes of the American people. "He didn't bleeeeed." Meanwhile, war-dodging Bush is given a free pass. Kerry is unpatriotic. Etc.
In the past few election cycles, it's like the Democrats have been their own worst enemies. They get attacked and either fail to respond or complain in a "mommmm, he's picking on meeeee" sort of way. So it's nice to see Obama hitting back. In American politics, the high road does not lead to the White House. It's as if the Democrats are finally realizing what the Republicans have known for years.
And you have to marvel at the current election. The blatant lies coming from the McCain campaign. And then the nerve to keep repeating these lies once debunked. It's like "fuck you guys. The truth is what I say it is." You can only sit back in awe of the balls this must take. This is the kind of sack-power that only comes from years of knowing how to pull strings and stack decks. It's that "just watch me" attitude.
I dunno. The Democrats are guilty of putting up a weak candidate in Kerry, but I wouldn't say the same for Obama and Gore. But even when putting up stronger candidates, they lose. Maybe they're finally learn how to win an election? We'll see.
There is some truth here to what Flaccid said (and some stuff I disagree with as well).
Republicans ARE better at running presidential campaigns. Since FDR, the Democratic party has ALWAYS been much larger than the Republican Party. If you look at charts of party affiliation, you will see that there used to be more than twice as many democrats as republicans. Now it much closer.
But that is not because the GOP has grown but that the democratic party has shrunken and independents have just exploded all over the country.
But, notwithstanding the advantage that democrats have had in terms of size of party, Republicans have dominated Presidential politics for a while now winning 7 of the last 10 elections. In the last 30 years, 1 term Carter is the only democrat to win 50% of the vote.
While on the other hand, we had the Republican landslides of: 1. Nixon with 570 electoral votes to Humphrey's 17 in 1972 2. Reagan with 489 electoral votes to Carter's 49 in 1980 3. Reagan with 525 electoral votes to Mondales 13 in 1984 4. And Bush the 1st over Dukakis is an arguable landslide with 426 to 111
Could this all be due to Republicans running more ruthless campaigns? Campaigning may be part of it, but that would be really amazing if it was everything.
I think a large part of it is that democrats haven't had a good track record in terms of picking electable candidates. People like Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry are a real stretch.
Carter and Clinton were the exception. They were both southern centrists who ran as middle of the road guys. Clinton ran partly on reforming welfare (he did a good job). Carter also ran as a centrist.
America is wary of the extreme left I think, even moreso than they are of the extreme right (Reagan was pretty darn conservative).
So why did the democrats again, this year, select the man who during his 3 years in the Senate has been recognized as the 16th, the 10th and the #1 most liberal senator?
They picked Obama over Clinton. Clinton, during the primaries, was consistently winning among the working class, and the moderate democrats that made Clinton and Carter successful. Obama was winning among young people and the liberal wing of the democratic party.
It looks to me like the dems did it again--much to the joy of the myself and other conservatives.
Now, the only question is, will the bad decision of the dems be enough to outweigh the general disdain the public currently holds for the Republicans (thanks a lot BUSH!).
That is what is different about this election. Dukakis and Mondale didn't have that on their side when they lost.
On September 25 2008 11:19 aRod wrote: I knew McCain was known for dropping the F bomb. I read about it being use on Cornyn and Grassley in the past. Not that there's anything wrong with the F bomb, but can you find that video link?
this is the candidate, unbelievable
As much as I hate to believe it, that's actually fake. Although I'm pretty sure there's another video of him cussing out some random reporter somewhere.
How is it fake? you have to at least back up what you're saying.
On September 26 2008 05:24 BlackJack wrote: Another example is that a few months ago Obama proposed doubling foreign aid to $50 billion a year. If we can't afford our own budget, maybe we shouldn't be giving away another $25 billion a year.
On September 25 2008 11:19 aRod wrote: I knew McCain was known for dropping the F bomb. I read about it being use on Cornyn and Grassley in the past. Not that there's anything wrong with the F bomb, but can you find that video link?
As much as I hate to believe it, that's actually fake. Although I'm pretty sure there's another video of him cussing out some random reporter somewhere.
How is it fake? you have to at least back up what you're saying.
The description of the video at YouTube says it's fake... Pretty cut and dry.
On September 26 2008 05:42 Flaccid wrote: An aside:
To be honest, I have a ton of respect for the Republicans. They are simply waaaaay better at elections than the Democrats.
How else can you explain Americans' abilities to vote against their best interests? I mean that from a polling standpoint - that party preference never seems to mirror the actual candidate voting. And it always seems to be a debt for the Democrats. Many people want to vote for the Democrat, but they just can't. So you end up with a majority of party support based on policy, but your candidate loses.
It's impressive, in all seriousness.
The Republicans must know that in a face-less, party-only system, they lose. So they make the other guy, the face of the opposition, unelectable. We're talking about the guys that made a three-time Purple Heart winner into a coward in the eyes of the American people. "He didn't bleeeeed." Meanwhile, war-dodging Bush is given a free pass. Kerry is unpatriotic. Etc.
In the past few election cycles, it's like the Democrats have been their own worst enemies. They get attacked and either fail to respond or complain in a "mommmm, he's picking on meeeee" sort of way. So it's nice to see Obama hitting back. In American politics, the high road does not lead to the White House. It's as if the Democrats are finally realizing what the Republicans have known for years.
And you have to marvel at the current election. The blatant lies coming from the McCain campaign. And then the nerve to keep repeating these lies once debunked. It's like "fuck you guys. The truth is what I say it is." You can only sit back in awe of the balls this must take. This is the kind of sack-power that only comes from years of knowing how to pull strings and stack decks. It's that "just watch me" attitude.
I dunno. The Democrats are guilty of putting up a weak candidate in Kerry, but I wouldn't say the same for Obama and Gore. But even when putting up stronger candidates, they lose. Maybe they're finally learn how to win an election? We'll see.
Amen.
We have the same problem in France actually. Sarkozy came with a program screwing 99% of french people (actually, his main stuff was to give 12 billions € a year less taxes for the 1% richest french -logical, isn't it?-), and they voted for him. Workers, poors. All the one he was gonna screw badly voted for him. Was umbelievable. On the other hand, Royal, the other candidate completly riuned her campaign and was completely destroyed by Sarkozy's team: everybody agreed after two weeks that she didn't have the skill for the job (which was founded on nothing, although I don't like her).
On September 26 2008 05:24 BlackJack wrote: He just said in an interview recently that he believes there is a lot of extra defense spending that can be cut, as well as other government agencies like the Department of Education..
This is true, and it's a bit disturbing. Lets face facts: McCain's "fundamentals" of the US economy (our workforce) are NOT strong. America does not have the best or hardest workers anymore. The two biggest keys this are having a healthy work force and having an intelligent work force. It's not worth mentioning how much our schools have fallen behind, and I don't think anyone would contend that our blue-white collar workers are healthier than their European counterparts. Healthcare and education translate into a strong workforce which help supply the economy.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://people-press.org/reports/images/196-17.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/elections/maps/1952.jpg)
