2008 US Presidential Election - Page 64

On September 27 2008 05:29 Mindcrime wrote:
I would've included Barr and the nutjob the Constitution party nominated rather than Ron Paul.

On September 27 2008 02:36 Savio wrote:
Putting my leanings aside, I would find it hard to vote for Palin for President. But, her lack of knowledge and experience is not enough to make me vote for the inexperience of Obama over McCain.

Now of course, McCain COULD die. But we all know that that is very unlikely. But if Obama is elected, there is a 100% chance that he would be President (unlike Palin's 1% or whatever).

Like I said before, of the candidates and running mates, 2 are what you could call "experienced". That is Biden and McCain.

Putting your experienced man in the #1 slot and the inexperienced in the #2 seems more reasonable to me than the other way around.

On September 27 2008 05:24 Savio wrote:
EDIT: Consider Ron Paul as "Other". If you would vote for Bob Barr or anyone else, just select Ron Paul. Its too late for me to change the poll. So "Ron Paul" is really "Other"

If you guys don't mind indulging me for a second, I have a curiosity I want to fill.

We see in US politics right now, that young people by and large strongly favor Obama and the democrats while those 65 and older tend to favor McCain. The other trends we see is that Women tend to lean toward democrats more and Men to the Republicans (I'm talking the last few elections). And finally, overall, whites (I think), favor Republicans and minorities favor the democrats.

But even more clearly, we have seen that citizens of other countries STRONGLY favor Obama this year and I think usually favor the democrats.

Now, TL.net is interesting, because it is a truly international website, pulling in people from all over the world. And (I'm making a guess here), TL.net members are probably on average younger than the general public (of course we have a pretty good age spectrum here), and people on this site as of now strongly favor Obama over McCain according to the OP poll.

I'm interested in seeing how these polls would look if we broke up the US citizens and the citizens from other countries.

Plus I have never made a poll before and I am expanding my posting knowledge, so here goes:


Poll: FOR US CITIZENS: For whom would you vote?
(Vote): Obama/Biden
(Vote): McCain/Palin
(Vote): Ron Paul


Poll: FOR NON-USA CITIZENS: For whom would you vote?
(Vote): Obama/Biden
(Vote): McCain/Palin
(Vote): Ron Paul

On September 27 2008 03:28 Rayzorblade wrote:


I really don't want to derail this thread, but I'm extremely curious as to why you think NAFTA was a good move (for the American people). Aside from lowering the price of some commodities, how were Americans affected by it? I think it's difficult to capitalize on cheaper commodities when you're a low-wage industrial worker, part of the estimated 800,000 who lost a job, (as a result of NAFTA) to buy anything.

The only people who benefited from NAFTA were corporations.

On September 27 2008 05:46 a-game wrote:
hmm you guys are right the debate is kind of exciting, in that it will be the first time we will see obama and mccain on the same stage in a hostile setting.

a 46 year old man next to a 72 year old man, plus obama's like a foot taller or something. white vs black etc.

some are bandying about the theory that because this debate will still largely be on foreign policy, mccain pulled all those stunts this week to actually hype up the debate so that even more people will be tuned in to see him rape obama on foreign policy.

have to see how it goes.

On September 27 2008 06:42 Savio wrote:


Rayzor, I wish I could answer your question better cause it is a good question. But it took me 4 years of economics training to formulate my opnion that in almost all instances, trade benefits all parties participating.

But there are HUGE arguments about trade among economists. Unfortunately, unlike the "hard" sciences where you can see physical results, it is harder to prove concrete things in the social sciences--even in Economics.

Suffice it to say, I support free trade across the board.

Here are some quick little reasons why, but without deep explanations:

1. Trade increases purchasing power of both parties. There is not a winner and loser. If 2 people voluntarily agree to trade, then they must both be benefiting.

2. The more we trade with other countries, the safer the world is. Think about it...the US was close to war with the USSR for a long time. They were communist led and we were a democracy. But now think about China. What are the chances that the US and China would EVER get into a war. It would be the worst thing we both could do. We buy so much from them, they sell a bunch to us, and they invest in American Companies in VERY high rates. We both have a strong incentive to not go to war.

Likewise, US, Mexico and Canada would never fight eachother. We would all be hurt economically. (This trade for peace rule holds best for democracies rather than dictatorships)

3. Trade increases efficiency. US is better at making food than Mexico, Mexico is better at making textiles. We trade...and some Mexican farmer go out of business and some American textile workers, but in the long run, they find new employment in more efficient fields and the value of our overall economy is larger.

4. Trade enriches cultures by sharing. If the US could not trade with Korea, they never would have found Starcraft. There are a LOT of people in the US who like anime and foreign films, etc.

There are lots more and each could be talked about and perhaps argued about for hours, but I can't really go into all that on a forum like this.

In fact, it will be hard to defend these points through this medium. I already know that. But hey, I've never been one to hold back just because I am worried someone will disagree

So anyway, thats a very superficial answer to your question.

On September 27 2008 07:48 Flaccid wrote:




And then there was a leaked conversation between Obama and (I believe) a Canadian minister where he stated that he wasn't actually serious about doing anything with NAFTA. Good ol' political posturing.

On September 27 2008 08:15 fusionsdf wrote:


god

fuck ctv
fuck them so hard

for good or for bad, no one from obama's camp said that to the canadian embassy

someone from clinton's campaign did, and somehow in the inept reporting of ctv that morphed to obama

On September 27 2008 06:55 tiffany wrote:

i hope you are excited for more than just superficial physical traits that have nothing to do with anything whatsoever. sadly this line of comparison is probably more common among middle class americans than it should be


i don't see how trying to pull out of the debates does anything to hype them up. if anything it could mean that the mccain campaign is afraid it won't be able to live up to the expectation of him raping obama, like you said.