|
On October 01 2008 06:50 Savio wrote:BTW, I wanna know what people think: Poll: Should congress have passed that last version of the bailout?( Vote): Yes, action is needed fast. ( Vote): No, it was too flawed. ( Vote): I have no idea or opinion.
Anyone actually read the 104? pages now or trust what your bais news tells ya.
|
On October 01 2008 09:40 Savio wrote:
New ABC News/Washington Post national poll conducted after the debate (Sept 27-29) shows that John McCain has picked up 5 points on Barack Obama during the last week, moving from a nine-point deficit to trailing by four:
Obama 50 (-2 vs. last poll Sept 19-22)
McCain 46 (+3)
Obama leads by 4.8% in the RCP National Average.
According to the poll, McCain has regained the lead among key swing groups: Independents favor McCain by 3 (48-45), white women by 11 (54-43), and white Catholics by one (47-46). McCain is still holding on to 20% of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, while 70% are supporting Obama.
I DID NOT FUCKING EXPECT THAT.
tt;; Democrats need some political fiber. Have pride in your own party ffs
|
It is a little surprising. I never thought most Democratic voters were geniuses but that is dumb to the Republican level. Their logic: My candidate lost, so my next best option is to vote for someone who is the polar opposite in the most important issues!
|
I dont believe in a single pool that gives McCain an edge.
Obama won already.
The reason? Because people who will vote for him are 100% more willing to vote and to try to convince others, the more scared they get, the more they organize and get energized.
I believe McCain cant really win without cheating the whole thing.
Watch fox news and you see McCain steamrolling on everything, everywhere else, its like FFS lose already geezer.
|
On October 01 2008 10:27 D10 wrote:
I dont believe in a single pool that gives McCain an edge.
Obama won already.
The reason? Because people who will vote for him are 100% more willing to vote and to try to convince others, the more scared they get, the more they organize and get energized.
I believe McCain cant really win without cheating the whole thing.
Watch fox news and you see McCain steamrolling on everything, everywhere else, its like FFS lose already geezer.
LoL, lots of political analysts say that you shouldn't even look at polls taken before October. October is THE month of the Presidential campaign. We (political junkies) would like to think that everyone watches the news like we do and has made up their mind, but a LOT of people don't pay much attention to politics till the very end.
The race is just getting started. Being too confident just increases one's pain if the outcome isn't what they think.
IF McCain does win, I can't wait to hear what the media and liberal leaders will complain about. If McCain wins, its gonna be loud and awesome.
I will revel in it 
|
On October 01 2008 06:18 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2008 05:21 Doctorasul wrote:
The choice between the two is obvious for pretty much any non-American, but why are there always only two viable candidates?
EDIT: Oops I missed the word "only" and hadn't watched your clip yet. My bad. But I will still leave my post here even though it doesn't address your question. Because America as a whole is much more conservative than it would appear from this site, and MUCH more conservative than most of the other developed countries. In fact, recent history has shown the more conservative candidate winning most of the time (I'm talking the last 50 years). Also, several people have stated that Obama would win in a landslide in their country, but in reality, he would probably lose to more liberal candidate. Obama is still pretty conservative compared to the world's standard.
JFK
LBJ
Nixon
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Regan
Regan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
It isn't a total blow out 5:8, I could make a case it is actually 6:7 (on Gore would have won florida if not for a bunch of reasons and I am not saying it is just that there is a case for it)
I totally agree Obama would lose to someone more liberal in other countries.
|
United States22883 Posts
Look, I know you've been calm and polite this whole time, but your reasons for voting are still absolute bullshit.
Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with you (and it's going to become legal everywhere soon anyways) and we have far more important issues to worry about than gun control.
You point out McCain's experience, but you didn't respond when I showed that McCain truly has much less foreign policy experience than he claims and you can understand just by listening to him that he's stuck in a LBJ mold of the rest of the world.
To steal a management term, the ability to create a shared meaning is one of the most important attributes of a leader even moreso than individual expertise (executives should be more iloveoov than kwanro) and I don't know of a single politician that is better in that regard than Obama. Hell, even Palin was a big fan of his during the primary season.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2008 13:05 wswordsmen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2008 06:18 Savio wrote:On October 01 2008 05:21 Doctorasul wrote:
The choice between the two is obvious for pretty much any non-American, but why are there always only two viable candidates?
EDIT: Oops I missed the word "only" and hadn't watched your clip yet. My bad. But I will still leave my post here even though it doesn't address your question. Because America as a whole is much more conservative than it would appear from this site, and MUCH more conservative than most of the other developed countries. In fact, recent history has shown the more conservative candidate winning most of the time (I'm talking the last 50 years). Also, several people have stated that Obama would win in a landslide in their country, but in reality, he would probably lose to more liberal candidate. Obama is still pretty conservative compared to the world's standard. JFK LBJ Nixon Nixon Ford Carter Regan Regan Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush It isn't a total blow out 5:8, I could make a case it is actually 6:7 (on Gore would have won florida if not for a bunch of reasons and I am not saying it is just that there is a case for it) I totally agree Obama would lose to someone more liberal in other countries.
Nixon was more liberal than everyone in politics today. You can't compare anything until the late 1970s.
|
On October 01 2008 09:40 Savio wrote:I just like to keep you guys on your toes and a little bit worried. I don't want anyone getting comfortable + Show Spoiler +New ABC News/Washington Post national poll conducted after the debate (Sept 27-29) shows that John McCain has picked up 5 points on Barack Obama during the last week, moving from a nine-point deficit to trailing by four:
Obama 50 (-2 vs. last poll Sept 19-22)
McCain 46 (+3)
Obama leads by 4.8% in the RCP National Average.
According to the poll, McCain has regained the lead among key swing groups: Independents favor McCain by 3 (48-45), white women by 11 (54-43), and white Catholics by one (47-46). McCain is still holding on to 20% of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, while 70% are supporting Obama.
This poll is an outlier. Actually, the earlier poll was really the outlier.
Four other major polls have shown Obama holding or picking up support over the past few days (this includes a summary of Gallup, Rasmussen, ABCNews, and a couple of others). See the aggregate here:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
Also, McCain's percentages on Intrade continue to drop (over the past week, he's fallen 10 full points).
Finally, the electoral vote predictions on the leading sites have shifted about 15-25 points in Obama's favor recently.
(But, I'm still not comfortable.)
|
I kinda woke up this morning to this thread on my laptop and I saw the 80 or so pages, and I had a moment of clarity which was something like
"nobody running for president knows what the hell they're doing"
and I went back to sleep and I had a nightmare...
never been so depressed
|
On October 01 2008 13:12 Clutch3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2008 09:40 Savio wrote:I just like to keep you guys on your toes and a little bit worried. I don't want anyone getting comfortable + Show Spoiler +New ABC News/Washington Post national poll conducted after the debate (Sept 27-29) shows that John McCain has picked up 5 points on Barack Obama during the last week, moving from a nine-point deficit to trailing by four:
Obama 50 (-2 vs. last poll Sept 19-22)
McCain 46 (+3)
Obama leads by 4.8% in the RCP National Average.
According to the poll, McCain has regained the lead among key swing groups: Independents favor McCain by 3 (48-45), white women by 11 (54-43), and white Catholics by one (47-46). McCain is still holding on to 20% of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, while 70% are supporting Obama. This poll is an outlier. Actually, the earlier poll was really the outlier. Four other major polls have shown Obama holding or picking up support over the past few days (this includes a summary of Gallup, Rasmussen, ABCNews, and a couple of others). See the aggregate here: http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.phpAlso, McCain's percentages on Intrade continue to drop (over the past week, he's fallen 10 full points). Finally, the electoral vote predictions on the leading sites have shifted about 15-25 points in Obama's favor recently. (But, I'm still not comfortable.)
He's only down 5 points from where he should be Intrade had someone messing with their numbers. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/intrade-betting-is-suspcious.html
The information is a little old but Obama was about 60 up until the debates anywhere but intrade.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2008 13:15 ahrara_ wrote:
I kinda woke up this morning to this thread on my laptop and I saw the 80 or so pages, and I had a moment of clarity which was something like
"nobody running for president knows what the hell they're doing"
and I went back to sleep and I had a nightmare...
never been so depressed
Nobody ever knows what they're doing. What you hope to find is someone who is adaptive and a critical thinker, understands how the leadership process works, has a good moral compass and is able to unite people.
There are other fields that carry into it, but ultimately the president will be relying on the State Dept., CIA, JCS, any other military commander, treasurer, etc. for their information and they just need enough of an understanding to sort through it all, not to actually analyze it.
|
I think if Obama does win he will have a lot to owe to the new early voting processes many states are using. One of the strongest advantages Republicans have over the Democrats is they seem to get to the polls on election day in much bigger numbers. Especially in swing states like Florida and Ohio where a lot of Democrats are in the lower income bracket and don't have transport or on college campuses where kids just don't care. Imagine being able to solicit votes for a month straight, especially on campuses where political campaigners breed like bacteria.
|
On September 29 2008 05:03 Boblion wrote:
You are so wrong. Bush lied about WmD, and all the American believed him period.
Then he started the war because " Saddam is linked to Ben Laden " ( haha ).
Now don't do some bs revisionism.
You were wrong and you still are.
Don't start to say that Germany, France and Russia didnt want the war because of oil. Russia don't even need more oil and France is producing like 70% of its electricity with nuclear power plants. Anyway you can always find oil elsewhere.
On the other hand the only real American motive was oil. So give me a favor don't write such a long post to say stupid things.
So my post about RUSSIA has to do with the president being wrong to start a war? Are you stupid?
Want me to quote the video tapes Saddam took of his meeting, talking about how to hide his WMD from the UN inspectors? Want me to quote him using WMD on his own people in the 1990's? Want me to quote Saddam having all the materials to make WMD but, ya know, I guess he didn't actually have WMD (biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons incase you didn't know).
Saddam has hosted Al-Queda members in his palace. If you invite someone over for tea, I think that you are "linked" aka know them.
I never said they didn't want war because of oil, read what I wrote, I never said the word oil except for in reference to the oil for food program. I said Russia and other countries didn't want us to invade because Saddam was paying them off.
If we wanted OIL, we would have kept the Kuwait oil fields when we retook them from Saddam (but I will bet you don't know about that either).
On September 29 2008 05:57 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2008 05:22 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Also it would legitimize Ahmadinejad in the face of the world, a criticism Obama came under from Clinton in the primaries. Can we end this vague bullshit? Define legitimizing. Legitimize to who? What will they do differently afterward? What consequences are there?
If I were to say that the Holocaust never happened, would you call me an idiot and walk away, or would you sit down and have a debate about my view points?
If you call me and idiot, it's because I'm saying bullshit and you don't need to debate about what that smell is.
If you debate with me, you admit that I have worthy points to make and that the Holocaust never happening is a legitimate and debatable viewpoint.
|
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2008 05:03 Boblion wrote:
You are so wrong. Bush lied about WmD, and all the American believed him period.
Then he started the war because " Saddam is linked to Ben Laden " ( haha ).
Now don't do some bs revisionism.
You were wrong and you still are.
Don't start to say that Germany, France and Russia didnt want the war because of oil. Russia don't even need more oil and France is producing like 70% of its electricity with nuclear power plants. Anyway you can always find oil elsewhere.
On the other hand the only real American motive was oil. So give me a favor don't write such a long post to say stupid things.
So my post about RUSSIA has to do with the president being wrong to start a war? Are you stupid? Want me to quote the video tapes Saddam took of his meeting, talking about how to hide his WMD from the UN inspectors? Want me to quote him using WMD on his own people in the 1990's? Want me to quote Saddam having all the materials to make WMD but, ya know, I guess he didn't actually have WMD (biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons incase you didn't know). Saddam has hosted Al-Queda members in his palace. If you invite someone over for tea, I think that you are "linked" aka know them. I never said they didn't want war because of oil, read what I wrote, I never said the word oil except for in reference to the oil for food program. I said Russia and other countries didn't want us to invade because Saddam was paying them off. If we wanted OIL, we would have kept the Kuwait oil fields when we retook them from Saddam (but I will bet you don't know about that either).
The general consensus is that Saddam lied to his own generals about WMD in order to bolster his power and the loyalty of his followers
|
This whole "Obama is naive" and "we should not talk ot people who think stupid shit" policy is more stupid than the alternative.
McCain only spams that because it frees him over any real responsability of talking to the voters about the subject.
I can imagine a republican thinking "oh McCain doesnt talk about war out loud, hes probably the best guy for the job" lol
|
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
So my post about RUSSIA has to do with the president being wrong to start a war? Are you stupid?
Thank you for being mannered. But you talked about the countries who didn't want the war "because of money".
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Want me to quote the video tapes Saddam took of his meeting, talking about how to hide his WMD from the UN inspectors?
Show me. ( Might have happened, but give me the links )
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Want me to quote him using WMD on his own people in the 1990's?
I know it already. Yea Saddam used chemical weapons vs his own people and against Iran. But look it happened in 1988, before the first Gulf WAr. Now explain why during the 1990-1991 period the US did nothing to change the regime whereas they could have been to Bagdad ?
Explain me also why the US attacked this very same country 13 years later ? Because he used chemical weapons in the 80's ?
That makes sense for sure.
Halabja was liberated by Kurdish peshmerga supported by Iran in the final phase of the Iran-Iraq war. On 16 March 1988, after two days of conventional artillery attacks, Iraqi planes dropped gas canisters on the town.
The town and surrounding district were attacked with bombs, artillery fire, and chemical weapons, the latter of which proved most devastating. At least 5,000 people died as an immediate result of the chemical attack and it is estimated that a further 7,000 people were injured or suffered long term illness.
The attack is believed to have included the nerve agents Tabun, Sarin, and VX, as well as mustard gas. It is occasionally suggested that cyanide was also included among these chemical weapons, though this assertion has been cast into doubt, as cyanide is a natural byproduct of impure Tabun. The attack on Halabja took place amidst the infamous Anfal campaign, in which Saddam Hussein violently suppressed Kurdish revolts during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons in attacking up to 24 villages in Kurdish areas in April 1987.
Before the war ended the Iraqis moved in on the ground and completely destroyed the town.
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Want me to quote Saddam having all the materials to make WMD but, ya know, I guess he didn't actually have WMD (biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons incase you didn't know).
Like if i haven't already said this. But thank you admit that you have been fooled.
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Saddam has hosted Al-Queda members in his palace. If you invite someone over for tea, I think that you are "linked" aka know them.
Proof please. Actually the Saddam regime was hated by integrists for being way too secular.
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
I never said they didn't want war because of oil, read what I wrote, I never said the word oil except for in reference to the oil for food program. I said Russia and other countries didn't want us to invade because Saddam was paying them off.
I explained you why you are wrong. Want me to do this again ?
Ok i will use another argument; When the first Gulf War started, France trade with Iraq was way more important but Mitterrand agreed with the war. Why ?
If money was a problem the US could have paid us lol. But it wasn't. Chirac didn't want the war because there were no proofs of " WmD ready to be used" and because Saddam wasn't a threat.
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
If we wanted OIL, we would have kept the Kuwait oil fields when we retook them from Saddam (but I will bet you don't know about that either).
Yea, sure neocolonialism would be greatly appreciated by people in the region. Nah, seriously you are at the level D- of geopolitics. No need to invade a country when he is willing to trade its only good and has good relationship with your government.
|
On October 01 2008 14:29 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
If I were to say that the Holocaust never happened, would you call me an idiot and walk away, or would you sit down and have a debate about my view points?
If you call me and idiot, it's because I'm saying bullshit and you don't need to debate about what that smell is.
If you debate with me, you admit that I have worthy points to make and that the Holocaust never happening is a legitimate and debatable viewpoint.
They're not debating the Holocaust. I'm not sure if that was a random example or you are saying it because Iran hosted some Holocaust debate event and you are saying that talking to them at all legitimizes Holocaust denial.
Even if I were to take your example, having such an argument does not admit that Holocaust denial is legitimate. I'm sure if you think for a minute you can recall yourself entertaining conversations where you did not consider the opposing view legitimate.
And even if I accepted that argument it still wouldn't be analogous. There is something tangible for us to gain by negotiating. To avoid enormous benefit for the sake of not legitimizing a point of view is plainly stupid.
You still did not give an answer for what the consequences of legitimizing Iran's positions would be. What possible outcome, specifically, is so dangerous? Hurt feelings?
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2008 14:03 BlackJack wrote:
I think if Obama does win he will have a lot to owe to the new early voting processes many states are using. One of the strongest advantages Republicans have over the Democrats is they seem to get to the polls on election day in much bigger numbers. Especially in swing states like Florida and Ohio where a lot of Democrats are in the lower income bracket and don't have transport or on college campuses where kids just don't care. Imagine being able to solicit votes for a month straight, especially on campuses where political campaigners breed like bacteria.
The entire voting system needs to be reformed. A lot of states make it really difficult for students to get involved (fuck you Michigan) and there's no reason every state should have a different registration and polling process.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
where do i go to vote if i'm in korea? do i need to swing by my embassy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](/userpoll/draw.php?poll_id=4373)
