Filmspotting Forum

Filmspotting Message Boards => No Movie Talk Allowed => Topic started by: Junior on January 08, 2008, 08:42:26 PM

Title: Politics
Post by: Junior on January 08, 2008, 08:42:26 PM
The '08 US Presidential Election is heating up. Time to have a dedicated place to talk about it and other things going down in the political arena.

1 Rule: PLAY NICE!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Junior on January 08, 2008, 08:44:29 PM
Do you guys think that Hillary Clinton's crying helped her, hurt her, or did nothing?  Just wondering.

On one hand I can see it hurting her because it could be considered "weak". On the other hand, she is showing real emotion, something I have not seen much of from her. So my answer is "I don't know."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ElectricOtter on January 09, 2008, 09:39:58 AM
It was a scheduled purging of the lubrication fluids for the servos of her image processing system. Duh.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Rene A. Moncivais on January 09, 2008, 09:52:11 AM
I hate politics.  A lot.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ElectricOtter on January 09, 2008, 12:52:55 PM
Mostly I just don't know enough about them to feel comfortable contributing to a political discussion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Kevin Shields on January 09, 2008, 12:54:43 PM
I hate politics.  A lot.

Me too.  I doubt I'll be voting this year.  
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 09, 2008, 01:43:59 PM
egads! That's the scariest thing I've heard. I'm a big proponent of voting, because in reality it is the only voice we have in government. Whether you think the candidate you like has a chance or choose to vote for the person you dislike least you are still sending a message that there are people out there that feel as you do.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ElectricOtter on January 09, 2008, 01:52:50 PM
Don't get me wrong, I vote. And I follow enough to know who I'd vote for, I just don't know enough to talk at length about any of it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 01:53:45 PM
It's much better to vote for a third party candidate you believe in. The higher voting percentages get, the more candidates have to play to voters' interests in addition to lobbies. Also, it may seem insignificant, but getting the 5% for a third party would really be a big deal, as we do not have the structure right now to easily move into a three or more party system.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: crumpet on January 09, 2008, 02:00:28 PM
I hate politics.  A lot.

Me too.  I doubt I'll be voting this year.  

In my country, it's illegal not to vote.

Voting is not a right, it's a responsibility.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 02:03:18 PM
This strikes me as sort of a weird year not to vote.  What kind of candidate are people waiting for?

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:09:34 PM
It's much better to vote for a third party candidate you believe in. The higher voting percentages get, the more candidates have to play to voters' interests in addition to lobbies. Also, it may seem insignificant, but getting the 5% for a third party would really be a big deal, as we do not have the structure right now to easily move into a three or more party system.

George Bush couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 09, 2008, 02:10:03 PM
egads! That's the scariest thing I've heard. I'm a big proponent of voting, because in reality it is the only voice we have in government. Whether you think the candidate you like has a chance or choose to vote for the person you dislike least you are still sending a message that there are people out there that feel as you do.

No way!  Voting is the least effective voice.  </minor vanperbole>  Really, the US voting system is a joke - electoral college, gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement, ballot errors, black box voting, plurality voting, exclusionary "debates", on and on and on.  If you want to get something done it needs to happen outside the voting booth!

void, don't worry about voting (that is a vote in itself).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 02:11:07 PM
George Bush couldn't agree more.

Well, George W. Bush.  I believe H. W. has the opposite take.

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 09, 2008, 02:14:52 PM
I agree that voting isn't perfect here, but by not voting you are allowing yourself to be silenced... and it is by not voting that you allow others votes to count more within your state. The first time I voted for a governor the vote came down to the absentee ballots and were only separated by a few hundred in the end. The candidate I voted for won and I knew that my ballot had helped decide the outcome. I just don't understand and will never understand someone not choosing the have a voice.

I'm not saying it only happens inside the voting booth, but by choosing not to express yourself within one you are throwing up your hands, saying it won't matter anyway, and blaming a system you won't take part in restructuring.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:18:03 PM
George Bush couldn't agree more.

Well, George W. Bush.  I believe H. W. has the opposite take.


I know that's the traditional take on it, that Perot took votes from Bush, but I never did see it that way.  Bush and Perot didn't have anything in common.  I don't think there's any reason to think the proportion of the votes he got that would have gone to Bush would have been enough to overcome Clinton.

Ralph Nader, and all the people that voted for him (in Florida at least) can be proud of the decisive role they played in the 2000 election.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:20:48 PM
I agree that voting isn't perfect here, but by not voting you are allowing yourself to be silenced... and it is by not voting that you allow others votes to count more within your state. The first time I voted for a governor the vote came down to the absentee ballots and were only separated by a few hundred in the end. The candidate I voted for won and I knew that my ballot had helped decide the outcome. I just don't understand and will never understand someone not choosing the have a voice.

I'm not saying it only happens inside the voting booth, but by choosing not to express yourself within one you are throwing up your hands, saying it won't matter anyway, and blaming a system you won't take part in restructuring.

I know my vote in the last Washington governor's election counted:

"The election for governor of the U.S. state of Washington in the year 2004 gained national attention for its legal twists and turns and its extremely close finish. . . . It is notable for being among the closest races in United States election history; the winner, Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, was elected after the third official count turned the election in her favor by a margin of 129 votes, or 0.0045%."   (wikipedia)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 02:23:55 PM

On the importance of voting: it's also worth keeping in mind that the Presidential race isn't the only thing on the ballot...

I know my vote in the last Washington governor's election counted...

Ah, so you admit you helped cost that poor US attorney his job!

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:27:01 PM
Ah, so you admit you helped cost that poor US attorney his job!

Only if I get to claim that I helped cost Alberto Gonzalez his job.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 02:29:57 PM
egads! That's the scariest thing I've heard. I'm a big proponent of voting, because in reality it is the only voice we have in government. Whether you think the candidate you like has a chance or choose to vote for the person you dislike least you are still sending a message that there are people out there that feel as you do.

No way!  Voting is the least effective voice.  </minor vanperbole>  Really, the US voting system is a joke - electoral college, gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement, ballot errors, black box voting, plurality voting, exclusionary "debates", on and on and on.  If you want to get something done it needs to happen outside the voting booth!

void, don't worry about voting (that is a vote in itself).
That's more or less true.

It's much better to vote for a third party candidate you believe in. The higher voting percentages get, the more candidates have to play to voters' interests in addition to lobbies. Also, it may seem insignificant, but getting the 5% for a third party would really be a big deal, as we do not have the structure right now to easily move into a three or more party system.

George Bush couldn't agree more.
Besides being inaccurate, how is not voting a better idea than voting third party?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 02:31:38 PM
George Bush couldn't agree more.

Well, George W. Bush.  I believe H. W. has the opposite take.


I know that's the traditional take on it, that Perot took votes from Bush, but I never did see it that way.  Bush and Perot didn't have anything in common.  I don't think there's any reason to think the proportion of the votes he got that would have gone to Bush would have been enough to overcome Clinton.

Ralph Nader, and all the people that voted for him (in Florida at least) can be proud of the decisive role they played in the 2000 election.
More registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than Nader, so I don't see your point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 02:34:33 PM
Quote from: skjerva
No way!  Voting is the least effective voice.  </minor vanperbole>  Really, the US voting system is a joke - electoral college, gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement, ballot errors, black box voting, plurality voting, exclusionary "debates", on and on and on.  If you want to get something done it needs to happen outside the voting booth!

void, don't worry about voting (that is a vote in itself).

Wrong - you are not going to have any measurable changes to the system through just spreading information and protesting. You need to be a part of the system to change it, from the inside - this would include voting your own people to office. There is very little permanent change you can affect without voting taking place somehow, someway.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 02:39:43 PM
I agree that voting isn't perfect here, but by not voting you are allowing yourself to be silenced... and it is by not voting that you allow others votes to count more within your state. The first time I voted for a governor the vote came down to the absentee ballots and were only separated by a few hundred in the end. The candidate I voted for won and I knew that my ballot had helped decide the outcome. I just don't understand and will never understand someone not choosing the have a voice.

I'm not saying it only happens inside the voting booth, but by choosing not to express yourself within one you are throwing up your hands, saying it won't matter anyway, and blaming a system you won't take part in restructuring.

  What she said - if we want to fix/change what is a very broken system then we need to be a part of it first and fix it from the inside. Voting is your responsibility - otherwise don't complain about what goes on in this country if you won't at least let your voice be heard.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 02:41:55 PM
I agree that voting isn't perfect here, but by not voting you are allowing yourself to be silenced... and it is by not voting that you allow others votes to count more within your state. The first time I voted for a governor the vote came down to the absentee ballots and were only separated by a few hundred in the end. The candidate I voted for won and I knew that my ballot had helped decide the outcome. I just don't understand and will never understand someone not choosing the have a voice.

I'm not saying it only happens inside the voting booth, but by choosing not to express yourself within one you are throwing up your hands, saying it won't matter anyway, and blaming a system you won't take part in restructuring.

  What she said - if we want to fix/change what is a very broken system then we need to be a part of it first and fix it from the inside. Voting is your responsibility - otherwise don't complain about what goes on in this country if you won't at least let your voice be heard.
Voting for change is just a really slow, protracted process. Without a hell of a lot of foresight, it is hard to see it as effective. The system is ludicrous, but unless someone plans to find a way to dismantle it, there isn't a hell of a lot of choice.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:43:06 PM
Besides being inaccurate, how is not voting a better idea than voting third party?

If those are your only options, there's no difference.

But those aren't the only two options.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 09, 2008, 02:43:59 PM
Quote from: skjerva
No way!  Voting is the least effective voice.  </minor vanperbole>  Really, the US voting system is a joke - electoral college, gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement, ballot errors, black box voting, plurality voting, exclusionary "debates", on and on and on.  If you want to get something done it needs to happen outside the voting booth!

void, don't worry about voting (that is a vote in itself).

Wrong - you are not going to have any measurable changes to the system through just spreading information and protesting. You need to be a part of the system to change it, from the inside - this would include voting your own people to office. There is very little permanent change you can affect without voting taking place somehow, someway.



I think W's administration has made it clear that it does not care what the people, media, or even other parts of the administration want, instead making believe that there is no substantial opposition.

On "measurable change"?  What do you want changed?  Give me an example.  You think voting for Dude #1 is going to get that thing changed?  I suspect getting active and putting pressure on politicians/the bureaucracy is what actually makes change.  It is called "voting with your feet".  Most obviously, The Civil Rights Movement was about activism, not voting.  I'm not saying politicians in office don't matter, I am saying that if some issue matters to you, you are a fool to leave it up to casting a vote.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 02:46:47 PM
The only way we'll dismantle it is from the inside - short of armed insurrection - tell me how we will change an electoral process without some sort of legislative action?

It is a long slow process and that's probably why so many lose heart - forst remember that you need to win the hearts and minds of the majority of the citizens in this country first - most of whom have this mentality that we are the greatest coutry in the world and there is nothing wrong with us that a few well placed bombs in another country can't cure.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:48:13 PM
More registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than Nader, so I don't see your point.

So you don't think that the Nader vote was decisive?  He got 97,000 votes in an election decided by less than 600.

Registered democrats who voted for Bush are largely irrelevant.  Enough Nader voters would have backed Gore had they not bought into his nonsense rhetoric about there not being any real difference between the two parties.  If nothing else, I would hope the last 7 years would finally prove that wrong.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 02:48:46 PM
Quote
Most obviously, The Civil Rights Movement was about activism, not voting.  I'm not saying politicians in office don't matter, I am saying that if some issue matters to you, you are a fool to leave it up to casting a vote.

 Correct me if I'm wrong - but the civil rights movement required a Constitutional amendment - legislative action - which requires elected officials - which requires your votes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Rene A. Moncivais on January 09, 2008, 02:49:33 PM
I hate politics.  A lot.

Me too.  I doubt I'll be voting this year. 

In my country, it's illegal not to vote.

Voting is not a right, it's a responsibility.

I vote, but it seems like my vote doesn't matter, especially when I live in Texas and it always goes Republican.  Since I am liberal it doesn't matter too much here in Texas, at least to me. 

The thing that drives me crazy is it is all smear campaign here in the states.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:50:27 PM
On "measurable change"?  What do you want changed?  Give me an example.  You think voting for Dude #1 is going to get that thing changed?  I suspect getting active and putting pressure on politicians/the bureaucracy is what actually makes change.  It is called "voting with your feet".  Most obviously, The Civil Rights Movement was about activism, not voting.  I'm not saying politicians in office don't matter, I am saying that if some issue matters to you, you are a fool to leave it up to casting a vote.

I don't think anybody believes that all you have to do is vote.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:52:01 PM
Quote
Most obviously, The Civil Rights Movement was about activism, not voting.  I'm not saying politicians in office don't matter, I am saying that if some issue matters to you, you are a fool to leave it up to casting a vote.

 Correct me if I'm wrong - but the civil rights movement required a Constitutional amendment - legislative action - which requires elected officials - which requires your votes.

Not an amendment, but yes, two Civil Rights Acts, a process begun by a President who won an extremely close election.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 02:52:53 PM
you are a fool to leave it up to casting a vote.

I must have missed where that false choice was implied above.  ;)

Enough Nader voters would have backed Gore had they not bought into his nonsense rhetoric about there not being any real difference between the two parties.  If nothing else, I would hope the last 7 years would finally prove that wrong.

Damn, I can't find that video on President Al Gore addressing the nation on SNL...

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 02:53:24 PM
More registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than Nader, so I don't see your point.

So you don't think that the Nader vote was decisive?  He got 97,000 votes in an election decided by less than 600.

Registered democrats who voted for Bush are largely irrelevant.  Enough Nader voters would have backed Gore had they not bought into his nonsense rhetoric about there not being any real difference between the two parties.  If nothing else, I would hope the last 7 years would finally prove that wrong.
I'm not saying that changing their votes wouldn't have been enough in numbers, but there were enough in numbers from registered dems among other places. Singling out Nader is irrelevant. The problem was how ineffective the campaign and Gore as a candidate were. Poor campaign execution endemic in the dem party was proven by Kerry who, despite his standing as a charisma-less candidate, could have easily won. Blaming third party voters ignores the more important concerns over election policy and maintains a system that is ridiculous. Realistically, if the electoral college wasn't in practice, we wouldn't still be discussing Florida. It just seems odd to me to vote in acceptance of a system that you're morally opposed to.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 02:54:33 PM
Also, is this going somewhere? I'm starting to lose interest, can we start talking about future policy rather than voting past?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 02:56:49 PM
Quote
I'm not saying politicians in office don't matter, I am saying that if some issue matters to you, you are a fool to leave it up to casting a vote.

 No you're a fool if you squander your one and only chance to be heard. Nowhere did I or anyone else say that's the only action you should take. So - in your effort to prove your point - you put words in a lot of people's mouths. Voting IS important - along with OTHER action.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 02:57:03 PM
I'll agree that Gore (and Kerry) ran terrible campaigns and that there are numerous problems with the electoral system.

If you're morally opposed to voting, I'm clearly not going to change your mind.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 09, 2008, 03:01:15 PM
Quote
Most obviously, The Civil Rights Movement was about activism, not voting.  I'm not saying politicians in office don't matter, I am saying that if some issue matters to you, you are a fool to leave it up to casting a vote.

 Correct me if I'm wrong - but the civil rights movement required a Constitutional amendment - legislative action - which requires elected officials - which requires your votes.

yes, you are wrong.  i am talking about sit-ins, bus boycotts, freedom schools, MLK's speeches and activism, marches, etc. - this is what put pressure on legislative bodies to enact change - the CRM is primarily about the activism.

your previous point about "needing legislative change" is obvious.  but like i wrote, you don't sit back and cast a vote every four years and expect that change to happen.  like you write, people believe there is nothing wrong.  to get people to change their minds you need to convince them, which means talking to them - this is a form of direct action. 

sean, i believe the "democratic votes for bush" face was talking about is referring to the issue of faulty ballots.

Quote
I'm not saying politicians in office don't matter, I am saying that if some issue matters to you, you are a fool to leave it up to casting a vote.

 No you're a fool if you squander your one and only chance to be heard. Nowhere did I or anyone else say that's the only action you should take. So - in your effort to prove your point - you put words in a lot of people's mouths. Voting IS important - along with OTHER action.

"Your one and only chance to be heard" - is the kind of approach to making social change I am railing against.  At least we clearly agree that action is important :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 03:01:58 PM
1 Rule: PLAY NICE!

So far, so good!

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:03:07 PM
I'll agree that Gore (and Kerry) ran terrible campaigns and that there are numerous problems with the electoral system.

If you're morally opposed to voting, I'm clearly not going to change your mind.
No, I'm morally for voting. I'll even concede that it is okay to vote for a candidate that you don't wholly endorse if you agree with enough really important points and you think they have a chance to win. However, I'm not for voting for the so-called "lesser of two evils" just to vote against the other. It won't do you any good to elect someone that won't do anything you consider significantly positive. In that situation, I suggest just ignoring feasibility and voting for the one that you most agree with. If nothing else, you will help build us towards three parties. I myself have not decided yet. I withhold my research until after the official nominations because I don't want to waste my time learning about Bill Richardson when I'm not eligible to vote in the primary and can assume he won't be available for the general. Realistically, I probably would vote for Kucinich, but snowball in hell there. Once we know who can actually be voted for in the general I'll look everyone over. If I can agree on enough important issues with a major, then I may go that way. Otherwise, I'll ignore feasibility.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:04:44 PM

I used to believe all that stuff too.  My vote didn't matter, they're all corrupt, the system needs to be radically restructured and taking part in it is a necessary validation of that evil.  The 2000 election and the Iraq war changed my mind.  Add to that John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and I don't see how any responsible lefty can refuse to engage with the system.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:06:26 PM
sean, i believe the "democratic votes for bush" face was talking about is referring to the issue of faulty ballots.

Ah, well there's not anything we can do about that now (except, of course, reform the electoral system, but we have to elect people to do that).  The people who voted for Nader can, however, rethink their positions and make a better choice next time.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:08:15 PM

I used to believe all that stuff too.  My vote didn't matter, they're all corrupt, the system needs to be radically restructured and taking part in it is a necessary validation of that evil.  The 2000 election and the Iraq war changed my mind.  Add to that John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and I don't see how any responsible lefty can refuse to engage with the system.
Who said my vote doesn't matter, I didn't. My point is that there are a variety of potential goals that you can attempt to achieve through your vote. As long as you believe whole heartedly in your reasoning, I'm fine with it. That's what I meant. I'm against blindly voting for one party as a vote against the other, but if you are content with the candidate that is your enemy's enemy, then fine. I'm mostly against the hipster vote. That is, to cast the non-Bush/Rep. vote or to not vote or, zeus-forbid, voting for a candidate because you think it's funny. I obviously disagree with certain rationales, but as long as you fully believe in it, that's fantastic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:08:50 PM
So far, so good!

I'm just surprised this message board managed to go so long without (non-cinematic) political discussion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:09:56 PM
sean, i believe the "democratic votes for bush" face was talking about is referring to the issue of faulty ballots.

Ah, well there's not anything we can do about that now (except, of course, reform the electoral system, but we have to elect people to do that).  The people who voted for Nader can, however, rethink their positions and make a better choice next time.
I was realistically pointing to both. While the mistakes were of note, it is much worse when a party can't win it's own devotees. There's never an excuse for a party to lose it's registered voters.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:10:48 PM
So far, so good!

I'm just surprised this message board managed to go so long without (non-cinematic) political discussion.
I myself usually get bored and lazy with these kinds of discussions. If I'm still posting here after Thursday, I'll be a bit surprised.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 03:11:00 PM
I'm mostly against the hipster vote.

This sentence doubly fascinates me.  First, because true hipsters don't even vote in online polls.  Second, because you said "mostly."

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:12:13 PM

I used to believe all that stuff too.  My vote didn't matter, they're all corrupt, the system needs to be radically restructured and taking part in it is a necessary validation of that evil.  The 2000 election and the Iraq war changed my mind.  Add to that John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and I don't see how any responsible lefty can refuse to engage with the system.
Who said my vote doesn't matter, I didn't.

That would be the parallel discussion with skerjva, who is encouraging thevoid not to vote because it's only outside action that matters.

My point is that there are a variety of potential goals that you can attempt to achieve through your vote. As long as you believe whole heartedly in your reasoning, I'm fine with it. That's what I meant. I'm against blindly voting for one party as a vote against the other, but if you are content with the candidate that is your enemy's enemy, then fine. I'm mostly against the hipster vote. That is, to cast the non-Bush/Rep. vote or to not vote or, zeus-forbid, voting for a candidate because you think it's funny. I obviously disagree with certain rationales, but as long as you fully believe in it, that's fantastic.

I don't think I disagree with any of that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 09, 2008, 03:12:51 PM
sean, i believe the "democratic votes for bush" face was talking about is referring to the issue of faulty ballots.

Ah, well there's not anything we can do about that now (except, of course, reform the electoral system, but we have to elect people to do that).  The people who voted for Nader can, however, rethink their positions and make a better choice next time.

well, as this discussion is pointing out, people have different beliefs about voting. 

KUCINICH!!!

also, polling is kind of a drag on the whole process the way it sells the idea that there are only one or two worthwhile choices to be made.  i liked that in NH last night BO was way ahead in the polls, one of the commentators made the astute observation that polled people probably wanted to come off enlightened enough to vote for <shhh>a black</shhh>, but when nobody was looking...


ps - 6 new messages while i wrote that, i'm not going back, hoping it isn't obvious...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:14:10 PM
I'm mostly against the hipster vote.

This sentence doubly fascinates me.  First, because true hipsters don't even vote in online polls.  Second, because you said "mostly."

pixote
I'm against other things as well, and part of my explanation of the hipster vote was not voting.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:14:32 PM
I was realistically pointing to both. While the mistakes were of note, it is much worse when a party can't win it's own devotees. There's never an excuse for a party to lose it's registered voters.

I think a lot of that is an artifact of the Reagan years, when Southern white Democrats started voting Republican.  They likely never bothered to change their registration.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:15:11 PM
sean, i believe the "democratic votes for bush" face was talking about is referring to the issue of faulty ballots.

Ah, well there's not anything we can do about that now (except, of course, reform the electoral system, but we have to elect people to do that).  The people who voted for Nader can, however, rethink their positions and make a better choice next time.

well, as this discussion is pointing out, people have different beliefs about voting. 

KUCINICH!!!

also, polling is kind of a drag on the whole process the way it sells the idea that there are only one or two worthwhile choices to be made.  i liked that in NH last night BO was way ahead in the polls, one of the commentators made the astute observation that polled people probably wanted to come off enlightened enough to vote for <shhh>a black</shhh>, but when nobody was looking...


ps - 6 new messages while i wrote that, i'm not going back, hoping it isn't obvious...
Ah Kucinich, the only vegan choice.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:16:46 PM
I was realistically pointing to both. While the mistakes were of note, it is much worse when a party can't win it's own devotees. There's never an excuse for a party to lose it's registered voters.

I think a lot of that is an artifact of the Reagan years, when Southern white Democrats started voting Republican.  They likely never bothered to change their registration.
I can see why you'd think that, but because of the mobilization of Southern Republicans in the last 10 years, I severely doubt they would choose not to vote in the Republican primaries by being too lazy to reregister. Even if you were going to argue subterfuge, I doubt they would want to leave their candidate to chance.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:16:55 PM
sean, i believe the "democratic votes for bush" face was talking about is referring to the issue of faulty ballots.

Ah, well there's not anything we can do about that now (except, of course, reform the electoral system, but we have to elect people to do that).  The people who voted for Nader can, however, rethink their positions and make a better choice next time.

well, as this discussion is pointing out, people have different beliefs about voting. 

KUCINICH!!!

also, polling is kind of a drag on the whole process the way it sells the idea that there are only one or two worthwhile choices to be made.  i liked that in NH last night BO was way ahead in the polls, one of the commentators made the astute observation that polled people probably wanted to come off enlightened enough to vote for <shhh>a black</shhh>, but when nobody was looking...


ps - 6 new messages while i wrote that, i'm not going back, hoping it isn't obvious...

I like Kucinich a lot, but I like even more that he told his supporters to support Obama when they didn't have the minimum amount of support in the Iowa caucus.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:20:21 PM
I was realistically pointing to both. While the mistakes were of note, it is much worse when a party can't win it's own devotees. There's never an excuse for a party to lose it's registered voters.

I think a lot of that is an artifact of the Reagan years, when Southern white Democrats started voting Republican.  They likely never bothered to change their registration.
I can see why you'd think that, but because of the mobilization of Southern Republicans in the last 10 years, I severely doubt they would choose not to vote in the Republican primaries by being too lazy to reregister. Even if you were going to argue subterfuge, I doubt they would want to leave their candidate to chance.

If they're politically engaged enough to vote in the primaries (which most people aren't) then they'd be motivated to change their registration.  I don't know if Florida is an open or closed primary, but that would make a difference as well.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 09, 2008, 03:20:38 PM

I used to believe all that stuff too.  My vote didn't matter, they're all corrupt, the system needs to be radically restructured and taking part in it is a necessary validation of that evil.  The 2000 election and the Iraq war changed my mind.  Add to that John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and I don't see how any responsible lefty can refuse to engage with the system.
Who said my vote doesn't matter, I didn't.

That would be the parallel discussion with skerjva, who is encouraging thevoid not to vote because it's only outside action that matters.


sean, you have once again misread what i wrote.  first, i disagreed with lise for writing "voting is the only voice we have in government" - this is nonsense, we have all sorts of voices in government.  Second, i told void not to worry about his tossing out doubt about voting this year.  that is his decision, i support that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 03:21:50 PM
I lived in Cleveland when he was mayor - duriing the Muny Power scandal - I was glad to see that history proved him right. I would love to see Kucinich in office but since mainstream media will not give him the time of day that will never happen.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 09, 2008, 03:22:26 PM
sean, didn't mean to sound mean at you :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:23:05 PM
sean, i believe the "democratic votes for bush" face was talking about is referring to the issue of faulty ballots.

Ah, well there's not anything we can do about that now (except, of course, reform the electoral system, but we have to elect people to do that).  The people who voted for Nader can, however, rethink their positions and make a better choice next time.

well, as this discussion is pointing out, people have different beliefs about voting. 

KUCINICH!!!

also, polling is kind of a drag on the whole process the way it sells the idea that there are only one or two worthwhile choices to be made.  i liked that in NH last night BO was way ahead in the polls, one of the commentators made the astute observation that polled people probably wanted to come off enlightened enough to vote for <shhh>a black</shhh>, but when nobody was looking...


ps - 6 new messages while i wrote that, i'm not going back, hoping it isn't obvious...

I like Kucinich a lot, but I like even more that he told his supporters to support Obama when they didn't have the minimum amount of support in the Iowa caucus.
I wouldn't be surprised if he is of the opinion that minor, gradual change is worth supporting. Obama isn't totally differing from Kucinich, but he is vastly more moderate and Dennis is a far better choice. Hopefully he's pushing for the second banana on the ticket (not that he'd get that either).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:24:12 PM
I was realistically pointing to both. While the mistakes were of note, it is much worse when a party can't win it's own devotees. There's never an excuse for a party to lose it's registered voters.

I think a lot of that is an artifact of the Reagan years, when Southern white Democrats started voting Republican.  They likely never bothered to change their registration.
I can see why you'd think that, but because of the mobilization of Southern Republicans in the last 10 years, I severely doubt they would choose not to vote in the Republican primaries by being too lazy to reregister. Even if you were going to argue subterfuge, I doubt they would want to leave their candidate to chance.

If they're politically engaged enough to vote in the primaries (which most people aren't) then they'd be motivated to change their registration.  I don't know if Florida is an open or closed primary, but that would make a difference as well.
If I remember correctly they are closed, but I'm not doing the research.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:24:31 PM
sean, you have once again misread what i wrote.  first, i disagreed with lise for writing "voting is the only voice we have in government" - this is nonsense, we have all sorts of voices in government.  Second, i told void not to worry about his tossing out doubt about voting this year.  that is his decision, i support that.

If you want to change your argument now, I support that.   ;)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 09, 2008, 03:26:00 PM
sean, you have once again misread what i wrote.  first, i disagreed with lise for writing "voting is the only voice we have in government" - this is nonsense, we have all sorts of voices in government.  Second, i told void not to worry about his tossing out doubt about voting this year.  that is his decision, i support that.

If you want to change your argument now, I support that.   ;)

thanks :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 03:28:08 PM
Obama isn't totally differing from Kucinich, but he is vastly more moderate and Dennis is a far better choice.

I don't think we really know yet how moderate Obama would (or wouldn't) be as President.  He's taken his share of moderate positions and used a bunch of that 'a pox on both their houses' rhetoric, but it remains to be seen how much of that is a part of his election strategy and how much of it he really believes.  If it's the former, it seems to be working.  He's Mr. Electability.  If it's the latter, well, it's kind of too bad.

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 03:36:12 PM
I don't think there's any reason to believe he isn't honest about his positions.  His main problem in the debates has been an insistence on providing actual reasons for his arguments, as opposed to appeals to emotion or the slinging of mud.  I'm far more cynical about Edwards and Clinton than Obama.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 03:36:28 PM
So it's settled.  Everyone should vote.  Just like with the Filmspots!

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on January 09, 2008, 03:43:59 PM
His main problem in the debates has been an insistence on providing actual reasons for his arguments, as opposed to appeals to emotion or the slinging of mud.

I haven't watched the latest debates, but the exact opposite was true early on.  The health care one was particularly awkward, with almost nothing but empty rhetoric from Obama.  (He hadn't released his plan yet, which somehow meant he couldn't answer any question directly.)

Just to clarify, though:  I'm not being anti-Obama here.  Just cautious.

And there's enough cynicism to go around, I'm sure!

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 03:47:44 PM
Ok - let's change the direction:

First of all - what do you think the role of government is?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ses on January 09, 2008, 03:49:56 PM

I vote, but it seems like my vote doesn't matter, especially when I live in Texas and it always goes Republican.  Since I am liberal it doesn't matter too much here in Texas, at least to me. 

The thing that drives me crazy is it is all smear campaign here in the states.

That's what sucks about the electoral college, it's so archaic, it needs to go
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on January 09, 2008, 03:52:24 PM
Obama isn't totally differing from Kucinich, but he is vastly more moderate and Dennis is a far better choice.

I don't think we really know yet how moderate Obama would (or wouldn't) be as President.  He's taken his share of moderate positions and used a bunch of that 'a pox on both their houses' rhetoric, but it remains to be seen how much of that is a part of his election strategy and how much of it he really believes.  If it's the former, it seems to be working.  He's Mr. Electability.  If it's the latter, well, it's kind of too bad.

pixote
Kucinich is relatively radical enough to affirm this regardless of Obama. Obama would have to shock people to be near as radical.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Junior on January 09, 2008, 03:57:26 PM
I take a shower and 5 pages have appeared in this thread. Wow.

As of right now I'm for Obama. My very little research has given me hope for him. Just throwing that out there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 09, 2008, 04:08:03 PM
I'll say that I've been 'with' obama for a while. While I haven't seen as much of a stand on some of the key points he has intelligence and a power to speak that I respect.  Heck I downloaded the dem. nat. conv. speeches just so I would have a copy of that address. It isn't that I dislike Clinton, but she has a lot of baggage that I believe will make it tough to sway voters in a general election. Even my aunt (a staunch republican) has started talking about obama.

As for the comment that people were polling for him to seem enlightened on the racial issue I think is wrong and mean spirited. We were talking about a state where Clinton was projected to win until iowa happened and there were a whole host of undecideds who were changing there minds all the way up to the election. I attribute the switch to the late debates and the large group of voters who came out to express there opinions.

Oh and marty... it is creepy how much I agree with you on most of this stuff.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Junior on January 09, 2008, 04:10:50 PM
I also think Obama is very popular with the college crowd. Of which I am a part. I don't know why, exactly, but there it is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 04:16:39 PM
His main problem in the debates has been an insistence on providing actual reasons for his arguments, as opposed to appeals to emotion or the slinging of mud.

I haven't watched the latest debates, but the exact opposite was true early on.  The health care one was particularly awkward, with almost nothing but empty rhetoric from Obama.  (He hadn't released his plan yet, which somehow meant he couldn't answer any question directly.)

We missed all the early debates.  Didn't hear about them until after they'd happened.

Policy-wise, I see very little difference between any of the Democratic candidates.  I think any of them would be fine Presidents, but I think only Obama has a chance at being a great President.

As for the poll/race issue: I don't think its mean-spirited, but there has to be some explanation for the vast discrepancy between the final polls and the election results.  It's a combination of things, for sure, but I can't believe race wasn't a part of it. 

Possibly more disturbing is the possibility that Clinton won her huge numbers of women voters because she almost cried the morning before the election.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 09, 2008, 04:28:28 PM
My guess is that when she expressed an emotion the voters who had defected in the previous polls to obama (but really had no reasons for the switch other than that he was the one in the news) switched back. If you looked at the question in the polls which asked something along the lines of 'how likely are you to change your vote' the number was very high. Some people had there vote locked in and some were still just paddling around in circles.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 04:40:37 PM
I prefer to read the New Hampshire results as an expression of the fact that voters didn't want things to be decided so quickly.  Had Obama won by the double-digits figures most polls predicted, the race would effectively be over (and indeed that was the opinion of the talking heads on Charlie Rose Monday night).  I see the NHers voting to have the process keep going, and I don't have a real problem with that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 04:41:48 PM
I'll say that I've been 'with' obama for a while. While I haven't seen as much of a stand on some of the key points he has intelligence and a power to speak that I respect.  Heck I downloaded the dem. nat. conv. speeches just so I would have a copy of that address. It isn't that I dislike Clinton, but she has a lot of baggage that I believe will make it tough to sway voters in a general election. Even my aunt (a staunch republican) has started talking about obama.

As for the comment that people were polling for him to seem enlightened on the racial issue I think is wrong and mean spirited. We were talking about a state where Clinton was projected to win until iowa happened and there were a whole host of undecideds who were changing there minds all the way up to the election. I attribute the switch to the late debates and the large group of voters who came out to express there opinions.

Oh and marty... it is creepy how much I agree with you on most of this stuff.

  I think there are those who think just talking about change will make it happen, protesting, sit ins, polls all of that is fine and dandy but the signal to noise ratio in a 24 hour news cycle is tremendous and I think the days where you can get a nation to stand up and take notice just over a large turnout are over. Real change involves getting dirty, becoming a part of the system to affrect change from within - with that in mind - I think Obama represents change from "business as usual" for a lot of people. Remember that real change comes in very small increments. We have had 3 terms of the Bush dynasty interupted by 2 terms of Clinton - thats 20 yrs of middle of the road politics dominated by big business and big business concerns - of course corporate favoritism goes back longer than that but people look at their own experiences and their perception is based on those experiences - for myself Hillary is to calculating, too cynical for my tastes...in becoming a part of the system (as I endorse) you run the risk of losing yourself in it.
  Clinto tries to be all things to all people and in the process I do not know where she stands on anything. I just want a candidate who isn't afraid to take a risky stand based on what they believe...please find me one of those!

  As for what I am loooking for in a president this election...

  I want someone who is for me, who thinks of people like me and how I make a living. I need someone who isn't in the back pocket of any lobbyists, who is honest about the economy and how it affects the 99% of us who aren't at thye very top...I don't care about tax cuts but take home pay. I am one illness away from bankruptcy - who is going to do something about that?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 09, 2008, 04:43:47 PM
I prefer to read the New Hampshire results as an expression of the fact that voters didn't want things to be decided so quickly.  Had Obama won by the double-digits figures most polls predicted, the race would effectively be over (and indeed that was the opinion of the talking heads on Charlie Rose Monday night).  I see the NHers voting to have the process keep going, and I don't have a real problem with that.

Neither do I. :) It is in close races that you begin to see the nuances of how candidates differ. Also you find out what type of staff they surround themselves with (aka how they handle attacks). All of these things combine to make me a happy voter.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 09, 2008, 04:44:52 PM
I prefer to read the New Hampshire results as an expression of the fact that voters didn't want things to be decided so quickly.  Had Obama won by the double-digits figures most polls predicted, the race would effectively be over (and indeed that was the opinion of the talking heads on Charlie Rose Monday night).  I see the NHers voting to have the process keep going, and I don't have a real problem with that.

  I think you hit on the problem of both the mainstream media's (and this society's absolute faith in it) reporting and the fact that the primary system is so weighted on these two elections...

  Polling in general is a bad thing, exit polls even more - but so often it's from the talking head;s mouth to reality..it's quite disturbing how often the sheep fall in line when they hear that "victory" is at hand or "loss" is inevitable...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on January 09, 2008, 04:45:41 PM
Clinton tries to be all things to all people and in the process I do not know where she stands on anything. I just want a candidate who isn't afraid to take a risky stand based on what they believe...please find me one of those!

In an earlier debate, Clinton backed away from Eliot Spitzer's make illegal immigrants get driver's licenses plan when it became obviously politically unpopular.  Obama flatly said he still supported it because it was the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 10, 2008, 07:16:02 AM
Come people...that's it?

There is more to this discussion than the presidential race...and we should rename this thread American Politics as we have members from other nations here....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 10, 2008, 01:20:16 PM
I'm always up for a good discussion. So here is a quick couple of questions.

Does Kerry's endorsement mean anything? I mean does it do more harm than good? I really don't think it'll help anything, but it does keep obama in the news for a day.

Oh and will Bloomberg run? If he does which party will be effected the most? I personally think he doesn't like to lose and will therefore not run, but it might be interesting to here the dialog the his entering the race would stir up.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 10, 2008, 02:19:06 PM

Oh and will Bloomberg run? If he does which party will be effected the most? I personally think he doesn't like to lose and will therefore not run, but it might be interesting to here the dialog the his entering the race would stir up.


I really haven't been following this O8 cycle yet.  My gut is that if BO or HRC make it out, which seems a lock, a white male candidate is going to get some bump from that fact that people don't want someone that is either black or female in office - I know there has to be polling on that issue, it would be interesting to see what it is at.  As far as the Republican side goes, none of those candidates seems electable (I'd say McCain does in an abstract way1), so Bloomberg would clearly draw from there as well.

1 - Did anyone else see The Lehrer News Hour the other day when a table's worth of hosts and analyst's were making fun of polling data - it was awesome!  "Look, they say they voted for McCain because he is anti-war - ha ha ha - of course he isn't anti-war.  Look, they say they voted for McCain because he is pro-choice, he is pro-life - ha ha ha!"  They did this with about five or six points.  Clearly, they were ripping on McCain, but also the stupid electorate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 10, 2008, 05:06:49 PM
It is actually much more likely for an BO or HC to be elected than a MR. Apparently the polls indicate that the number of voters who wouldn't vote for a black or female has gone down in the last 20 years (and those who are really care would never vote for a democrat anyway). It is the rate of people who would never vote for a mormon which has risen.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 10, 2008, 05:12:00 PM
The downward trend for black or female doesn't surprise me; mormon, crazy.  I haven't following the pundits, or oddsmakers, so don't know what the "conventional wisdom" is on BO or HRC versus a MR (moderate republican?), but I'm not sure I buy it.  I reckon we won't have a good feel until the field is narrowed down to the two or three.

And as far as Kerry goes, I can't imagine it means anything aside from the news bump you mention.  Who even watches news these days?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 10, 2008, 05:47:37 PM
Quote
Who even watches news these days?

Did you really type that?

Part of the problem with todays electorate is that they rely too much on mainstream media.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 10, 2008, 06:05:50 PM
journalists aren't the problem... phony journalists who are espousing a blatant opinion and calling it journalism are
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 10, 2008, 06:34:13 PM
Quote
Who even watches news these days?

Did you really type that?

Part of the problem with todays electorate is that they rely too much on mainstream media.

It is an honest question.  None of my friends watch news, we/they get it from various web-sources.  I know a lot of people must still watch it, but I don't know of people I know that do.  Marty, do you watch it?

journalists aren't the problem... phony journalists who are espousing a blatant opinion and calling it journalism are

I think there are way more bad journalists than good, but I agree that isn't so much about the journalists themselves but pressure their employers put on them to provide certain strains of content.

That said, I'm not sure if the blog is around anymore, but last presidential cycle there was a media-watch blog out of Columbia's School of Journalism, it was pretty good.  I did a quick google and didn't find it, unless it has totally changed into CJR (http://www.cjr.org/) - anyone know for sure?

Where do you go for political coverage?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: choatime on January 10, 2008, 06:44:47 PM
Quote
Who even watches news these days?

Did you really type that?

Part of the problem with todays electorate is that they rely too much on mainstream media.

I get the vast majority of my news from NPR, and so I rarely "watch" the news.  It has an interesting effect--I know the names of many foreign and domestic leaders but have no clue how to spell their names and cannot pick them out of lineups. 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Wilson on January 10, 2008, 06:49:15 PM
Not being American and only really reading the results, all I have to say is: Go Obama!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on January 10, 2008, 07:26:08 PM
I had an hour long conversation with one of my friends from the UK on why obama was a good choice... he was so busy talking I think it took 1/2 an hour for him to realize I was already in that camp. :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: skjerva on January 10, 2008, 08:12:26 PM
I only caught this in passing somewhere, I think on NH day, Hillary's idea to have every department of govt blog to provide information about the decisions it is making, why it is making them, and the money it is spending - that is seriously hot.  I reckon if that idea would ever pick up traction Special Interests would kill that candidate and make sure such an initiative would never take hold.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 11, 2008, 10:48:42 AM
Quote
Who even watches news these days?

Did you really type that?

Part of the problem with todays electorate is that they rely too much on mainstream media.

It is an honest question.  None of my friends watch news, we/they get it from various web-sources.  I know a lot of people must still watch it, but I don't know of people I know that do.  Marty, do you watch it?

journalists aren't the problem... phony journalists who are espousing a blatant opinion and calling it journalism are

I think there are way more bad journalists than good, but I agree that isn't so much about the journalists themselves but pressure their employers put on them to provide certain strains of content.

That said, I'm not sure if the blog is around anymore, but last presidential cycle there was a media-watch blog out of Columbia's School of Journalism, it was pretty good.  I did a quick google and didn't find it, unless it has totally changed into CJR (http://www.cjr.org/) - anyone know for sure?

Where do you go for political coverage?

  I get most of my news from NPR, the NY Times and the Huffington Post - I think the well informed person is aware of the short comings of the media - but I am thinking of the vast majority of "meat and potatoes" america who work 9 - 5, go home and watch the news...these are the people who are voting by and large and they are getting their news from the big networks and/or cable news...these outlets are manipulated by the whitehouse and the government because their access can and will be restricted because of negative reporting. This will directly affect their advertising revenues as people will switch channels if they don't see a certain story on one of these networks.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on February 09, 2008, 04:52:56 PM
Just got back from the Washington Democratic Caucus.  My first ever caucus, as it also was for the other 11 people in my precinct.  I got to be the precinct chair, largely because nobody else wanted to do it.  The whole thing was very non-contentious.  On the first ballot, we voted 10-2 for Obama.  Instead of sticking around for the try to persuade people to change their vote and delegate selection parts of the process, the two Clinton voters got up and left.  So the two delegates from our precinct went to Sen. Obama.

Turnout was quite large, following the pattern around the country.  The guy from the DNC running the thing said they had no idea turnout would be so heavy.  I'm curious what rock he's been hiding under.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on February 09, 2008, 04:58:11 PM
the caucus process is so weird, but one day I think I'd like to live somewhere where caucus is the way it's done.

:)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on February 09, 2008, 05:18:06 PM
Just got back from the Washington Democratic Caucus.  My first ever caucus, as it also was for the other 11 people in my precinct.  I got to be the precinct chair, largely because nobody else wanted to do it.  The whole thing was very non-contentious.

Good work, citizen.

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: saltine on February 10, 2008, 01:13:24 AM
Has anybody else noticed this, or only me?

(http://i32.tinypic.com/amr0hl.jpg)
Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential hopeful

(http://i28.tinypic.com/261j9sh.jpg)
President Logan from 24
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on February 10, 2008, 02:49:14 AM
I hadn't before now, but since you pointed it out I'm never going to be able to look at him again (not that that is such a hardship)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: choatime on February 10, 2008, 09:48:04 AM
Wow, that is a really nice observation, saltine.

There have been many stories about will America vote for a Mormon for president, but for me, the religious issue of the campaign is that Huckabee is a preacher.  This was crystalized for me on Friday's  All Things Considered (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18821021) when they stopped people on the street and asked them to explain what Huckabee meant by a couple of biblical metaphors that he used in his speeches.  With the exception of one evangelical woman, basically they had no clue what the widow's mite was.  It doesn't surprise me that he could be a popular preacher, but as a president?  Well, I do suppose that a president who speaks a dialect that is understood by only a small percentage is better than the current president's dialect. 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Junior on February 10, 2008, 02:35:14 PM
Obama sweeps Virgin Islands? (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_sweeps_in_the_Virgin_Islands.html)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: saltine on February 10, 2008, 10:51:52 PM
Here's the best argument I know against mandatory voting in the US:

CNN Headline
"Fool's Gold" is No. 1 this weekend after a $22 million debut.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on February 11, 2008, 06:28:49 PM
Here's the best argument I know against mandatory voting in the US:

GEORGE BUSH ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM

Thought of one better...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: saltine on February 11, 2008, 06:46:46 PM
Here's the best argument I know against mandatory voting in the US:

GEORGE BUSH ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM

Thought of one better...

You got me there!  But I was trying for a movie tie-in...

Still, you win.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on March 19, 2008, 07:35:18 PM
I only got to read the text and it got a little dusty in here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

I am firmly in the Obama camp now. As Jon Stewart said: "at 11:00 on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race, as though they were adults."

  Brilliant speech.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sdedalus on March 20, 2008, 03:04:09 AM
It was really amazing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Emiliana on March 20, 2008, 07:53:19 AM
Thanks for posting that link, Marty. That was a fascinating read (unfortunately I couldn't watch the video here at work). He would have won my vote with that speech if I had one.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on March 20, 2008, 05:44:49 PM
i'll admit to going to work late yesterday ... i was watching the speech and lost track of time
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ¡Keith! on March 28, 2008, 12:48:38 PM
Well, this sums up nicely (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080328/pl_politico/9239) how I feel so far about what was supposed to be the massive PA battleground primart of 2008:

Quote
Pennsylvania voters feeling 'neglected' Carrie Budoff Brown
Fri Mar 28, 5:30 AM ET
 
PITTSBURGH – After envisioning Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama stumping from one end of the state to the other, dipping into diners and delis, all but taking up residence here in the run-up to the state’s critical April 22 primary, Pennsylvania Democrats are teetering on the edge of a letdown.
 
Having seen far less of Clinton and Obama than they had expected and nearing the halfway point between the last contest in Mississippi and their big primary day, they want to know: Where’s the love?

“We feel neglected here,” said Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski, who has not yet endorsed a candidate. “People just assumed that, because they had such a long period, they would spend a lot of time in the state.”

Indeed, many Pennsylvanians expected the state’s suddenly consequential primary would be bigger than Iowa and better than New Hampshire.

It hasn’t worked out that way. Clinton has campaigned seven days this month in Pennsylvania. Obama held events on only three days, though he is set to increase his presence Friday when he sets out on a six-day bus tour that starts in Pittsburgh and ends in the Philadelphia area.

Pennsylvanians can hardly be blamed for being disappointed. This was shaping up to be the rare year where this late-voting state mattered – or so residents thought.

Now they read the news stories that quote Obama aides saying Clinton has wrapped up the state. They see clips of Obama at campaign stops in Indiana and North Carolina and Oregon, even lounging poolside in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

“He seems to be every other place than Pennsylvania,” Pawlowski said. “The fact that he hasn’t been around is a downer for a lot of his supporters. I know there are many here.”

Pawlowski, who has been reluctant to endorse before he meets the candidates, gives Clinton credit for spending more time in the state. But he has watched her fly from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia to Scranton without stopping in his city, the third-largest in the state.

“They were expecting a New Hampshire experience,” Pawlowski said. “You would walk in a diner and there would be a candidate, shaking hands. Even though it’s a big state, they could have criss-crossed the state and spent time one on one.”

The question of Obama’s commitment to the state caused something of an uproar this past week on Pennsylvania Progressive, a popular liberal blog operated by John Morgan, who has worked as a paid consultant for the Berks County committee supporting Clinton.

Kirk Wentzel, a contributor to the blog who describes himself as an Obama supporter, aired his concerns under a post titled, “Desperately Seeking Barack.”

“He needs to get his face in front of the people,” Wentzel said in an interview. “I hope there is a strategy, but from my standpoint, hearing what is coming out of the campaign – ‘we will try to do our best’ – that is not a message I want to hear. That makes me want to quote Yoda from an old Star Wars movie: ‘Do, or do not. There is no try.’”

To political observers, the strategy is clear.

Obama, as the underdog in Pennsylvania, needed for several weeks to downplay its importance. His aides stressed it was just one of 10 states and territories left to vote, and that the Illinois senator would spread his time among them.

“The Obama campaign is doing rope-a-dope in Pennsylvania,” said Kenneth Lawrence, a Philadelphia public affairs consultant active in Democratic politics. He was referring to the boxing technique that involves putting oneself in what appears to be a losing position before emerging as the eventual winner.

“There was a conscious decision on their part to make Pennsylvania seem like a forgone conclusion for Hillary,” he said. “They have done a good job now – they are probably going to be able to outperform the expectations. If they can pull off a surprise here, it will be that much more damaging.”

But supporters are wondering if Obama, by spending most of the last three weeks elsewhere, squandered an opportunity. If he had truly put down roots in the state, perhaps he could have dealt the final blow to Clinton’s campaign.

“If he ends up losing Pennsylvania by two or five points, then yes, he obviously should have gotten here sooner,” Lawrence said. “That is why some of the volunteers have been complaining that he hasn’t been here enough.”

Michael Young, a Hershey pollster, said he’s heard the same buzz.

“It’s enough that it’s gotten my attention and sustained my attention,” Young said. “Part of it is trying to puzzle out what he is doing.”

The chairman of Obama's western Pennsylvania steering committee, Clifford Levine, acknowledged that "voters are hungry." The calls he received from people seeking tickets to Obama's town hall event Friday in Pittsburgh was "more intense than a Steelers playoff game," Levine said.

"Everybody is dying to see him -- he has not been [here]," he said. "You are immersed in this dynamic race. You want to see him."

By most measures, Obama faces a tough road ahead in the state.

Clinton holds a comfortable lead in every poll and travels the state with the popular Democratic governor, Ed Rendell. Voters know and like her, giving the New York senator her highest favorability ratings ever in the latest Franklin and Marshall College Poll. The dominant demographic groups – blue collar, white and ethnic – favor Clinton.

Still, Obama is investing in the state.

His campaign has opened 25 offices, placed a significant TV ad buy – reportedly $2 million worth – and spent weeks registering thousands of new Democratic voters. Volunteers have descended on the state.

The campaign has sent one of its top operatives, Paul Tewes, who served as Obama's state director in Iowa and Ohio, to Pennsylvania to take over operations here.

"Now that the voter registration deadline has passed, we have moved into the next phase of our campaign in Pennsylvania: get out the vote," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement Thursday.

"[The] whole assumption that he is not focused on Pennsylvania is a misnomer," Levine added. “He is just not willing to redefine the election" as something other than a delegate race.

I switched from an Independant to a dem (still feeling a little sick about that ;)) on monday to vote in the primary but while the surrogates have been around the candidates are sadly absent.

Of course the Colbet Report will be doing a week of shos here leading up to the primary (sold out, tix on craigs list are crazy high). So that should be fun.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on March 28, 2008, 03:50:58 PM
My mothers only reason for not being registered independent is the inability to vote in the primary. I'm just biting my nails hoping against hope that the candidates (or the one I like) doesn't implode.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: gateway on March 28, 2008, 04:57:01 PM
I only got to read the text and it got a little dusty in here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

I am firmly in the Obama camp now. As Jon Stewart said: "at 11:00 on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race, as though they were adults."

  Brilliant speech.

Agreed, and I'm a hardcore McCain supporter. Excellently written and well delivered. It felt like the climactic pick-me-up scene in an episode of The West Wing. Only, you know, real.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on March 28, 2008, 05:51:26 PM
I agree with everything but the mccain bit... his fiscal policy would not be good for the sciences
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ¡Keith! on March 28, 2008, 07:35:33 PM
My mothers only reason for not being registered independent is the inability to vote in the primary. I'm just biting my nails hoping against hope that the candidates (or the one I like) doesn't implode.

I'm usually an Ind but when in the rare case that PA gets a contesed primary I'll switch.  I was Rep in 2000 to vote (absentee) for McCain then when the whole thing was still up in the air and switched back for the general and now I've swung the other way... i consider myself a political junkie but not a loyalist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on March 28, 2008, 11:48:47 PM
My mothers only reason for not being registered independent is the inability to vote in the primary. I'm just biting my nails hoping against hope that the candidates (or the one I like) doesn't implode.

I'm usually an Ind but when in the rare case that PA gets a contesed primary I'll switch.  I was Rep in 2000 to vote (absentee) for McCain then when the whole thing was still up in the air and switched back for the general and now I've swung the other way... i consider myself a political junkie but not a loyalist.
I registered as Dem just for the PA primary and will be switching back to Ind in May.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pixote on June 03, 2008, 06:53:48 PM
Anyone know what time Obama is supposed to speak tonight?

pixote
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Junior on June 03, 2008, 07:11:45 PM
I heard around 10 or so. I am so excited.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on June 03, 2008, 10:19:24 PM
nice speech!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on June 04, 2008, 10:01:48 AM
I was glad it's over until I started listening to callers to NPR this morning. "I voted for Hillary because of her policy differences from Obama. Now I'm going to switch to McCain. I just can't reconcile the Rev. Wright issue."

Those weren't non-consecutive non-sequitors, those were the caller's actually line of thought.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: lise on June 04, 2008, 10:08:13 AM
Well hopefully (from my viewpoint) for everyone of those you'll have a republican like my brother-in-law who is planning on voting for obama (but wouldn't vote for clinton).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on June 04, 2008, 10:15:10 AM
Well hopefully (from my viewpoint) for everyone of those you'll have a republican like my brother-in-law who is planning on voting for obama (but wouldn't vote for clinton).
That's the position a lot of analysts seem to be taking.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Junior on June 04, 2008, 10:19:26 AM
This about sums it up. (http://blog.brendanloy.com/2008/06/obamas-victory.html)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Wowser on June 04, 2008, 10:56:03 AM
Perhaps this thread should be renamed: US Presidential Race 2008
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ¡Keith! on June 04, 2008, 11:29:11 AM
I was glad it's over until I started listening to callers to NPR this morning. "I voted for Hillary because of her policy differences from Obama. Now I'm going to switch to McCain. I just can't reconcile the Rev. Wright issue."

Those weren't non-consecutive non-sequitors, those were the caller's actually line of thought.

Heard this as well ::)  The caller was obviously someone who didn't do any kind of research policy wise.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: facedad on June 04, 2008, 11:31:11 AM
Perhaps this thread should be renamed: US Presidential Race 2008
You're probably right.

I was glad it's over until I started listening to callers to NPR this morning. "I voted for Hillary because of her policy differences from Obama. Now I'm going to switch to McCain. I just can't reconcile the Rev. Wright issue."

Those weren't non-consecutive non-sequitors, those were the caller's actually line of thought.

Heard this as well ::)  The caller was obviously someone who didn't do any kind of research policy wise.
Hey, communal experience #2! Also, yeah, I defy her to find the policy that Clinton holds that McCain is closer on than Obama. If it exists, I doubt it is more than one and if you're voting on a single policy, I'm not surprised you're reacting the way that caller did.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on June 04, 2008, 11:36:30 AM
I am not surprised that Clinton won't concede but now she risks looking like a petulant child - it's time to step down gracefully and do your part to help heal the party.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: winrit on June 04, 2008, 11:54:16 AM
It is still a long way to the election. It is hard to say how people will be feeling by then, but the sooner Hillary lets go the better. He needs to start focusing on the general election.

Great speech. It got a little dusty toward the end there.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on June 04, 2008, 01:22:19 PM
Also, yeah, I defy her to find the policy that Clinton holds that McCain is closer on than Obama. If it exists, I doubt it is more than one and if you're voting on a single policy, I'm not surprised you're reacting the way that caller did.

Do you mean 'being white' isn't a policy??
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on June 04, 2008, 01:23:16 PM
Also, yeah, I defy her to find the policy that Clinton holds that McCain is closer on than Obama. If it exists, I doubt it is more than one and if you're voting on a single policy, I'm not surprised you're reacting the way that caller did.

Do you mean 'being white' isn't a policy??
Oh man, could you imagine if it were simply a policy you can choose to embody or choose not too?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: zarodinu on June 04, 2008, 04:31:42 PM
Come on Hillary...  Run as an independent.  You know you want it.  It was your, you earned it, you worked for it, your precious...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on June 04, 2008, 04:37:35 PM
Come on Hillary...  Run as an independent.  You know you want it.  It was your, you earned it, you worked for it, your precious...

If she really wanted a Democrat in office in 2009 she would just endorse Obama and not be his VP. She is such a polarizing figure that her spot as a VP would alienate a lot of the undecideds. Obama might lose a few of her die-hard fans, but not as many as if she was his VP. Or at least that's what I get from the various things I have read on the internets. She already started to piss off some Dems with her speech last night.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on June 04, 2008, 05:01:15 PM
Ya know it seems like Hillary is the only one who learned anything from the 2000 debacle in the sunshine state.  You fight and you fight and you fight even when the forces that be are stacked against you and you don't give into the pressure that may even be foisted on you from your own side urging capitulation because you might not get another shot... ever.  I don't begrudge her this fight and neither should anyone else - esp if (by whatever metric) she WON THE POPULAR VOTE.  And there are about 15 ways to tabulate it, some are based on estimating unknown numbers.  She has a legion that will be extrememly responsive to her and perhaps will help in a nationalized health care or education or whatever issue become her standard much the way Climate Change is now born by Gore.  But if she can by some miraculousness pull this off she can skip the whole getting fat, hairy and shy bit!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on June 04, 2008, 05:13:05 PM
Except she only won the popular vote if you don't count all the votes or take into account the shadiness in Florida and Michigan.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/the-national-po.html

http://blog.brendanloy.com/2008/06/final-popular-v.html
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on June 04, 2008, 05:30:40 PM
Unfortunately - popular vote is not the standard by which we decide the nominee, nor will be be any time soon - so your argument is moot and not really the issue. She was willing to abide by the Michigan and Florida decision until she needed their delegates and only now is she crying about disenfranchisement - how convenient.

She needs to accept the fact that this is not her year as a dem or run as an independent thereby insuring us of four more yrs of ridiculous policies by John McCain instead of the current fool we got in office. I would really like to see if she has the good of the nation in her mind or personal glory - if she were to run alone it would split the party, secure the republican winner and send this country even closer to financial ruin by way of another term of republican financial irresponsibility (war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich only and widening the gap between the rich and poor)...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on June 04, 2008, 08:37:48 PM
the idiocy that is the gas tax holiday...

in michigan at least there was no way to write in a candidate on the ballot, so you either voted for her or voted undecided... I know a lot of people who voted undecided for obama. I personally think they shouldn't count michigan or florida at all, regardless of whether you think they should be able to move their primary or not they were told they wouldn't be counted if they did. It isn't like they didn't know, and by avoiding the penalty they are in danger of making the next primary season even earlier.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on June 04, 2008, 11:12:41 PM
Unfortunately - popular vote is not the standard by which we decide the nominee, nor will be be any time soon - so your argument is moot and not really the issue. She was willing to abide by the Michigan and Florida decision until she needed their delegates and only now is she crying about disenfranchisement - how convenient.

She needs to accept the fact that this is not her year as a dem or run as an independent thereby insuring us of four more yrs of ridiculous policies by John McCain instead of the current fool we got in office. I would really like to see if she has the good of the nation in her mind or personal glory - if she were to run alone it would split the party, secure the republican winner and send this country even closer to financial ruin by way of another term of republican financial irresponsibility (war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich only and widening the gap between the rich and poor)...

I'm not a hill supporter by a long shot and like I said she's using peculiar metrics to define her "win".  But the point is that she should fight on as there is no current democratic nominee there is only a presumptive nominee and if she thinks that she can switch that come convention time hell fight away.  Why should she accept something that if looked at a certain (and admittedly skewed) way is false?  Just because GWB was ahead in the votes and had a the whole state of florida on his side along with the supreme court if Gore had really gutted it out until all the counting was done he would have won the white house - It would be march or apil but he would have won it.

(full disclosure: at this point i'm likely voting McCain)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on June 07, 2008, 03:47:00 PM
Now, I know you're all lost when I'm not around, but really, no one mentioned Clinton's withdraw/endorsement speech today?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on June 07, 2008, 03:52:09 PM
Our long national nightmare is over.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on June 07, 2008, 04:47:46 PM
Our long national nightmare is over.

Well ... one of them.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: zarodinu on June 07, 2008, 04:55:54 PM
Now, I know you're all lost when I'm not around, but really, no one mentioned Clinton's withdraw/endorsement speech today?

As much as I hate B. Hussein with his meaningless speeches, his nazi pastor, and socialist politics; I am glad that Clinton lost.  Nice to see that the voters still have the power to put a check on political ambition and backroom politics.  I also think that Hussein ran a brilliant campaign that amounted to a coup within the party, with younger voters and minorities overthrowing the party favorite.  He managed to hone in on what voters wanted this election cycle; vague promises of better times ahead.  

It was always going to be an uphill battle for Republicans, but now we see that the odds are even more stacked against them.  We have an old white man from an unpopular party, who supports an unpopular war, is associated with a very unpopular president, and is seen as a moderate compromiser by the party base.  Hussein is a young black man, who is antiwar, beloved by his party, and is part of the ascending political wing.  Democrats will frame the contest as "out with the old, in with the new" and will have a solid win this November.  

  
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on June 07, 2008, 11:40:50 PM
Now, I know you're all lost when I'm not around, but really, no one mentioned Clinton's withdraw/endorsement speech today?

 Democrats will frame the contest as "out with the old, in with the new" and will have a solid win this November. 


I have a fear it might not be a solid win, if a win at all.  If there is one thing we are reminded of from Clinton's campaign, it's that the US is one racist country.  All of this yammering on the non-issue of "healing the party" is a joke.  This kind of crud is spouted for every contested primary, the difference here is that the issue of racists not wanting a black candidate has nothing to do with the party (same with misogynists wanting not wanting a female candidate) - this is way deeper than party.

On Clinton's speech, I tuned in for the first two minutes and couldn't take it.  I really don't think it makes any difference and it was clearly the same kind of bland speechifying we unfortunately expect from these people.  I do hope Obama sticks to his rhetoric about discussing specifics of policy.

That said (er, written), I need to start spending time learning Obama's policy points - does anyone actually like anything concrete he has proposed?  I haven't spent much time researching him, but have yet to actually like anything I've come across aside from the vague pronouncements in favor of hope and empowerment.  His speech for AIPEC the other day was CINECASTing disturbing - is he trying to out-hawk McCain for the sake of rhetoric or will he actually be that hawk?  I printed out his "health care full plan" and though I only perused it, it seems overly vague - perhaps I was hoping for his position to be closer to HR 676 (i think it is, right?), but it doesn't seem to be.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on June 08, 2008, 01:09:25 AM
it's a racist country... it's a sexist country... it's an ageist country... you can find all of it is you look hard enough, or in the right corners... but to generalize with such a broad reaching comment I frankly find offensive
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on June 08, 2008, 03:16:26 AM
it's a racist country... it's a sexist country... it's an ageist country... you can find all of it is you look hard enough, or in the right corners... but to generalize with such a broad reaching comment I frankly find offensive

i don't get the response, what is offensive?  i was commenting not on the clinton campaign's racialized tactics (which were there) but on what voters were saying, and pollsters reporting, about support for clinton.  further, the very odd responses by many clinton supporters that they would not vote for obama would he gain the nomination, that they would prefer to vote for mccain.  while i agree with the idea that the rep and dem parties don't have too much difference, i do think that there is likely much more affinity between policy positions of clinton and obama than clinton and mccain - thus the easy read of those comments is also a racialized one. 

if you were really offended by my generalization of the US as a racist country, not for the implication that clinton is, or her supporters are racist (which, to reiterate, i am not claiming), then i guess we'll have to disagree.  such a generalization, it seems, should obviously be that - a generalization - but if you want me to start dragging out stats on racialized disparities dealing with health, levels of education, income, incarceration, etc., i can do that, and they would seem to indicate the US has a rather serious problem dealing with race, but i think we probably all agree on that.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: zarodinu on June 08, 2008, 04:25:16 AM
If there was any racism this election it has helped Obama, not harmed him.  Obama won a whole bunch of all white states, and each time it showed that factors such as age and level of education had a stronger effect on how white voters vote, than the race of the candidate.  On the other hand, black voters went overwhelmingly to Obama, I am talking 90% or more.  Obama and Hillary are virtually identical in terms of political outlook, so I cant think of any reason for a 90-10 split other than people voting for the guy that looks like them.

In Obama's defence he ran a clean campaign, and didnt use racial politics the way the Clintons did.  But they were desperate and he was not, so he had little reason to go for the low blows.  Also, I again will say that short of some horrible skeleton in Obama's closet, he will be the next president of the US.  Politics is not just a bunch of individuals making decision, its broad social movements that have enormous momentum, right now the wind is blowing in favor of the Democrats.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on June 08, 2008, 11:56:33 AM
Hmm, there seems to be a fair amount of tension between your various statements.  Mainly, in the first paragraph that racism helped Obama (and i suspect you don't mean that black voting for black is racist, just race conscious, or even, you seem to imply, merely a matter of reflectivity) but in the second paragraph you claim that Obama didn't use racial politics, the Clintons did.  This could be a matter of the lack of need for the Obama camp to invoke race, thus his campaign did not "use race", and I get that.  Next, your noting the "looks like me" approach to voting against the power of "social movements", I'm not sure how to sort out that discrepancy.  I think it was around the NH primary, where Clinton did much better than polling suggested she would, that the hypothesis came out that folks would admit to pollers they had no problem voting for a black candidate, but when it came to being alone in the booth, they voted their race-informed ways.

I'm also not sure what to make of Obama and Clinton as being virtually identical in terms of political outlook.  "Political outlook" taken broadly, it seems to me Obama was much more positive and putting on appearances of the experienced outsider.  I don't think the same could be said of the way Clinton came off.  Regarding their policy positions, I don't think I paid enough attention to pick up any differences, but my impression was they didn't address policy specifics much at all, so there is some identicalism there. 

And I unfortunately don't have the same sense of either the wind blowing in favor of democrats or of Obama's non-whiteness as a non-issue.  Here was a nice catch of things to come that appeared on the Feministe blog (http://www.feministe.us/blog/), a quote from Chris Matthews:

Quote
OK. Let me ask you about how he — how’s he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?

Granted, this is the idiot Matthews (mainly reflected here in contrasting "regular people" to "the African-American community", also the implication that AA people don't have college or advanced degrees), but this is a vibe that is going around already, that African Americans are unintelligent/uneducated (very different things, but currently (and usually) conflated) and will thus follow reflexively.  Second, that Obama's other base of support is the liberal academy whose members are so disconnected from reality and brainwashed by a culture of political correctness that to measure meaningful support from them - those elitists - is out of touch (see also the recent Weekly Standard piece (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/197wxqsf.asp?pg=1) on this argument for a disconnection of place pinned to Obama).   That is one of the arguments circulating and I fear this kind of rhetoric will pick up traction.  Add to that, the ridiculous tactic of McCain's campaign that he is actually a maverick - please, stop calling this dud a maverick!  I was listening to All Things Considered the other day and host-dude mentions "the maverick Senator McCain" - are you flipping serious?!!  Would they ever introduce him as "the elderly Senator McCain"?  Of course not (unless it polled well) - how the hell has this picked up traction to the point that the "liberal" NPR regurgitates this nonsense?  I have a serious fear that we who hope for Obama over McCain are up to having our spirits dashed (not to mention the ignored, unresolved, and expanded issue of electronic voting, which was controlled and pushed (and is owned) by conservative interests). 

I'd be happy to get a boost of hopefulness, so let me in on some of what you are thinking :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on June 08, 2008, 12:56:52 PM
Our long national nightmare is over.

Well ... one of them.

pixote

Yah, this particular quote should be saved for January 20, 2009 and I have no doubt that it will be bandied about liberally (haha) on that day.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on June 21, 2008, 11:21:59 AM
From both Obama's people and MoveOn, I have received proud proclamations of the Obama decision to deny public financing, this while gesturing toward the corruption of non-public financed elections - this is driving me nuts.  While I understand the leverage that Obama has from his billion dollar juggernaut, it hardly seems the model of campaign financing he apparently believes in.  While he does critique lobbyists and special interest PACs, and he says he supports the public financing of elections, he brazenly claims that "you [Obama supporters] have already changed the way campaigns are funded"...wha??!  Because they are privately financing his campaign something has changed?  Master of Deception!

I would love to hear Obama speak to the issue of reclaiming PUBLIC AIRWAVES for EQUAL TIME for ALL CANDIDATES, but I can't imagine it will happen.

I HOPE that if he is elected he is planning to speak openly about changes that must be made on issues he apparently cares about but is unable (or unwilling?) to currently address.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on June 21, 2008, 01:59:45 PM
You don't see the difference between the unprecedented number of individual small donors to Obama's campaign and a campaign funded by lobbyists and PACs?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on June 21, 2008, 05:17:54 PM
While he does critique lobbyists and special interest PACs, and he says he supports the public financing of elections, he brazenly claims that "you [Obama supporters] have already changed the way campaigns are funded"...wha??!&nbsp; Because they are privately financing his campaign something has changed?&nbsp; Master of Deception!
A different take:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/bring-it-on/ (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/bring-it-on/)

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on June 23, 2008, 12:02:35 AM
ahh, the New York Times.  Back to thinking this excerpt: "reformers (and the McCain camp)" refers to 2 different things.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on July 23, 2008, 11:25:32 AM
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f186/chesterfilms1980/the-new-yorker-muslim-obama-cover-b.jpg)

(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f186/chesterfilms1980/Picture3-3.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on July 23, 2008, 02:15:48 PM
Nice.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on July 23, 2008, 02:51:32 PM
First of all. B. Hussein is the greatest name for Obama ever. Second, I can't believe somebody accused skjerva of being offensive. What a strange twist. Third, B. Hussein is the man! I wish I was American just so I could vote for him.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on July 24, 2008, 03:54:55 PM
With Jindal pulling his name out of the McCain VP search, I'm terrified that Romney is going to get the slot. Please pick Pawlenty, please pick Pawlenty...

As a side note, I place my full support behind the New Yorker's cartoon (and Vanity Fair's parody, which I must say is pretty damn funny). Anybody with any sense can see they're not making fun of Obama, they're making fun of the Glen Beck and Steve Ducey types that keep insinuating he has terrorist ties. I think the American populous needs to go back to high school English and study up on their Jonathan Swift for some lessons in satire.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: m_rturnage on July 24, 2008, 03:59:50 PM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on July 24, 2008, 04:02:52 PM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.

Exxon.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: m_rturnage on July 24, 2008, 04:04:42 PM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.

Exxon.

Crap.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on July 30, 2008, 11:43:15 AM
Dear any politician and or big budget Hollywood movie,

Please make fiscal responsibility and government solvency cool again.

Hopeful yours-

_ME_

This is not encouraging. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080729/pl_bloomberg/anghcq5adqhu)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on July 30, 2008, 11:57:28 AM
Dear any politician and or big budget Hollywood movie,

Please make fiscal responsibility and government solvency cool again.

Hopeful yours-

_ME_

This is not encouraging. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080729/pl_bloomberg/anghcq5adqhu)

you did notice the news service this comes from - bloomberg.  this is not surprising.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on July 30, 2008, 03:08:43 PM
Dear any politician and or big budget Hollywood movie,

Please make fiscal responsibility and government solvency cool again.

Hopeful yours-

_ME_

This is not encouraging. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080729/pl_bloomberg/anghcq5adqhu)

you did notice the news service this comes from - bloomberg.  this is not surprising.

yeah but i heard a Radio Times program last on the same thing and basically came to the same conclusions - there is no way that either of them can pay for their campaign promises.  Stupid politicians.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on July 30, 2008, 06:17:32 PM
Tricksy hobbitses politicians!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: choatime on July 30, 2008, 09:39:28 PM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.

The Onion News Network's got it. (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: zarodinu on August 03, 2008, 12:55:24 PM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.

Obama will be elected.  With democrats controling both legislature and white house they will do what every party does with a majority, rob the countries treasury for useless projects in their home states.  They will also try to socialize America with healthcare/education/economic reforms all aimed at taking money from those that work and giving it to those that dont. 

Obama holds on to presidency in a close 2012 election, 2014 Republicans retake House, 2016 Republicans retake Senate and Republican president is elected, we start all over again. 

There, now you can ignore politics for another decade.   

   
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on August 03, 2008, 04:44:30 PM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.

Obama will be elected.  With democrats controling both legislature and white house they will do what every party does with a majority, rob the countries treasury for useless projects in their home states.  They will also try to socialize America with healthcare/education/economic reforms all aimed at taking money from those that work and giving it to those that dont. 

Obama holds on to presidency in a close 2012 election, 2014 Republicans retake House, 2016 Republicans retake Senate and Republican president is elected, we start all over again. 

There, now you can ignore politics for another decade.   

   

Because nearly every great Western nation has socialized medicine and it works terribly in all of them. I'd much rather give all my money to the government to use on people who don't work than to worry about the moral compass of the corporation* controlling my health coverage.


*Hint: Corporations aren't obligated to have any kind of moral compass.  ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 03, 2008, 11:58:41 PM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.

Obama will be elected.  With democrats controling both legislature and white house they will do what every party does with a majority, rob the countries treasury for useless projects in their home states.  They will also try to socialize America with healthcare/education/economic reforms all aimed at taking money from those that work and giving it to those that dont. 

Obama holds on to presidency in a close 2012 election, 2014 Republicans retake House, 2016 Republicans retake Senate and Republican president is elected, we start all over again. 

There, now you can ignore politics for another decade.   

   

Because nearly every great Western nation has socialized medicine and it works terribly in all of them. I'd much rather give all my money to the government to use on people who don't work than to worry about the moral compass of the corporation* controlling my health coverage.


*Hint: Corporations aren't obligated to have any kind of moral compass.  ;)

see now I think the gov't job should be instituting regulations that basically give insurance companies a moral compass (mandating not-for profit status would be a good start)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on August 04, 2008, 12:44:38 AM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.

Obama will be elected.  With democrats controling both legislature and white house they will do what every party does with a majority, rob the countries treasury for useless projects in their home states.  They will also try to socialize America with healthcare/education/economic reforms all aimed at taking money from those that work and giving it to those that dont. 

Obama holds on to presidency in a close 2012 election, 2014 Republicans retake House, 2016 Republicans retake Senate and Republican president is elected, we start all over again. 

There, now you can ignore politics for another decade.   

   

Actually, just take what you said and switch around "Democrat" and "Republican," tack that on to the original statement, and you have the endless loop that should repeat itself until the fall of American civilization. Or the rapture. Or the next ice age. Whatever comes first.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 04, 2008, 06:51:52 PM
Is there a spoiler edition of this thread? Because all I want to know is who wins.

Obama will be elected.  With democrats controling both legislature and white house they will do what every party does with a majority, rob the countries treasury for useless projects in their home states.  They will also try to socialize America with healthcare/education/economic reforms all aimed at taking money from those that work and giving it to those that dont. 
  

  That's a pretty over-simplified version of things but if taking care of the those who are at a disadvantage is socializtion then give me more of that. I think it's an outrage that we have people who are billionaires in this country while we have people living on the streets - people who, for the most part, are incapable of taking care of themselves, don't have any family that are willing to do it and are constantly slipping through the cracks of this inoperable mental health care system that refuses to anything for anyone until it's too late (they hurt themselves or someone else).
Or let's look at the state of elderly care in the country - unless you have a lot of money or stellar insurance - who is helping these people when they are left alone without any family? Have you seen the abusive places that pass for care facilities in this country?
How about teenagers that run away and live in the streets because the foster homes they are put in are nothing more than $$$ opportunities for people who pile on the kids and say f*ck-all about the love they need?

There are so many truly needy people out there who need some sort of help, assistance and cannot pay for it - are you so heartless that you would deny them any sort of help because a few, over publicized, bad apples abuse the system?
It's not the ideas that are bad but the way you implement them - but trusting in privitized healthcare has put this country in a crisis. I think it's simply unacceptable that some of these insurance companies run there businesses with their only thought on the bottom line - there are people out there with loved ones who are dying or suffering because of inadequate treatment - who only get the minimum amount of care because that's all they can afford. If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are basic rights then that obviously includes the same health care for anyone regardless of socioeconomic status - Bill Gates should not get better health care than the crazy guy begging for change over by the freeway just because he has more money - but that's the system we live in now...this goes back further than republicans or democrats - this is a class issue (yes we have class in america) and it is screaming to be addressed. Equality should be the watchword when it comes to discussing health care, education and poverty. Idealogy be damned!

 Heartless corporations are not the answer when it comes to solving these problems - nor should it be left to state or local governments as many times their money is spent just barely supporting their own infrastructure. This is a national problem (at least) and it needs be addressed in a humane and equitable way that solves problems and not lines the pockets of greedy corporate executives.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: crumpet on August 06, 2008, 07:37:49 AM
The years of putting up with Paris Hilton have been worth it just for this...

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 06, 2008, 07:42:40 AM
Just the fact that she has a sense of dignity and stood up to McCain is great...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on August 06, 2008, 11:46:30 AM
The years of putting up with Paris Hilton have been worth it just for this...

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d)

yep.  i'd rather have her than McCain
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: alexarch on August 06, 2008, 01:33:17 PM
The years of putting up with Paris Hilton have been worth it just for this...

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d)
I heard this this morning.  Paris Hilton just became my favoritist person in the world.  It would've been better without the voice-over and montage before Hilton in the lawn chair.  I'm pretty through with the "McCain is old"-joke.  Not that old people jokes are off limits.  It's just that it's about as played out as a "Clinton got a blowjob" joke.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 06, 2008, 01:50:35 PM
Her energy plan won't work.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 06, 2008, 02:46:20 PM
But it's better than McCain's...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Kevin Shields on August 06, 2008, 03:24:39 PM
I think I'd rather vote for McCain than that ho. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on August 06, 2008, 05:18:40 PM
  I'm pretty through with the "McCain is old"-joke. 

But it's no joke.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 06, 2008, 07:29:30 PM
It's like saying Obama is black...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 07, 2008, 12:53:54 AM
But it's better than McCain's...

I like McCain's better.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 07, 2008, 08:13:15 AM
But it's better than McCain's...

I like McCain's better.

Raping the few natural resources we have left for a finite product that still leaves us in the same predicament in the end - not to mention the fact that off-shore drilling will not produce any tangible results or relief at the pump for well over 5 yrs?

Yeah - that's a great idea.
Why should I support an idea that will not reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?
When does the real change come?
When do we make the commitment to  switch to solar power, wind power?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on August 07, 2008, 11:28:50 AM
It's like saying Obama is black...

But Obama being black isn't funny. Old people are inherently funny. If The Simpsons has taught me anything it's that old people are the perfect fodder for jokes.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 07, 2008, 02:43:38 PM
 ::) (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/07/mccain-obama-both-want-to-be-the-dark-knight/#more-11560)

Quote
McCain, Obama both want to be the Dark Knight
Posted: 02:13 PM ET

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

 
Sens. McCain and Obama both told Entertainment Weekly that they'd like to be Batman.
(CNN) – They may disagree about a lot of things — but Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama share an affinity for a certain dark superhero.

In an issue of Entertainment Weekly hitting newsstands Friday, both presumptive nominees reveal their pop culture favorites — and it turns out that both men want to be Batman.

“He does justice sometimes against insurmountable odds,” McCain said of the comic book hero. “And he doesn’t make his good works known to a lot of people.”

For his part, Obama told the magazine he would like to be Batman and Spider Man because “they have some inner turmoil.”

“They get knocked around a little bit,” observed Obama.


Issues of age and race — which have hovered over this year’s presidential campaign — also popped up in the discussion of popular culture.

Asked who was his favorite TV or movie president, McCain praised 24’s David Palmer portrayed by actor Dennis Haysbert. “He’s fabulous,” said McCain. “He’s a guy who makes tough decisions, he takes charge, he’s ready to sacrifice his interest on behalf of the interest of the country.”

Reminded that Palmer portrayed the nation’s first African-American president on the television series, the presumptive Republican nominee said “I hope that I and all Americans can be color-blind about any president.”

But McCain also told the magazine that new Indiana Jones film was the last movie he’d seen. “I enjoyed that so much. The old guys wins,” said McCain, who will be the oldest president to be elected to a first term in the White House if he wins the general election.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 07, 2008, 02:54:34 PM
When are we ever going to talk about issues in this campaign?

The mortgage crisis?
The war?
The economy (and not gas prices)?
Health care?

Instead, we get Paris Hilton and Batman.
I am as distracted as anyone else by this but it would be nice for the media to discuss something that matters.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on August 07, 2008, 06:16:53 PM
Dem VP:  I can live with Evan Bayh, though I've always had a soft spot for Joe Biden.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 07, 2008, 06:35:24 PM
Dem VP:  I can live with Evan Bayh, though I've always had a soft spot for Joe Biden.

I liked Biden until the Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearings...he was an obvious suck up. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on August 07, 2008, 06:36:38 PM
Dem VP:  I can live with Evan Bayh, though I've always had a soft spot for Joe Biden.

I liked Biden until the Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearings...he was an obvious suck up. 

Yeah, that and the hair plugs...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 07, 2008, 06:44:42 PM
I just remember Biden saying: "I like you, you're the real deal."

Gave me the big wiggins...(as you watch more Buffy saltine, you'll understand that)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on August 07, 2008, 06:49:40 PM
 ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ba571418 on August 08, 2008, 05:12:57 AM
On the vice president...
I'm always exhausted by the whole veep frenzy every election cycle. It's a self-perpetuating thing - campaigns want something for which they can get press and the media wants something it can cover - there's not much actual news there.
A VP choice can only hurt you - say if the guy turns out to have a love child (did someone say John Edwards?) or if he holds some position that angers the one-issue people. What region the VP comes from, his experience, and all that other stuff that gets considered (and covered) in the choice doesn't actually matter - people vote for the guy at the top of the ticket. The best VP candidate is the guy who doesn't hurt you - that's it.

On "socialized" medicine...
I just listened to this health series on NPR and I learned that countries like France actually don't have socialized medicine. The reporter said that the French detest socialized medicine (like Great Britain's system) - most French insurance funds are private entities managed by employer and union federations. The French demand and get lots of choice when it comes to health care (house visits!). Germany's health care system is part non-profit insurance and part well-regulated private insurance (for the self-employed).

My rant...
By the way, all this laissez-faire ecomonic bullshit that libertarians and republicans throw around is so CINECAST!ing annoying. Look at our economy - our government CINECAST!ing controls interest rates, it controls the amount of money in circulation. You can't take the government out of our economy because 1) the government helps to control the value of our currency for better or worse and 2) see: mortgage/credit crisis; deregulation leads to formerly safe banking institutions (not even investment banks) getting into gambling, otherwise known as derivatives, and into buying retarded-ass bundled i-can't-even-afford-a-pot-to-piss-in mortgages
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: secondcitywolverine on August 10, 2008, 03:18:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 10, 2008, 11:23:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4)

I just got O-Rolled!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 21, 2008, 04:42:51 PM
veepstakes almost at a close. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_el_pr/veepstakes)

ob-y to announce before sat (unless phelps wins another medal) but the pick is in.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 26, 2008, 11:55:42 AM
So I just listened to a description of mccains health care plan... and all I can say is wtf!!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 26, 2008, 03:46:09 PM
Dem VP:  I can live with Evan Bayh, though I've always had a soft spot for Joe Biden.

I liked Biden until the Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearings...he was an obvious suck up. 

Yeah, that and the hair plugs...

You were so right Saltine...

I am having such a hard time with this pick...Biden is so....so...establishment.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 26, 2008, 03:50:59 PM
Dem VP:  I can live with Evan Bayh, though I've always had a soft spot for Joe Biden.

I liked Biden until the Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearings...he was an obvious suck up. 

Yeah, that and the hair plugs...

You were so right Saltine...

I am having such a hard time with this pick...Biden is so....so...establishment.

you should totally vote McCain then. ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 26, 2008, 04:09:24 PM
Being a POW is not a qualification for President in my book.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 26, 2008, 04:18:30 PM
Being a POW is not a qualification for President in my book.

Neither is a lack of accomplishments.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 26, 2008, 04:25:43 PM
This is all very strange. I'm trying to imagine an election in Britain with people saying they might vote for one guy because he was a POW, and others saying they'll vote for another because he wants 'change'.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 26, 2008, 04:53:36 PM
Being a POW is not a qualification for President in my book.

Neither is a lack of accomplishments.

Neither is being a doddering old fool who recently turned his back on everything he previously built his political life on and embraced corporate handouts, the evangelical right, George Bush's inane policies - need I go on?
The man will do anything to get elected and I'll take Obama'a perceived lack of accomplishments over someone who is so willing to sell his own integrity. A man who's own campaign has nothing better to say than "Obama is too popular to be President".

This is all very strange. I'm trying to imagine an election in Britain with people saying they might vote for one guy because he was a POW, and others saying they'll vote for another because he wants 'change'.

And yes you are right Wowser - it would be nice to here some discussion on substantive issues. But this is American politics where we worship at the altar of celebrity while wallowing in the filth of sensationalism. Candidates don't talk about issues, they sling mud or speak vague generalisms. Well, Obama's generalisms are far better than the status quo - I can't take 4 more years of the rich getting richer while leaving everyone else behind under the guise of a free market economy - there is no free market when you have corporate lobbyists in bed with every level of government making sure the dice roll their way.  There is strict "oversight" at all levels of the economy and it's all slanted to put us under the thumb of those with $$.
At this point - even "change" looks better than that.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 26, 2008, 05:20:35 PM
Yeah, I like the guy. But I do worry that I'm getting swayed by the cult of personality. But I do think he may end up like Bill Clinton: before the election he promises wonders, yet the night he gets in the White House, those around him say, 'none of this can be achieved; you'll just have to do as we say'. Which is what happened to Clinton.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on August 26, 2008, 05:26:37 PM

This is all very strange. I'm trying to imagine an election in Britain with people saying they might vote for one guy because he was a POW, and others saying they'll vote for another because he wants 'change'.

And yes you are right Wowser - it would be nice to here some discussion on substantive issues. But this is American politics where we worship at the altar of celebrity while wallowing in the filth of sensationalism. Candidates don't talk about issues, they sling mud or speak vague generalisms.

Actually, we have that in Britain too.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 26, 2008, 05:28:40 PM
Yes, but we also have a discussion of the issues in Britain, though that can get a bit lost in discussions of side-partings, the age of certain Lib Dem leaders and our Prime Minister's satorial holiday choices... (Actually, point taken.)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 26, 2008, 05:34:54 PM
well neither of them can actually deliver what they are promising.  Iraq will kick us out in 3 more years (so much for mccain's 100 year plan), obama has no money to fund nationalized healthcare, they BOTH say whatever it takes to get elected - you didn;t find Obama's massive swing to the center alamring right after he clinched the dem's nod? he's as fake and phoney as anyone in DC but since he is lacks any substance whatsoever people can just read their own longing's and hopes into him - he's quite good at letting this happen.  You should never vote for anyone who wants to be president as they will at somepoint have compromised their integrity to do so.  Its the nature of the beast and an awful and ugly one it is.

that being said i see the fact that mccain has a track record in his pre-seeking days of doing what he wanted, consequences be damned. so franlky I believe at this point that once he does get elected he'll go right back to being that person who doesn't play the game but who has no problem working with everyone to get something, anything done.  Obama is the dem's version of Bush.  He doesn't know what he's doing but is gonna get elected anyway because the electorate is a bunch of infantile dim wits who vote on their feeling and want to have beers with the president or want him to look like them or speak like them or believe in the same thing they do.  I don;t care how you speak, what ya look like or what you believe in, just how you plan on governing this country - and the only predictor of that is prior performance.  

Now we can have 12 straight years of on the job training cuz its easy to turn you back when you don't have a front.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 26, 2008, 09:21:45 PM
Quote
so franlky I believe at this point that once he does get elected he'll go right back to being that person who doesn't play the game but who has no problem working with everyone to get something, anything done.

now who's projecting their own hopes and longings?

Quote
He doesn't know what he's doing but is gonna get elected anyway because the electorate is a bunch of infantile dim wits who vote on their feeling and want to have beers with the president or want him to look like them or speak like them or believe in the same thing they do.

I don't want to have a beer with president, nor do I want him to be affable, friendly, cordial or speak like me - I want the smartest guy in the room and quite frankly McCain isn't the one. But I do want someone who believes in what I believe - that's the essence of politics and what I believe is that for the last 8 years my rights have been effectively cut, people who far more money than me pay less taxes proportionately and I am stuck in a job that I really don't like because I need health care and I can't afford it if I go it alone and work as an independent contractor.
Now someone comes along that wants to create an affordable National Health Care plan that is composed of private insurance companies with a watchdog group in oversight. You can't possibly say that health care as it stands in this country is working?
I will take my chances with someone who is willing to change.
If he lets me down so be it but at least I know I didn't vote for someone who represents the same self-serving interests as George Bush - that would be McCain in case you weren't sure.

Let's just agree to disagree because you will never convince me and I won't convince you and in 2 yrs let's come back to this thread and see who was right(er). ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 26, 2008, 10:13:50 PM
Quote
so franlky I believe at this point that once he does get elected he'll go right back to being that person who doesn't play the game but who has no problem working with everyone to get something, anything done.

now who's projecting their own hopes and longings?

haha yeah i know - for me the best choice in this race to vote for a ghost that for president 8 years ago.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 26, 2008, 10:14:17 PM
Hillary btw was on tonight.

EXCEPT the phrase "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pant Suit"
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Kevin Shields on August 26, 2008, 11:36:43 PM
Keith makes a point about Obama.  That's why I'm not voting for him yet, I'm not voting for McCain either.  I disagree with his stance on the war. 

See why I'm indecisive and unsure about voting this year. 

There was a good candidate... 8 years ago. 

Plus, I really hate celebrities forcing us to vote for whoever.  Claiming they're not gaining anything.  I heard Tim Daly says that they're not in it for themselves.  Bullshit!  They want to believe in the fact that if they got whoever in office, they feel like they have the belief that they can have power to influence anybody. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on August 26, 2008, 11:52:46 PM
Celebrities forcing us to vote for whoever?

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 27, 2008, 01:03:04 AM
pix - did Ron Livingston Silver ::) & his goons not pay a visit to your house?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 27, 2008, 07:29:30 AM
Yeah, why are any of the candidates bothering to hob nob with celebrities? Surely it'll backfire with most voters. I wouldn't care what Gwyneth Paltrow thought, and why should her opinion even matter? (That's not just rhetorical; really, what does her opinion matter?)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 27, 2008, 07:30:29 AM
Who the hell listens to what celebrities have to say?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on August 27, 2008, 10:03:44 AM
i didn't watch the coverage, but did they actually have celebrities on for analysis/spin?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 27, 2008, 12:08:27 PM
So the Dilbert Guy (Scott Adams) decided to personally fund a survey of 500 economist to see which candidate has their support. He will be releasing the results of this sometime after the two conventions.  This is awesome.

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/fixing_the_world/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/fixing_the_world/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/he_thinks_voters_are_stupid/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/he_thinks_voters_are_stupid/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/strange_feeling/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/strange_feeling/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/what_good_are_economists/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/what_good_are_economists/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_challenge_of_democracy/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_challenge_of_democracy/)

Also his ideas intruige me and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 27, 2008, 12:38:51 PM
marty... it's kind of creepy how much we agree on this
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on August 27, 2008, 12:42:19 PM
So the Dilbert Guy (Scott Adams) decided to personally fund a survey of 500 economist to see which candidate has their support. He will be releasing the results of this sometime after the two conventions.  This is awesome.

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/fixing_the_world/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/fixing_the_world/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/he_thinks_voters_are_stupid/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/he_thinks_voters_are_stupid/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/strange_feeling/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/strange_feeling/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/what_good_are_economists/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/what_good_are_economists/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_challenge_of_democracy/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_challenge_of_democracy/)

Also his ideas intruige me and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.

Sharing is a bunch of bull, too.  And helping others.  And what's all this crap I've been hearing about tolerance?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 27, 2008, 12:53:25 PM
So the Dilbert Guy (Scott Adams) decided to personally fund a survey of 500 economist to see which candidate has their support. He will be releasing the results of this sometime after the two conventions.  This is awesome.

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/fixing_the_world/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/fixing_the_world/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/he_thinks_voters_are_stupid/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/he_thinks_voters_are_stupid/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/strange_feeling/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/strange_feeling/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/what_good_are_economists/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/what_good_are_economists/)
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_challenge_of_democracy/ (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_challenge_of_democracy/)

Also his ideas intruige me and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.

Sharing is a bunch of bull, too.  And helping others.  And what's all this crap I've been hearing about tolerance?

 ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 27, 2008, 01:52:48 PM
marty... it's kind of creepy how much we agree on this

Not really - you are sensible and intelligent... :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 27, 2008, 02:04:16 PM
marty... it's kind of creepy how much we agree on this

Not really - you are sensible and intelligent... :P

why thank you! It goes without saying that you fall into the same category ... ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on August 27, 2008, 02:05:27 PM
marty... it's kind of creepy how much we agree on this

Not really - you are sensible and intelligent... :P

why thank you! It goes without saying that you fall into the same category ... ;)

no! fight! red state blue state FIGHT!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 27, 2008, 02:24:49 PM
fighting makes it difficult to seriously address questions and concerns as you become more interested in winning then coming to the most clear-headed solution. That being said, a good fight can be fun to watch
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 28, 2008, 01:44:41 PM
I've been following the media coverage of the Democratic National Convention (mostly CNN and then switching to the bigger networks during prime time) and have been blown away by how amateurish and insubstantial that coverage has been.  I'm not really surprised, but there is so little substance in their analysis and the subjects they choose to cover it makes my brain hurt.

For those of you joining us from overseas: Welcome to the Idiocracy.

As for the candidates, for me the choice is clear.  I think Obama has more progressive policies regarding health care, energy, education, taxes and a foreign policy that befits modern society. 

I had a great deal of respect for McCain, but he's not the "maverick" that ran in 2004 and his positions on all of the above are short-sighted and don't offer anything different from the last seven disastrous years.

Also, I look at elections as a report card or even more like a job review and any way you cut the Republican party has provided terrible leadership and policies and our country is in a very precarious place because of it.  For that reason alone I would vote Democrat, but happily they have a candidate I'm excited about.

I was hoping to find a little more spirited debate on this thread so hopefully this will get things started.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 28, 2008, 02:27:18 PM
Good Obama story in the Guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/uselections2008.race (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/uselections2008.race)

Quote
When she says there are a lot of people who don't want a black man in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, does that include her?

Pause.

"Not really."

Does "not really" mean yes or no?

"I wouldn't want to see it in my lifetime."

A black presidency?

"I wouldn't like to see it, OK?"

She gives me a look of cold steel that announces the conversation is over.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on August 28, 2008, 02:45:37 PM
The best coverage that I have seen isn't even covering the actual convention. The Daily Show and Colbert Report have been hilarious because they are making fun of the seemingly constant stupidity provided by the 24 hour networks.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 28, 2008, 02:49:32 PM
I sometimes wonder about the people they interview... and then I reassure myself that not everyone is that much of an idiot... right?!?!?!!!

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ses on August 28, 2008, 03:02:18 PM
The best coverage that I have seen isn't even covering the actual convention. The Daily Show and Colbert Report have been hilarious because they are making fun of the seemingly constant stupidity provided by the 24 hour networks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXOSHdBZzrU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXOSHdBZzrU)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 28, 2008, 03:03:19 PM
Wrong, they are that idiotic.  And Junior is definitely, and kind of sadly, right, the Daily Show and Colbert Report offer some of the only insightful political news in the US.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 28, 2008, 03:25:25 PM
ok--- i figure i'll put out there the subjects that have helped me arrive at my decision on who to vote for

1) Science funding/understanding. I'm a scientist who saw funding tank on important projects because of lack of funding during the bush presidency. There are many examples of when politicians screw up because they don't understand what something can be used for so they don't want to fund it, so someone who spreads misinformation (even if they don't know it as such) gets me peeved.   
2) Health care - mccains health care proposal made a bit of smoke come out of my ears
3) Katrina - yes the hurricane, ... I remember watching mccain give a talk just outside new orleans on a campaign stop and completely misspeak about his voting record in support of new orleans post-katrina. His voting record speaks for itself on this one. Maybe I'm bitter, but this is top in my head this week as tomorrow is a bad anniversary for me and many of my friends and family are even now preparing to evacuate for gustav. Politics shouldn't have played a role in the response, but I don't know anyone down there who had the same view of the administration after the hurricane as they did before.
4) Oil/Gas - Only one of the candidates pointed out that a gas tax holiday was not a viable solution... the economists all pointed out that it wouldn't really effect things, but it sure did make good sound bites.
5) Going negative, I really resent the first person to come out with the negative ad. I understand that there is always going to be some amount of negativity as one candidate or their supporters tries to separate themselves, but I just don't like it!
6) Age - now this is the one I'm least proud of... but I've seen the changes in my father the last few years (dad is less than a year older than mccain). They even have had similar health track records. I should say my father is still one of the smartest men I have ever met, but he doesn't multi-task like he used too. Now I'll admit my dad not multi-tasking as much and not having the same energy doesn't necessarily translate, but I can't help but worry.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on August 28, 2008, 03:34:36 PM
Quote
6) Age

Really, that could be my number 1.  I honestly do think McCain is too old to be President, and I'm taking into account how vigorous he seems at this moment.  Adding four years to his present age is really something to consider, in my opinion.  I've had enough of the "surrogate" President.  I want to elect the man who serves as President, not stands in as President, while someone I didn't elect pulls the strings.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 28, 2008, 03:53:17 PM
I should have said they weren't in order... because while 1 is 1 for me 2 is actually probably 6.

I remember growing up outside dc during the reagan years... both my parents worked for the DOD and maybe because of this I heard more of the stories than other people. Reagan would read the wrong speach, or just read it out of order. His age was definitely catching up to him. I don't want someone in office who is still a great front person, but can't keep track of all the plates spinning in the air anymore.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 28, 2008, 04:07:36 PM
He seems n pretty good physical/mental shape for 72, so for me age would not be an issue.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 28, 2008, 04:09:42 PM
Yeah but it can go downhill pretty fast at that age.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on August 28, 2008, 04:15:40 PM
What about 76?  What about 80?

I say this because I also feel like we need an 8-year Presidency, given the complexity of issues etc.  A person approaching 76? 80? should not be President.  Everyone loses a step or two as they age, everyone...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 28, 2008, 04:19:31 PM
If you met my dad (at 72 right now) you would say he's all good. He still teaches, takes classes, does weird mathematical models for fun, but if you saw him 2 years ago you would see he is slowing down... and the rate he's slowing isn't linear. I'm not worried about mccain at 73 or 74, but like saltine I worry about the latter years of his presidency. 

that said... this isn't my top criteria. For instance if it were a choice between mccain and the current bush... my choice would be mccain. Luckily that isn't the choice i have to make. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 28, 2008, 04:22:43 PM
Yeah, and also I'd rule McCain out on the grounds of that corny book his daughter wrote. PUKE!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 28, 2008, 04:23:54 PM
I say this because I also feel like we need an 8-year Presidency, given the complexity of issues etc.  A person approaching 76? 80? should not be President.  Everyone loses a step or two as they age, everyone...

actually i'd rather have a new guy every 4 years - they seem to get more accomplished when they think there is a possibility of being held accountable to the voters on the horizon (this goes for the senate and anyone serving more than 2 terms in the house as well)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on August 28, 2008, 04:40:00 PM
I say this because I also feel like we need an 8-year Presidency, given the complexity of issues etc.  A person approaching 76? 80? should not be President.  Everyone loses a step or two as they age, everyone...

actually i'd rather have a new guy every 4 years - they seem to get more accomplished when they think there is a possibility of being held accountable to the voters on the horizon (this goes for the senate and anyone serving more than 2 terms in the house as well)

You know we don't have time to get the Constitution amended, don't you? ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 28, 2008, 04:44:24 PM
I say this because I also feel like we need an 8-year Presidency, given the complexity of issues etc.  A person approaching 76? 80? should not be President.  Everyone loses a step or two as they age, everyone...

actually i'd rather have a new guy every 4 years - they seem to get more accomplished when they think there is a possibility of being held accountable to the voters on the horizon (this goes for the senate and anyone serving more than 2 terms in the house as well)

You know we don't have time to get the Constitution amended, don't you? ;)

Nah, they have to believe they will get another 4 or the whole thing doesn't work.  Voters just need to start kicking them out - the shorter yr in there the less chance yr in some lobbyists pocket and frankly i think the more willing ur to work with the opposition to accomplish something positive for the voters. 

Also this looks great (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_mccain_ad) as long as it doens't come off as completely insincere - though i'm sure the pundits on both sides will spin it to death.

Quote
In a switch, McCain to Obama: "Well done" By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 5 minutes ago

DENVER - In a brief break from a fierce advertising war, Republican presidential candidate John McCain will air a one-evening-only ad with a simple message for Barack Obama: "Job well done."
 
The ad will air before, during and after Obama's nomination acceptance speech on national cable television.

In the ad, McCain addresses Obama directly, congratulating him for becoming the Democratic Party's nominee. McCain also recognizes the symbolism of a black man accepting the nomination on the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

McCain says: "Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, congratulations. How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we'll be back at it. But tonight Senator, job well done."

While the ad represents a moment of comity, it also casts McCain as a generous and gracious rival on the final day of the Democratic National Convention where McCain was regularly portrayed in a negative light.

As McCain concedes, this won't last.

Both candidates have been running a series of ads criticizing each other, vastly outnumbering any positive ads about themselves. But this is the first positive ad of the election by one candidate about the other.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on August 28, 2008, 05:36:55 PM
Good Obama story in the Guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/uselections2008.race (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/uselections2008.race)

Quote
[Regan] was in favour of states' rights, he said, earning a lusty cheer. That sounds innocent enough as a political statement, but made in the deep south it had resonance. It was a euphemism, widely recognised at that time, for support of southern racial segregation and opposition to the meddling anti-racism of the federal government.

Is this really true? "states' rights" = racism? Even if that term encompassed racist attitudes, I find it hard to believe that that's all it meant? It seems an extremely simplistic reading (though it certainly works well in setting up Pilkington's article). But maybe someone else more familiar with the South can fill me in.


Quote
Given the location, Reagan's clarion call for states' rights was a bold and deeply cynical move. As the liberal commentator Paul Krugman has put it: "Everyone got the message."

And the message stuck. It helped convert southern whites, the so-called Dixiecrats who had backed the Democratic party for decades, to defect to Reagan's cause, securing him victory in 1980 and completing the Republican stranglehold on the south that remains firm to this day. Mississippi has voted Republican in every presidential election since Reagan entered the White House. In 2004, John Kerry carried not a single southern state.

I also find this an extremely simplistic reading of a shift from Dem to Rep for Southern whites. Pilkington's essentially saying, isn't he?, that since Regan affirmed racial segregation/racist attitudes in the South, the Republicans won enough white voters to win the election. I certainly don't know much, if anything, about the shift from Dem to Rep, but to condense it to racism is hardly useful, even if it is partly true (I'm not naive enough to say it isn't). There must have been other factors - the rise of the religious right as it was associated with the Republican party, for example, given the deeply conservative/religious leanings of the South, "the Bible belt"?

Again, if I'm misreading Pilkington, someone let me know. I'm sure racism is rampant, and probably all too horribly so among white Republicans, I'm just incredulous that racism alone made Regan win and John Kerry lose.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 28, 2008, 05:45:29 PM
"States' Rights" has been a cover for racism since before the Civil War.  IIRC, the name of Strom Thurmond's pro-segregation splinter party was the States' Rights Party (these are also the Dixiecrats referred to in the above quote).

The shift from Democrat to Republican in the South can't entirely be chalked up to racism, of course, but it was certainly a major factor.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on August 28, 2008, 05:54:15 PM
"States' Rights" has been a cover for racism since before the Civil War.  IIRC, the name of Strom Thurmond's pro-segregation splinter party was the States' Rights Party (these are also the Dixiecrats referred to in the above quote).

Huh. Ok. So Regan was indeed consciously endorsing racist attitudes, then?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on August 28, 2008, 06:03:58 PM
The "southern strategy" goes back to Nixon before Reagan, he just continued it.  But yes "states rights" is a word that means something particular to southern whites while in general others would hear a more innocuous call to reel in the federal government.  The Republicans have been overtly reaching out to white Southerners who had always been Democrats but who were disaffected from the party from the civil rights movement onwards and the increasing attention to various "special interest groups" within the party.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 28, 2008, 10:52:06 PM
"States' Rights" has been a cover for racism since before the Civil War.  IIRC, the name of Strom Thurmond's pro-segregation splinter party was the States' Rights Party (these are also the Dixiecrats referred to in the above quote).

Huh. Ok. So Regan was indeed consciously endorsing racist attitudes, then?


Yup.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on August 28, 2008, 10:52:59 PM
Obama was amazing tonight!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 28, 2008, 10:53:30 PM
Ok - I think that speech was a little slice of political history. Obama called McCain out and he used everything the GOP had been throwing at him in reply.
Sweeping yet personal...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 28, 2008, 11:08:08 PM
It was a great speech. 

I absolutely can't stand the right wing pundits who just regurgitate the same lame attacks immediately following any of Obama's speeches.  All they say is it's a bunch of fluff in a nice package.  I, for one, heard a lot of substance tonight and at least McCain and his advisers have the class to run a positive ad congratulating Obama on his nomination.  These days I don't think pundits (on both sides) have the intelligence to divert from their talking points.  At the very least most of the Democratic pundits use counter arguments.  The Republicans just come out spewing bile and bull[cinecast].
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on August 29, 2008, 12:26:59 AM
Yet again I wish I was American so I could vote for Obama. Unfortunately I'm Canadian and will most likely be stuck having to vote for the idiot Liberal leader Stephane Dion (no relation to Celine) in the still not official snap election coming up, just because I cannot stand PM Harper.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 05:34:01 AM
"States' Rights" has been a cover for racism since before the Civil War.  IIRC, the name of Strom Thurmond's pro-segregation splinter party was the States' Rights Party (these are also the Dixiecrats referred to in the above quote).

Huh. Ok. So Regan was indeed consciously endorsing racist attitudes, then?


I think the crux of the first half of the article was saying that, while racist attitudes still exist in the south (like the golf club where blacks have only just, in the last 5 years, been allowed to join), it's starting to open up in its attitudes towards race.

I think the most depressing aspect of the article was the second half, about Detroit (80% black) and its 95% white neighbour.

Missed the Obama speech :( Will YouTube it later today.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on August 29, 2008, 07:29:33 AM
Anyone able to tell me what this actually means? Because I don't actually think it means anything at all:

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Other than that, nice one.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 07:57:50 AM
That he's all talk and no action on Bin Laden. Who must be dead now, anyway, really.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on August 29, 2008, 08:19:12 AM
"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

yeah, it's sort of a burn . . . but pretty meaningless i think
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on August 29, 2008, 09:16:57 AM

Anyone able to tell me what this actually means? Because I don't actually think it means anything at all:

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Other than that, nice one.
That he's all talk and no action on Bin Laden. Who must be dead now, anyway, really.

How is a Senator from Arizona supposed to take action on Bin Laden? How has Obama taken any more or less action?

I'm not bashing just for the sake of it - this was a totally meaningless (as far as I can see) statement that sounds exactly like something Dubya would say...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 09:33:58 AM
It's not meaningless; it's just a bit clumsy. Which is odd considering he must have one of the best speech writers in the business.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 29, 2008, 09:36:09 AM
I believe it is actually a reference to several bills that came up for a vote which included increased funding to find bin laden in Afghanistan...  but they also involved language about timelines for withdraw of combat troops from iraq... so of course he either didn't vote or voted against them. This isn't a new tactic to mention someone voting against something without saying what part of the bill they actually voted against. It's been used as long as I've been following politics, and been used by both parties.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 29, 2008, 09:42:41 AM
sarah palin?

--- very conservative ---
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on August 29, 2008, 09:48:48 AM
It's not meaningless; it's just a bit clumsy. Which is odd considering he must have one of the best speech writers in the business.

I was under the impression that he was one of the few politicians that actually wrote their own speeches with minimal aid from speech-writers.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on August 29, 2008, 09:53:09 AM
It's not meaningless; it's just a bit clumsy. Which is odd considering he must have one of the best speech writers in the business.

I was under the impression that he was one of the few politicians that actually wrote their own speeches with minimal aid from speech-writers.

he's written some of his own - i think his "race" speech was at least partially. mostly i think that's just a myth that the obamanauts would like to spread. in today's political scene it would be impossible for the politician to have time to simply write the speech, much less fact check/ run it by test audiences/ edit/ include and exclude certain bits based on recent polling data. it's all marketing essentially. unless someone has a source to prove me wrong? this is what i mosty assume to be the case
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 09:55:42 AM
I am with Think_Long on this.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 29, 2008, 09:56:08 AM
(http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756)



Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on August 29, 2008, 09:59:15 AM
It's not meaningless; it's just a bit clumsy. Which is odd considering he must have one of the best speech writers in the business.

I was under the impression that he was one of the few politicians that actually wrote their own speeches with minimal aid from speech-writers.

he's written some of his own - i think his "race" speech was at least partially. mostly i think that's just a myth that the obamanauts would like to spread. in today's political scene it would be impossible for the politician to have time to simply write the speech, much less fact check/ run it by test audiences/ edit/ include and exclude certain bits based on recent polling data. it's all marketing essentially. unless someone has a source to prove me wrong? this is what i mosty assume to be the case

I believed that he wrote his speeches and simply had aids working with him to perfect/fact-check etc. Unlike McCain who most likely has his speeches written for him and he simply goes over them and helps with the revisions.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 10:02:03 AM
Either way, when he's president he'll certainly have to rely on a speech writer more.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on August 29, 2008, 10:05:00 AM
sarah palin?

--- very conservative ---

But young, good looking, and female, with a cute family.  And has a newborn Downs syndrome baby who she did not abort after prenatal testing....way to mobilize the base.  Not as cynical as I sound, I actually have a lot of respect for her for that.  And an article I just read said she was in the weeds with the Republican party in Alaska after crossing them on ethics issues on a powerful gas/oil board or somesuch, came back to win as governor, 90% approval rating.

Other than the lack of experience thing (and the higher likelihood that given McCain's age/health issues, she really could find herself as president) she looks like an awesome pick and could influence some undecideds and even some Hillary dead-enders.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on August 29, 2008, 10:14:55 AM
I wouldn't necessarily paint her as very conservative... a solid conservative most definitely, but I really wouldn't put her on the fringe either, despite her very rigid stance against abortion (it is only one issue after all). She's actually been fairly moderate in some of her viewpoints, particularly in her efforts to curb oil usage and signing a bill into law implementing same-sex benefits. Very good pick in my opinion, balances out the age concerns with McCain, satisfies the base, and steals some of the thunder of Obama's historic candidacy. I think Palin helps McCain considerably more than Biden helps Obama (who I really felt should have gone with Tim Kaine).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 29, 2008, 11:13:46 AM
A 2-year governor from a state with a population of 683,478 who is younger than Obama and completely unknown.  There go most of the arguments the Republicans have been leveling at Obama about his qualifications to lead.

For your consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ys4HGbiONY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iCDBIAde8&feature=related

I'm sure the McCain camp will make sure she never utters the word "hope" again.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 29, 2008, 11:14:53 AM

Anyone able to tell me what this actually means? Because I don't actually think it means anything at all:

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Other than that, nice one.
That he's all talk and no action on Bin Laden. Who must be dead now, anyway, really.

How is a Senator from Arizona supposed to take action on Bin Laden? How has Obama taken any more or less action?

I'm not bashing just for the sake of it - this was a totally meaningless (as far as I can see) statement that sounds exactly like something Dubya would say...

That's the point - the whole point of Obama's speech was to tie him to GWB's policies and actions. We stopped looking for Bin Laden and focused on Iraq and McCain supported all of these actions. So while the real perpetrator of 9/11 got away in Pakistan -we chased phantom WMD's in Iraq.

In May of 07 McCain said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_-rnJxo0Fo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_-rnJxo0Fo)

But yet he won't endorse actually stepping up the hunt for him - rather he would lead down a path of failure for an unjustfied war in Iraq.
The Senator from AZ is attempting to shoulder the mantle of GWB - he supports his actions and his policies - so he needs to own his failures as well - which are legion.

It's not meaningless; it's just a bit clumsy. Which is odd considering he must have one of the best speech writers in the business.

It wasn't clumsy or meaningless - you just missed the point.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 11:17:40 AM


It wasn't clumsy or meaningless - you just missed the point.

I never said it was meaningless. And pardon me for not following American politics inch by inch  ::)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 29, 2008, 11:18:59 AM
I wouldn't necessarily paint her as very conservative... a solid conservative most definitely, but I really wouldn't put her on the fringe either, despite her very rigid stance against abortion (it is only one issue after all). She's actually been fairly moderate in some of her viewpoints, particularly in her efforts to curb oil usage and signing a bill into law implementing same-sex benefits. Very good pick in my opinion, balances out the age concerns with McCain, satisfies the base, and steals some of the thunder of Obama's historic candidacy. I think Palin helps McCain considerably more than Biden helps Obama (who I really felt should have gone with Tim Kaine).

Please - here's why they picked her plain and simple - when she goes on the attack against Obama (and she will) the Dems will be forced to paint a picture of a black man attacking a white woman...once again it's a subtle jab at the race issue.
She has even less qualifications than Obama (according to the GOP) to lead and with McCain age - do you really want this untested person leading our country?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 29, 2008, 11:55:54 AM
That's why Obama won't be attacking her at all.  Hillary is free to be as mean as she wants to be (and I have a feeling there's some anger built up in her) and they are going to let her loose on Palin.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 29, 2008, 11:59:50 AM
sarah palin?

--- very conservative ---

Her?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 29, 2008, 12:20:42 PM
It's actually pretty funny watching CNN right now.  They know so little about her they just keep listing her favorite foods and activities.  It's like listening to a small town beauty contestant bio.

I don't think this will work out well for the McCain camp, but then again, after the last election I always expect to be supremely disappointed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on August 29, 2008, 12:26:39 PM
I wouldn't necessarily paint her as very conservative... a solid conservative most definitely, but I really wouldn't put her on the fringe either, despite her very rigid stance against abortion (it is only one issue after all). She's actually been fairly moderate in some of her viewpoints, particularly in her efforts to curb oil usage and signing a bill into law implementing same-sex benefits. Very good pick in my opinion, balances out the age concerns with McCain, satisfies the base, and steals some of the thunder of Obama's historic candidacy. I think Palin helps McCain considerably more than Biden helps Obama (who I really felt should have gone with Tim Kaine).

Please - here's why they picked her plain and simple - when she goes on the attack against Obama (and she will) the Dems will be forced to paint a picture of a black man attacking a white woman...once again it's a subtle jab at the race issue.
She has even less qualifications than Obama (according to the GOP) to lead and with McCain age - do you really want this untested person leading our country?

That makes sense really.

I just thought that it was so they could nab the rabid Hilary supporters.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 29, 2008, 12:38:19 PM
It's like listening to a small town beauty contestant bio.

She was the Miss Alaska runner-up. . .

Seriously, I'm flabbergasted by this.  Can they seriously believe that Hillary's supporters are so rabidly feminist that they'd vote for McCain so this woman can be VP?  How can the Hillary people be anything but insulted by this choice?  I imagine Obama is right now promising Hillary Secretary Of State or Supreme Court Justice in exchange for tearing Palin limb from limb.

What could their rationale possibly be?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 29, 2008, 12:39:39 PM
black man vs white woman
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 29, 2008, 12:41:42 PM
I wouldn't necessarily paint her as very conservative... a solid conservative most definitely, but I really wouldn't put her on the fringe either, despite her very rigid stance against abortion (it is only one issue after all). She's actually been fairly moderate in some of her viewpoints, particularly in her efforts to curb oil usage and signing a bill into law implementing same-sex benefits. Very good pick in my opinion, balances out the age concerns with McCain, satisfies the base, and steals some of the thunder of Obama's historic candidacy. I think Palin helps McCain considerably more than Biden helps Obama (who I really felt should have gone with Tim Kaine).

Please - here's why they picked her plain and simple - when she goes on the attack against Obama (and she will) the Dems will be forced to paint a picture of a black man attacking a white woman...once again it's a subtle jab at the race issue.
She has even less qualifications than Obama (according to the GOP) to lead and with McCain age - do you really want this untested person leading our country?

That makes sense really.

I just thought that it was so they could nab the rabid Hilary supporters.

It is also an attempt to snatch up disaffected Hillary supporters and a shallow one at that.  To imply that Palin is a worthy substitute for Hillary is to do Hillary's lifelong career going toe to toe with the most powerful people in America and around the world a disservice.  I can't find the numbers, but I would guess that the 13th District that Obama represented in the Illinois State Senate has more constituents than the entire state of Alaska (I'm not bashing Alaska, it's a great state, it just has a tiny population).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 29, 2008, 12:42:21 PM
black man vs white woman

More famous, smarter, meaner white woman vs. white woman.

Obama won't say anything mean about anyone.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 29, 2008, 12:50:12 PM
I mean, can they possibly think women who had devoted so much time, energy and hope to a woman they had admired and supported for years would just immediately shift to Palin because she's female?

To answer my own question: obviously they do.

It's like listening to a small town beauty contestant bio.
She was the Miss Alaska runner-up. . .

That's priceless. 

If McCain/Palin win you know there's going to be a movie staring Reese Witherspoon made about a plucky young Republican who brought some good ol' small town common sense to the big bad world of international politics.  Oh wait...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 01:08:16 PM
It's really depressing just the way she talks - the kind of language she uses. Eurgh... For the sake of the world, I hope she doesn't get in.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on August 29, 2008, 01:15:12 PM
black man vs white woman

Even as cynical as I am, I think the idea that the McCain camp chose her for this reason is absolutely and completely ridiculous.

I also think it's incredibly hypocritical that, at least from my understanding of several criticisms, many seem to be insulted that McCain picked a woman as his running mate. For years people have been complaining that the Republican party always trotted out stodgy, old Protestant white men. So now they pick a woman, and suddenly they're accused of being condescending and sexist. How does that work?

It seems people are also trying to have it both ways with the experience argument. Palin is just as experienced as Obama, in fact she has actual experience in the executive branch of the government, which Obama does not. The Republicans obviously can't have it both ways either, and with the Palin announcement they have to own up to the fact that they were wrong about Obama's supposed "lack of experience" (something a party which endlessly feels the need to remind us is the "Party of Lincoln" really should hbutave avoided in the first place), but that doesn't mean the Democrats suddenly have clearance to blast her resume for being a heartbeat away from the presidency when their candidate, who will be IN the presidency, doesn't have a lengthier one.

Finally, I fail to see the argument that Palin was chosen just because she was a woman. There are numerous women in the Republican party with higher profiles than her (Jane Swift and Olympia Snowe come to mind). When you look at the slate of VP candidates, I think she was really the best available (actually, I'd probably consider her neck-and-neck with Pawlenty). Mitt Romney is divisive and incapable of seeming authentic, he gives off that used car salesman vibe. Plus it seems he and McCain just don't get along well. Huckabee is charismatic but remains stuck in the stone age (well, if he thought the stone age existed) and is far too conservative for independent voters. Ridge and Guiliani's support of abortion rights was never going to fly with the conservative base. Pawlenty would have been a good match, and he might have been able to deliver Minnesota (and I've actually had the pleasure of meeting him personally, he's a nice personable guy), though he's not the greatest campaigner and in public can seem a little bland, it would be hard for the base to get excited about him, which leaves it a toss-up between him and Palin. She had the most strengths and the fewest flaws of any of McCain's choices, and that's why she was picked. To say it's just to lure women voters is just yet another gross oversimplification in a presidential campaign that has already been drastically oversimplified.

My apologies for being longwinded. If you read the whole diatribe, you get an 'attaboy (or an 'attagirl).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 01:20:11 PM
The Bush adim itself was actually quite progressive in terms of the sex/race of the people it brought in. Even I quite liked Colin Powell, despite the fact that he was unable to pronounce his name.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 01:34:02 PM
I wouldn't necessarily paint her as very conservative... a solid conservative most definitely, but I really wouldn't put her on the fringe either, despite her very rigid stance against abortion (it is only one issue after all). She's actually been fairly moderate in some of her viewpoints, particularly in her efforts to curb oil usage and signing a bill into law implementing same-sex benefits. Very good pick in my opinion, balances out the age concerns with McCain, satisfies the base, and steals some of the thunder of Obama's historic candidacy. I think Palin helps McCain considerably more than Biden helps Obama (who I really felt should have gone with Tim Kaine).

Please - here's why they picked her plain and simple - when she goes on the attack against Obama (and she will) the Dems will be forced to paint a picture of a black man attacking a white woman...once again it's a subtle jab at the race issue.
She has even less qualifications than Obama (according to the GOP) to lead and with McCain age - do you really want this untested person leading our country?

now where did this cynicism come from ;D

Not that the VP choice ever matters (does anyone here actually take the botttom of the ticket into consideration?, and why)but now i think they are pretty even on most fronts as a ticket, 2 old white guys, two "historic firsts", two people without a track record, two with a massively long one. 

I love and all Marty but yr racial assertions are WAYYYYY off base.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 01:36:25 PM
It seems to be like each party's selling a new dishwasher tablet, and they have to compete on 'features'.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 01:37:13 PM
Quote
Huckabee is charismatic but remains stuck in the stone age (well, if he thought the stone age existed)

 ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 01:38:25 PM
It seems to be like each party's selling a new dishwasher tablet, and they have to compete on 'features'.

But who has more cup holders.  The studies all say that women only choose the cars with the most cup holders. ::)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 01:40:04 PM
Which is silly. I choose cars based on how BIG the cup holder is.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 01:41:15 PM
Which is silly. I choose cars based on how BIG the cup holder is.

You have no argument with me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 01:44:41 PM
I find Obama's self deprecating snippets amusing: when he says he has a 'funny name' he really means 'my name sounds Islamic'. Surely.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 29, 2008, 02:27:57 PM
I'm not angry at all he picked a woman... I just don't like palin. I honestly thought he would pick christine todd whitman.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 02:34:37 PM
I'm not angry at all he picked a woman... I just don't like palin. I honestly thought he would pick christine todd whitman.

I would love to see CTW on a ticket.  I can really get behind her "Its My Party Too" PAC.  That said, the Alaskan librarian streak goes over quite well with me.

Has there ever been two candidates on the same ticket from west of the Rockies before?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 29, 2008, 02:49:35 PM
My racial assretions are very much on target and to those of you who poo poo them - get your head out of the sand.

Ask anyone - ask Colleen how much race affects what she does, I know it affects my job everyday. It's here - most of you choose to ignore it.

Racism - whether overt or implied is going to play a HUGE part of this campaign and the GOP is just dirty enough to push those levers. Race affects our daily life - this isn't cynicsim, this is common sense. Perhaps you like to think your party is too noble not play those cards in the race for the highest office in the land but after the last two elections full of needless fear mongering and saber rattling I don't put anything past them. Aside from that - McCain's proven track record of being willing to to do anything to court whoever will bring him votes smacks of dirty tricks in the making.

And yes - the VP does matter when the candidate is a banana peel away from the grave. Recurring melanoma, 72 already? It's not out of the question that he could kick off and she could end up running the country.

Try as you may - your lame attempts at equating her experience with that of Obama's don't hold water.  He has been in the national spotlight since the last convention - while his international experience may be limited, hers is nil. There is no comparison with either Obama or Biden. She couldn't hold their jock under any circumstances.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 29, 2008, 03:04:40 PM
She couldn't hold their jock under any circumstances.

I agree with you that the race card is being played subtly and not so subtly by the Republicans and that race is still a huge issue that many like to believe has been resolved.  However, your last comment opens the door to another issue that is often swept under the rug or poo poo'd: sexism. 

I'm in total agreement with you that Palin isn't a viable candidate to hold one of the most powerful positions in the world based on her experience (and there's no comparison between her experience and Obama's), but please keep this thread a healthy political debate and don't resort to statements like the one above.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 29, 2008, 03:16:07 PM
I'd say the same thing if she was a guy and had the same qualifications - there was nothing sexist in that statement. It's a sports metaphor - familiar with those?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 03:26:58 PM
Quote
Try as you may - your lame attempts at equating her experience with that of Obama's don't hold water.  He has been in the national spotlight since the last convention - while his international experience may be limited, hers is nil. There is no comparison with either Obama or Biden. She couldn't hold their jock under any circumstances.

being a celebrity does not equate to experience. (hows that for a fox news talking point.)

i never said the GOP was my party, I said CTW's PAC is inspiring.  And her executive experience is 2 years - his is nil.

And as for my head in the sand - at least I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.  I have no messiah in this race. I just think its now more a decision between which kind of bread I'd like my turd sandwich on rather than between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Don't tell me that Obama hasn't included double speak aimed at blacks (like Dubya did with the christies) even as he professes that he's transcending it - I heard it last night.  I never said that race won''t play a role.  I said that these outrageous black man white woman paralells yr making are completely off base.  Mostly because as has been pointed out - he's not going to attack her. And from what i've seen so far today she's an attack dog in her own right so i'm really looking forward to the VP debate to watch two pitbulls go at it.

The selling of hope I find more disgusting than a guy playing the game the way it needs to be played.  It is sick and wrong.  Let the scales fall and see Obama for what he is - another dirty politician who will put out there whatever he has to to get elected. Look at the way he became a state senator - his hands are not clean and he is not change. So who do I vote for - am I a cynical optimist and go for the bad liar thinking that it can't last or the good liar - thanks, but I'd rather not be a soulless monster.  
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on August 29, 2008, 03:30:30 PM
The '08 US Presidential Election is heating up. Time to have a dedicated place to talk about it and other things going down in the political arena.

1 Rule: PLAY NICE!

let's keep this discussion to observation rather than persuasion
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 29, 2008, 03:33:29 PM
Well, I think this ends my foray outside the movie related threads on this board.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 03:34:44 PM
Can someone explain what GOP means?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on August 29, 2008, 03:37:46 PM
from wikipedia, believe what you will. sort of interesting linguistically:

The party's founding members chose the name "Republican Party" in the mid-1850s in part as an homage to Thomas Jefferson (it was the name initially used by his party).[47][48] The name echoed the 1776 republican values of civic virtue and opposition to aristocracy and corruption.[49] The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party, and the initialism "G.O.P." is a commonly used designation. According to the Republican Party, the term "gallant old party" was used in 1875.[50] According to the Oxford English Dictionary the first known reference to the Republican Party as the "grand old party" came in 1876. The first use of the abbreviation G.O.P. is dated 1884. Some media have stopped using the term GOP because they think it's confusing.[51] In 2008, the new Washington state top two primary had Republican candidates competing against GOP candidates in the same races.[52][53] It is the second-oldest continuing political party in the United States.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 03:41:29 PM
Some media have stopped using the term GOP because they think it's confusing.

Quite.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 29, 2008, 03:44:49 PM
That's impossible when talking politics.

Keith knows it's not personal - I just think he's badly mistaken and vice versa - only time will tell who's right (er)....


and I can say: I told you so. :P

What I find so interesting is that I can believe something so strongly and feel as though it's an obvious choice, a lay up and yet someone else can feel the same way except just the opposite. I know I'm not "drinking the kool aid" - Obama had to win me over and it was a long fight for my vote (personally). To me - I can't see how anyone can fathom McCain a friend of the middle class, his only sponsors are big oil and big business in general, he doesn't care about me or my issues. He doesn't really care about whether I can afford a home,health care, food, gas - only that big corporations continue to drive the economy that never gets better for me, only for them - but that's how I feel about the entire GOP.
One of my huge issues is gay marriage and gay rights. My brother is gay and I am fiercely protective of him and his right to a life with the person he loves. If you stand between him and that then I will run you over, gleefully...that's where I see McCain and his pandering of the religious right and their narrow minded view of our "morals"...

Sorry for being so passionate but this is a political thread and you can't expect anything but fierce emotions.

Some media have stopped using the term GOP because they think it's confusing.

Quite.

It's quicker than typing Republicans.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 03:51:15 PM
That's impossible when talking politics.

Keith knows it's not personal - I just think he's badly mistaken and vice versa - only time will tell who's right (er)....


and I can say: I told you so. :P

 :P back at ya ;D

and for the record its "likely" that i will vote for McCain - I can still see myself being a soulless monster should events play out in certain ways.

One of the major problems with the country right now is how people define their lives thru their politics.  It is a part of me but I would by no means ever write someone off (as I know some friends who have) due to which lever they pull.  Intelligent people can disagree - its definitely not personal.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on August 29, 2008, 03:56:28 PM
what he said.  I am NOT a single-issue voter by any stretch of the imagination but the Republican party has been manipulating the far right passions on the gay rights issue in an absolutely maddening way.  I thought Obama's remarks on gay rights were fairly weak sauce, but McCain will not even be able to go that far.  

On the broader view, I do not think Obama's appeals to "hope" are cynical manipulation.  I have been waiting since 9-11 for people to start saying exactly what he says, that Americans are better than we have been behaving for the last 7 years, and that we are a people that thrives on hope not fear.  I'm tired of being fed a steady diet of fearmongering, of "be afraid" whether it's of terrorist attacks, immigrants, or the general notion of a zero-sum game of resources, wealth or what have you and it's every man for himself.  The idea that the best way forward is to more forward together and reach back to help those falling behind instead of gleefully tromping over them is the America I want to live in.  And there's one candidate who represents that in this election and one who doesn't.  I'm voting for the one who does.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 29, 2008, 04:03:19 PM
no one ever said politics made sense or didn't inspire fierce opinions.

I just wonder why there is so much hate directed at obama. I don't like mccain or his policies, but i don't hate him. I don't think the selling of hope is wrong at all... I see the giving up on hope as a giving up on the process that is at the heart of our democracy. It is like saying it doesn't matter who is president; for me the last 8 years have definitely been effected by the presidency. (ie one major reason I'm no longer looking at being a professor, because the funding for basic science research isn't there anymore... and then there was the choice of brown as fema director)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on August 29, 2008, 04:08:58 PM
the vitriol comes from his populist attitudes i think. many people see him (rightly or wrongly) as saying whatever he thinks the most people want to hear and offering no substance behind the remarks (probably where the absurd Hitler comparisons can come from).  McCain may have the same issues, but he's not speaking to rockstar-like crowds at the moment.

has anyone had the misfortune of seeing the first left-behind movie with growing-pains guy? the evil secretary of the UN may remind some people of obama . . . maybe. . . if you believe in that whole antichrist thing?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on August 29, 2008, 04:11:39 PM

One of the major problems with the country right now is how people define their lives thru their politics.  It is a part of me but I would by no means ever write someone off (as I know some friends who have) due to which lever they pull.  Intelligent people can disagree - its definitely not personal.

I do agree with this.  I have been unabashedly liberal since I was a teenager and remain so (although my views have moderated toward the center on quite a few issues, like gun control, over the years, and I'm a total hardass when it comes to issues of crime and punishment after seeing what goes on) but as in matters of religion, I respect that there are different beliefs.  I do resent being treated as if I'm an idiot or a traitor for my political views.  

I work in a field that has a lot of conservative to far right true believers in it and I generally get along with them.  The weird thing is, although I don't consider myself a single-issue voter on the gay rights thing, and will hear out pros and cons from candidates even if they are not where I want them to be on that issue (I supported Obama when others were stronger supporters of equal rights in the Democratic primaries), the "gay card" is the one thing that backs off some of my more right-leaning friends.  I argue with them from other standpoints and they continue to mock.  I finally have to say, "Look, the last several elections have been run right over my back and the back of everyone I know, by demonizing us as an evil moral threat.  I would be a sucker to support anyone who would treat me like that and I can't do it.  Sorry."  For some reason, that, they respect and back off.  I think it has a lot to do with them knowing me and my girlfriend as people and knowing in their hearts that we aren't that stereotype and knowing that the stereotyping is wrong and stupid.  Some have even said as much but will say that for them the economic aspect or war on terror or whatever supersedes that.  I say, okay, we all have our priorities.  That's the beauty of this country, we can all seek out candidates whose priorities match ours.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 29, 2008, 04:18:51 PM
only saying what people want to hear?!?! I can't help but pull up the gas holiday thing again. If he had wanted to say what people wanted to hear he would have jumped on board that idiotic idea.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on August 29, 2008, 04:21:56 PM
the vitriol comes from his populist attitudes i think. many people see him (rightly or wrongly) as saying whatever he thinks the most people want to hear and offering no substance behind the remarks (probably where the absurd Hitler comparisons can come from).  McCain may have the same issues, but he's not speaking to rockstar-like crowds at the moment.


I don't think he is calculating what people want to hear.  I think he is speaking from his own genuine beliefs and people who share those beliefs and who have felt marginalized and silenced for the past 8 years are responding.  

But that may be because I come from a line that sees "populist" as a good thing, not a bad thing.  The "empty suit" accusations are amazing to me, given the current occupant of the White House.  The time for the right wing to wring their hands about that particular issue came and went, if not 8 years ago then at least 4 years ago.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 29, 2008, 04:24:04 PM
I also have problems with calling obama out on the crowds thing... I don't understand someone being criticized for people wanting to see him. If it gets more people involved in the decision than that is cool with me. I do mean people not making a differentiation based on political viewpoint. I think politics would be much better if the voice of the populace was more important than that of the lobbyist. 

I actually like that the money obama has coming in is largely from individuals... I mean if he has to keep the people giving him money happy than he'll work for me, not for the oil industry (as an example)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on August 29, 2008, 04:25:09 PM
there are lots of definitions of populist i think. the one i tend to go by is a politician who has no genuine beliefs, but goes by what is most popular at the time - whatever that may be.

i'm not saying that's obama, i'm just postulating where i think some of the hate may come from.  i can understand feeling a lot of anger towards obama if you truly believe he is being disingenuous.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 29, 2008, 04:33:58 PM
I guess so i mean I am angry at mccain for the same thing. His change to be more electable is real not just a hypothetical. With obama it seems that people don't think he can actually believe what he says, with mccain he's really changed in terms of his voting record and his alignment with lobbyists. I think this would be a much different election if it were the mccain that ran 8 years ago. With Obama I actually think he believes what he says... and that makes a difference to me.

On a somewhat unrelated note --- did anyone else see that Palin is under an ethics investigation in Alaska.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 05:12:38 PM
also - soulless monster was not a shot at marty or anyone who votes for Obama, it was a comment on how I would see myself if I vote for him feeling the way I do about him.

Colleen, I'm right there with you on the despicable demonization of a group of people.  That is why McCain's "agents of intollerance" line still resonates with me.  That is not something you can put back in the bag and he lost an election because of it.  This is why I have no problem with an uneasy political truce.  I don't think he's changed his views just how and when (if) they are expressed.  This is also my problem with the primary system - you have to win the support of the extreme zealots in order to get nominated so the best people either lose or lie.  Look what the dem's and their bloggers did to Lieberman.

speaking of republican dirty tricks though - Palin's Wikipedia page was massively overhauled last night ahead of the announcement to put a more positive spin on her career. ::)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 05:28:59 PM
Is anyone siding with Gore Vidal on Obama?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 29, 2008, 05:33:35 PM
Is anyone siding with Gore Vidal on Obama?

in that there will be black riots if he doesn't win?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 29, 2008, 05:37:29 PM
Heh, I'm thinking of the smear campaign waged by the Goppies (my term) to prevent him even entering office. I love his rants! On America: "Culture? We never even had a civilisation to begin with!"
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on August 29, 2008, 09:28:34 PM
there are lots of definitions of populist i think. the one i tend to go by is a politician who has no genuine beliefs, but goes by what is most popular at the time - whatever that may be.

i'm not saying that's obama, i'm just postulating where i think some of the hate may come from.  i can understand feeling a lot of anger towards obama if you truly believe he is being disingenuous.

I guess that is part of populism, but more specifically a populist politician is one that portrays him/herself as "one of you". It is anti-enlist perspective and a celebration of ordinary people. Extreme cases get bogged down in conspiracy theories (an elite few control the country), but really every successful politician has to be a populist to some degree; a "I feel your pain" kind of thing. Obama's Whole Foods arugula statement was about as far from populism as you can get.

Conservatives (W for instance) and liberals (the Clintons' support among the working class) convey populist values, and to my mind that in itself is not really a problem. I suppose this issue is if it's genuine or not, does the politician really have the interests of ordinary people in mind?

When you talk about "a politician who has no genuine beliefs, but goes by what is most popular at the time", that is populism I suppose, but that is really common among brokerage systems, whether the candidate is a populist or not.

     
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on August 29, 2008, 09:42:48 PM
(http://i33.tinypic.com/f9lhy0.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 30, 2008, 12:05:59 AM
Quote
Look what the dem's and their bloggers did to Lieberman.

  What did "they" do to him that he hadn't already done to himself?
  His unswerving support of GWB foreign policy (specifically middle eastern change through regime change) led him to lose his own primary - people are sick of this war, they were sick of it 2 yrs ago when he ran for reelection - he still won his election but he turned his back on the values that his original constituency wanted him to hold - he had to change his base and now - his party. Good riddance. ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on August 30, 2008, 10:37:40 AM
Joe Lieberman sucks. Hard.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on August 30, 2008, 12:27:53 PM
Is anyone siding with Gore Vidal on Obama?

what's the story?

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 30, 2008, 02:23:14 PM
So I'm kinda thinking that McCain is taking a dive.  My theory: he really is a "maverick", and he was so outraged at the Rove wing of the GOP that he's made it his mission to dismantle the party from within.  To do this, he's had to sublimate his natural charm and political instincts and beliefs and adopt this persona of crazy old wing nut crank.

In this context, his VP choice makes perfect sense.  Why else would you pick a VP candidate that negates your best argument against your opponent while simultaneously alienating the very subgroup you've spent the last month targeting?  He's setting the GOP up for an electoral disaster it'll take decades to recover from.

If he pulls this off, he deserves a statue.  Destroying his own reputation, career and legacy for the betterment of the American people: that truly is heroism.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on August 30, 2008, 02:38:23 PM
from moveon.org:

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on August 30, 2008, 02:39:02 PM
Hmmm...Do you think maybe he's planning to climb up into the rafters at this week's convention and shoot Dubya, Cheney and the rest?

Now, John, pay attention to the cards...

(http://keitholbermannisevil.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/the-manchurian-candidate-queen-of-diamonds.jpg)

(http://bp2.blogger.com/_r5pS4s4m55k/R9GkTTcKgaI/AAAAAAAAATo/Zik_anfFwNU/s400/mccain.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on August 30, 2008, 02:39:11 PM
not that i have a problem with people being religious.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 30, 2008, 02:39:16 PM
Is anyone siding with Gore Vidal on Obama?

what's the story?



That a Republican smear campaign will prevent him from taking the premier.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on August 30, 2008, 02:43:59 PM
here's the thing, i don't think McCain is some old guy loosing his mind but he is 72 & has had numerous problems with skin cancer. if he goes Palin is going to run the country? I'm not saying i think he will die soon it's just scary.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: zarodinu on August 30, 2008, 04:24:30 PM
here's the thing, i don't think McCain is some old guy loosing his mind but he is 72 & has had numerous problems with skin cancer. if he goes Palin is going to run the country? I'm not saying i think he will die soon it's just scary.

She was the mayor of MiddleofNowhere Alaska, and a governor for a couple years.  She is utterly unqualified to run the country but still much more qualified than Obama since her two years of running something semi important were executive while his were legislative.  Besides she is running for president in waiting while Obama is running for president.  Attacking Palins expirience while supporting Obama is just stupid.

It is bloody hillarious to read feminist blogs where they try to explain why this working mother of five is not a REAL woman, let alone a feminist.  Real funny stuff.  Since the goal of politics in general is to entertain me, I am enjoying this cycle. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 30, 2008, 04:37:48 PM
ok... the was a quote from the AP of her in Pennsylvania saying it was nice to see a different part of the country and one that said she didn't really know what the VP job did...

question 1) not just has she ever traveled abroad, but has she ever traveled at all?

question 2) does she understand the constitution and separation of powers or does she judge based on our current vp

and off topic

she had a child a few months ago at 43 or 44... and she has admitted to being anti-abortion even in cases of rape and incest... does she believe in birth control?

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 30, 2008, 05:26:25 PM
Palin's an idiot: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html)

Quote
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

There IS no debate: one's scientific fact, one's utter bollocks.

The pair of them look like daytime TV chat show hosts. They are not world leaders.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on August 30, 2008, 05:38:45 PM
The pair of them look like daytime TV chat show hosts. They are not world leaders.

VOTE REGIS/KELLY IN '12!

If McCain/Palin win you know there's going to be a movie staring Reese Witherspoon made about a plucky young Republican who brought some good ol' small town common sense to the big bad world of international politics.  Oh wait...

Wrong, it's obviously going to be Tina Fey.

Besides, wasn't the plot of that Geena Davis show that the President dies and she takes over?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on August 30, 2008, 05:40:53 PM
Palin's an idiot: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html)

Quote
"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

There IS no debate: one's scientific fact, one's utter bollocks.

I don't quite get what you're saying here. Palin's an idiot, that is, mentally handicapped, because she thinks intelligent design or creationism or whatever should be brought up in debate in classrooms? Whatever my own view on the subject, I think it'd be difficult to support the idea that everyone who considers intelligent design is an idiot or that creationism is "anti-science" as the article suggests. There are eminent scientists, geneticist Francis Collins, a "theistic evolutionist," for example, who support the idea of a god and/or some kind of deity involved in the making of the world and you could hardly call them idiots.

In any case though, the real issue in politics should be the separation of church and state, I think, not whether proponents of evolution = intelligent people and proponents of (some kind of) creationism = idiots. The latter is hardly useful.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 30, 2008, 06:16:44 PM
She was the mayor of MiddleofNowhere Alaska, and a governor for a couple years.  She is utterly unqualified to run the country but still much more qualified than Obama since her two years of running something semi important were executive while his were legislative.  Besides she is running for president in waiting while Obama is running for president.  Attacking Palins expirience while supporting Obama is just stupid.

Obama's been the executive of his presidential campaign (a larger, more populous, more complex and better run operation than the State of Alaska) for as long as she's been governor.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: zarodinu on August 30, 2008, 07:28:18 PM
Obama's been the executive of his presidential campaign (a larger, more populous, more complex and better run operation than the State of Alaska) for as long as she's been governor.

So the qualification for US president is being capable of running your own campaign? 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on August 30, 2008, 07:44:09 PM
Well, 18 months as the governor of Alaska sure as hell doesn't qualify you.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 30, 2008, 08:36:51 PM
Well, 18 months as the governor of Alaska sure as hell doesn't qualify you.

Yet Alaskans are probably the only people who are far enough away from Washington to have any common sense.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 30, 2008, 09:09:58 PM
Obama's been the executive of his presidential campaign (a larger, more populous, more complex and better run operation than the State of Alaska) for as long as she's been governor.

So the qualification for US president is being capable of running your own campaign? 

There have been many successful Presidents that never were governors of any state nor were they mayors...the difference between legislative and executive experience is negligible - by those standards McCain isn't qualified to be president either and according to those same standards GWB must be qualified when he assuredly has not been. Try another argument.

Working in the national or even international spotlight prepares you for the pressure of running the country. I am sure that the rest is smart decision making and delegating as you surround yourself with the best people possible. You surely don't micromanage an entire country.  I cannot imagine the pressure of being governor of Alaska comparing with being a US Senator.

Quote
In any case though, the real issue in politics should be the separation of church and state, I think, not whether proponents of evolution = intelligent people and proponents of (some kind of) creationism = idiots. The latter is hardly useful.

The use of the term "intelligent design" was created by idiots who want to sidestep that very issue.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on August 30, 2008, 09:31:55 PM

Quote
In any case though, the real issue in politics should be the separation of church and state, I think, not whether proponents of evolution = intelligent people and proponents of (some kind of) creationism = idiots. The latter is hardly useful.

The use of the term "intelligent design" was created by idiots who want to sidestep that very issue.

I still fail to see how terming everyone who uses that term or who originated the term as idiots is useful. Blanket statements like that and name calling are, I think, what often make politics so vicious and what make useful and respectful debate nearly impossible.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 30, 2008, 09:39:57 PM
OAD - you can't possibly deny evolution and embrace Genesis/Intelligent Design (or anything like that) as a substitute for science?

Intelligent Design is an attempt to sneak creationism into our schools - I for one would be appalled if I had children (or even my girlfriend's kids) and they had to sit through a "science" lecture on this. It's not science - it's conjecture based on mythology (Bible).

I have a hard time taking that (ID) position seriously or even respecting it. It has no business in our classrooms and is an obvious breach of one of the basic tenets of US society - separation of church and state.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on August 30, 2008, 10:07:24 PM
I am sure that the rest is smart decision making and delegating as you surround yourself with the best people possible. You surely don't micromanage an entire country.  I cannot imagine the pressure of being governor of Alaska comparing with being a US Senator.

I would think that surrounding yourself with the best possible people is the most important task of being President.  Especially since I imagine it to be nearly impossible to have a deep understanding of every single last aspect of running the country.

I generally stay out of political discussions but I have to admit that I've found myself being much more engaged this time around.  That is the one thing that worries me about people my age supporting Obama (I'm one of those undecided voters, although I'm currently more on the Obama side of things), I genuinely think that a good portion of them will vote for him strictly because he's the "cooler" choice, not because they understand/agree with his platform.  I saw him speak in Iowa City last summer and was really impressed with him but you could really tell that a lot of people there knew absolutely nothing about him and they were just wearing the sticker because no one would dare support the "bad guys".  Granted, this was a year ago and I'm sure many more people are educated about him now, but I do worry about some people being swept away on a wave of "if I don't vote for him, a lot of my friends are probably going to give me crap".
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on August 30, 2008, 10:21:58 PM
She was the mayor of MiddleofNowhere Alaska, and a governor for a couple years.  She is utterly unqualified to run the country but still much more qualified than Obama since her two years of running something semi important were executive while his were legislative.  Besides she is running for president in waiting while Obama is running for president.  Attacking Palins expirience while supporting Obama is just stupid.

Considering Obama's inexperience, you're right that Democrats need to be careful when it comes to attacking Palin's. However, do you mean to imply that an executive role on one's resume is necessary? All of Kennedy experience was legislative.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on August 30, 2008, 10:37:32 PM
OAD - you can't possibly deny evolution and embrace Genesis/Intelligent Design (or anything like that) as a substitute for science?

I don't think that those that embrace Genesis/ID do uniformly a) deny evolution of every kind nor do they b) substitute it for science. I think my problem, particularly with the article about Palin was the assumption that everyone who is willing to consider some kind of deity as some part of the world making process is anti-scientific or is someone who cannot do good or respectable science. Wouldn't that assumption  necessitate that only atheists could be good scientists?

I'm all for the separation of church and state, but I don't want people (or school children) who are religious to be made to feel that their religion automatically makes them a) idiots or b) anti-scientific.

I don't know enough about proponents of ID to know exactly what they want in the school system, so I can't really answer about whether they're trying to be sneaky or not.  :)  If I'm reading you right(?), you're concerned about the ID propenents' theistic (specifically Christian) presupposition undergirding ID being taught to your children while I'm guessing ID proponents are not so much concerned about evolution in itself as they are about the atheistic presupposition that usually undergirds evolution being taught to their children. Both sides seem to be concerned with the other's worldview/presupposition and whether that's being taught to their children.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 30, 2008, 10:38:36 PM
She was the mayor of MiddleofNowhere Alaska, and a governor for a couple years.  She is utterly unqualified to run the country but still much more qualified than Obama since her two years of running something semi important were executive while his were legislative.  Besides she is running for president in waiting while Obama is running for president.  Attacking Palins expirience while supporting Obama is just stupid.

Considering Obama's inexperience, you're right that Democrats need to be careful when it comes to attacking Palin's. However, do you mean to imply that an executive role on one's resume is necessary? All of Kennedy experience was legislative.

So was Lincoln's and even that was minimal and yet he managed to keep the country together through one of its darkest times.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 30, 2008, 11:03:09 PM
the problem with putting 'intellegent design'/creationism in public schools is that it assumes a belief in a higher power which is out of line with the separation of church and state... if you want your children to be introduced to god in school the best choice is either a private school or teaching those values outside of school as a framework for the information they gain within a public school. There is no scientific justification for the intelligent design viewpoint so to introduce it in a science class should not even be a question. Evolution and all science is at its core non-denomination/atheistic, but to propose that evolution should not be taught in school because it doesn't have a higher power as it's basis is a blow to all science everywhere as there would be arguments from different religions about almost all science. Further the very introduction of a "higher power" in a public school science classroom will serve as a tacit approval of a certain religion by the state and therefore a disapproval of those students who are in fact raised as atheists.

My problem with public officials who see no problem with the teaching of ID/C in schools is that they obviously: 1)don't understand why the separation of church and state exists 2) have an obvious lack of understanding of what science is and will thereby make decisions in office based on a lack of understanding or what someone else tells them they should think

While I do not particularly like the idea of intelligent design (putting it lightly)... many of the scientists who support it are in fields that do not involve evolution, or use it to rationalize there scientific minds and their religious beliefs. When they battle to put it in schools my respect for them goes down to 0 as scientists should understand the use of observations in a scientific curriculum. If you want to teach ID/C in school then any 'system' of beliefs with quasi scientific sounding backing should be taught (ie flying spaghetti monster).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on August 31, 2008, 12:27:01 AM
OK, so I can't stay away.  From Alaska for your perusal:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/510705.html (http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/510705.html)

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/30/palin-has-much-prove/?opinion (http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/30/palin-has-much-prove/?opinion)

From her Wikipedia page:
"According to her spokeswoman, Palin has traveled abroad twice: once to Ireland, and in 2007 to Germany and Kuwait, where she met with members of the Alaska National Guard."

Personally, I want a VP who has traveled to more countries than I have and met a few politicians and leaders while she/he was there.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on August 31, 2008, 12:39:30 AM
all science is at its core non-denomination/atheistic

Given the scientists down through history who have been religious, scientists who have made break through scientific discoveries, I do not see how this statement could possibly be true? Science presupposes that natural events have natural causes, but I do not see that a theistic belief necessarily disturbs that presupposition. (Some theistic systems seem to disturb it, yes, but certainly not all.)



(ie flying spaghetti monster).

I honestly don't have the energy tonight to address your excellent concerns with ID in the school system, but your reference to Henderson's flying spaghetti monster (also so gleefully and popularly referred to by Dawkins) gets us back to the concern I really wanted to address - the one I initially wrote about in responding to the Palin article, that is, my concern with calling people who don't agree with us idiots. To respond as Henderson did to proponents of ID with a flying spaghetti monster theory is, at heart, to mock and ridicule those supporting ID, or, if I read Henderson (and certainly Dawkins) right, to mock any theistic ideas about the world's beginnings. I simply do not see the usefulness of that kind of interaction. To mock others and to name call closes down respect and useful interaction. That was my main problem with the Palin article. And to make clear, I'm not implying that you're mocking religion, lise, with your referral to the noodle monster; your reference just reminded me of my primary concern. Something I love so much about the Filmspotting message boards is the fact that we disagree with each other so often and yet the general tone is one of respect and kindness. This politics thread is difficult for me (so I probably should stay out of it  :) ) since it somehow seems so much more the tendency here to revert to name-calling.  :(  Politics (and religion!) are more upsetting than film, I guess, but still, I long for a way we can show respect for all viewpoints, even political and religious ones, and thus have a useful discussion that brings about sympathy and understanding with those with whom we disagree.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 31, 2008, 12:40:54 AM
I didn't think it was possible in this day and age for a candidate for president of VP to have less international travel experience than bush did... granted his was more willful as he arguably had more opportunity.

My use of the flying spaghetti monster was to indicate that statistics can be biased to say anything, that at there heart that is not science... and I stand by my statement that science has no religious basis. There are scientists who are guided by there religious viewpoint, but the goal of science is to test a hypothesis, not to change the results to fit a hypothesis. This means that regardless of your personal wishes or viewpoints how you want an experiment to turn out you don't control it.

I am not hiding my distaste for ID, but it is not this distaste that is at the heart of my objection. I'm fine with people who chose to follow that school of thought as it is not in the school system. Just as people can opt out of sex ed. opt out of evolution, but don't try to cover religion with pseudo-science in a science class. There is enough misunderstanding of science as it is.

... as for misunderstanding... mccain parroted the argument that there is a vaccine/autism link. If you don't understand the studies involved in testing the mercury and other theories then you won't understand that there is no greater chance of autism with vaccines as without. When our elected officials help spread misinformation because they don't understand the science than that becomes a serious issue for me. My cousin was born deaf because my aunt was exposed to german measles before he was born. The spread of misinformation of vaccines and the like scares people into distrusting the vaccines themselves. This will result in more cases like my cousins.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on August 31, 2008, 12:47:07 AM
Evolution and all science is at its core non-denomination/atheistic

That is not really true, Newton was very religious, and Einstein was an agnostic.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 31, 2008, 12:55:59 AM
einstein is famously quoted as disbelieving quantum theory because god doesn't roll dice. I am in no way saying scientists are not religious... I am saying that pure science does not itself have a religious agenda.

along that line... newton's laws do not contain references to god they are formulated based on the observation not what he saw or didn't see as the cause.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on August 31, 2008, 01:16:32 AM
I am saying that pure science does not itself have a religious agenda.

Yes, I agree. I think though that people like Richard Dawkins have confused the issue in that he insists that religion/the religious is/are absolutely incompatible with true science.

Here's a quote from Stephen Jay Gould as evdience of an atheist who disagrees with Dawkins on that point: "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs-and equally compatible with atheism."
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on August 31, 2008, 01:35:09 AM
I'm sorry my earlier statement was easily misinterpreted. I have friends who are scientists and are deeply religious and are able to do both. The results of the science are open to interpretation, but the science itself does not/should not have an agenda.

Bringing it back to politics, my worry about bringing non-scientific theories into the science classroom, besides separation of church and state, is that they make that issue cloudy and that is a very dangerous thing when introducing science as a subject. This agenda does not have to be religious, sometimes it is about putting forward a political end game or making money.

I don't think either of the two main parties is anti-science, but I do believe that in recent history one party has supported science more than the other. A great example of when the religious views of politicians gets in the way is RU486. There was a period in the 90's when the drug was made illegal even for research because of its abortion implications. When it was made illegal there was a study underway where it was proving effective at helping to treat a particularly deadly and difficult to treat type of childhood cancer. The researchers either had to either stop their work or move overseas. By not understanding the nature of drugs and the wider view the politicians involved may have prevented potentially life saving treatment. Drugs are funny that way... thalidomide caused horrific birth defects, but is great at treating leprosy... and poisonous substances similar to mustard gas have been used to treat certain types of cancer due to their short half life and the increased rate at which cancer cells take up nutrients.

When politicians, and general society don't understand the science they either mistrust it, or are prone to listening to the voices yelling the loudest. The only way I know to make this happen less and less is to keep science in the classroom science, so that when students leave the classroom they at least understand the basics.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on August 31, 2008, 01:46:08 AM
Those are great points, lise, and thanks for your clarification. (Now I really need to get to bed - I hope you can get to sleep, too - I'm sorry, as you indicated in another thread, you have worries that are keeping you awake.  :( )
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on August 31, 2008, 12:27:10 PM
reckon y'all have read this (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on August 31, 2008, 01:37:34 PM
wow.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 31, 2008, 01:51:01 PM
Quote
The final point of interest is that Trig Palin has been diagnosed with Down's syndrome (aka trisomy 21). This is an interesting point, as chances of having offspring with Down's Syndrome increases from under 1% to 3% after a mother reaches the age of 40. However, 80% of the cases of Down's Syndrome are in mother's under the age of 35, through sheer quantities of births in this age group.

While I appreciate the implications - this statistic is completely meaningless in this case.

I am not sure what to think other than it is comforting to know that both sides have their own fair share of muckrakers and sensationalists.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on August 31, 2008, 02:07:33 PM
Is the grandson the one who edited her Wiki article?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on August 31, 2008, 02:13:48 PM
Pudding - you often know exactly when to inject the right amount of levity...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 31, 2008, 03:40:07 PM
Is the grandson the one who edited her Wiki article?

the user name of the editor was in fact "littleTrig" or something similar
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 31, 2008, 03:53:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78)

CINECAST! Moore and Fowler too.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 02, 2008, 11:44:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78)

CINECAST! Moore and Fowler too.

i'm not sure that is interesting in any way  :-\

but this (http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=1925323) is funny
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on September 03, 2008, 09:16:23 PM
drill baby drill?  ???
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on September 03, 2008, 10:21:30 PM
The Daily Show clip comparing what right wingers said about topics before and after Palin is hilarious. I'll post it later, maybe.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on September 04, 2008, 01:34:31 AM
Well, I guess we know this election won't have the kind of elevated political discussion based on policy and issues we could have hoped for with these two honorable candidates instead of the lowest common denominator mudslinging we've had for the last 20 years.

It makes me sad for John McCain.  He used to be cool.

But at least we know what Palin is for now.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 04, 2008, 05:34:35 AM
Yes, a total bitch.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on September 04, 2008, 10:40:07 AM
Yes, a total bitch.

Way to elevate the discussion.  ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 04, 2008, 10:52:19 AM
Having said that, that dead polar bear on her desk is really quite cool.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on September 04, 2008, 11:37:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 04, 2008, 12:30:17 PM
I am obviously a die hard Obama (anyone but a Republican) supporter but I find the way the media is delving into her family life disturbing and out of bounds. Her piccadillos as mayor are fair game (hiring a lobbyist dedicated to acquiring congressional earmarks) but her pregnant kid is not.

I think the issues as both sides view them are incendiary enough without dragging a pregnant teenager into it. Instead of listening to what one sides says the other side is going to do - why not listen to what each candidate says?

Obama never said he is going to raise MY taxes - I am not in that financial bracket that he will raise taxes in (top 5%) - but I will say that I truly believe that the more money you make, the greater the tax burden you should shoulder. The idea is to relieve the pressure for people to move up in economic class not to maintain the status quo. Financial equality should be the goal. Now in my mind - Obama's plan has more for me than the current tax scheme which is what McCain is endorsing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on September 04, 2008, 12:35:39 PM
Once Palin (and others like her) stops trying to legislate family decisions her family can become off limits. I'm not going to constantly bash her for having a pregnant child, but I'm not gonna let it fall by the wayside either.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 04, 2008, 12:40:21 PM
I understand and maybe this is a rare lucid moment for me - but in the end - such actions only have the effect of energizing your side and causing a backlash from the other. You won't gain any converts by being so...unseemly...no matter how appropriate those comments seem to you. I don't need to convince my own team - I want to convince the other side. Otherwise it's just a grown-up game of mudslinging.

Taking the high road, staying above the fray - that's the right path and it's hard for me as I get quite passionate about politics - but it's the only way you win converts. ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on September 04, 2008, 12:44:49 PM
I find the way the media is delving into her family life disturbing and out of bounds. Her piccadillos as mayor are fair game (hiring a lobbyist dedicated to acquiring congressional earmarks) but her pregnant kid is not.

I think the issues as both sides view them are incendiary enough without dragging a pregnant teenager into it. Instead of listening to what one sides says the other side is going to do - why not listen to what each candidate says?

It is indeed disturbing, and the viciousness of it makes me really sad. I can't imagine what her daughter must be feeling.


The idea is to relieve the pressure for people to move up in economic class not to maintain the status quo. Financial equality should be the goal.

I'm most definitely for relieving pressure on those who need it most with the intent of opening doors for them. I'm wondering about your financial equality statement, Marty. Is that really what you want? I'm not attacking the statement or anything; I'm really just curious.


I understand and maybe this is a rare lucid moment for me - but in the end - such actions only have the effect of energizing your side and causing a backlash from the other. You won't gain any converts by being so...unseemly...no matter how appropriate those comments seem to you. I don't need to convince my own team - I want to convince the other side. Otherwise it's just a grown-up game of mudslinging.

Taking the high road, staying above the fray - that's the right path and it's hard for me as I get quite passionate about politics - but it's the only way you win converts. ;)

Nicely put, Marty.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 04, 2008, 01:26:46 PM
OAD - On financial equality - smacks of socialism doesn't it?

In a system like ours where money literally talks, the balance of power has shifted irrevocably. This is no longer a government of the people, for the people or by the people - it's for lobbyists/special interests with the deep pockets. That's why we have privatized our national defense - that's why we have stalled in offering government incentives for alternative energy programs/vehicles in spite of the fact that we know oil is a finite energy source that is primarily controlled by nations not friendly to us - that's why we let insurance companies literally make healthcare decisions for us instead of our doctors. All of those groups have big money and are pouring it into Washington and our state/local governments.
Nobody is going to turn away that money and it's foolish to think so - they may make token legislative moves but there will always be loopholes to exploit.
It's human nature.
It's greed.
So if we can't get rid of the special interest money then it falls upon our government/leaders to level the playing field because the needs of the few are over riding the needs of the many.  I am not advocating hand out but rather a hand up - loans, education, jobs. Sure there will always be a few who abuse the system but you already have that on the top end. For the most part they are hit with a slap on the wrist and a sigh: "boys will be boys"...
Can you blame those further down the ladder trying to get their piece of the pie as well?
Allowed to run unchecked - the system is creating the situation where we have the haves controlling the have nots through financial leverage. Basic compassion and altruism are rare in the corporate world where all decisons are based on the bottom line - so if there is no profit in it - why help society? Self interest is the pervading doctrine.

With that in mind - we need deliberate government programs designed to help rectify that injustice and it is an injustice. Someone needs to take up the fight for me, for my family because so far, the past 8 yrs have only pushed us further down the ladder - corporations take priority, banks, private contractors not normal people.
Laissez faire, unchecked free markets, trickle down economics, ownership society - these are all terms that encourage exploitation of the poor by the rich - IMHO of course.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on September 04, 2008, 01:50:52 PM
I'm with the bald guy on this one.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on September 04, 2008, 02:34:56 PM
Alright. Consider me convinced. Can I still laugh at the jokes about her?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 04, 2008, 02:47:47 PM
This is of course the fundamental difference in our thinking.  Justice is equity not equality.  I am with you though on seeking to take the money out of the system. Regulations should be in place so that market forces are always maintained in precarious balance where-in the blind scales of justice can lean either way based on popular support instead of loaded springs.  

The concept of "the corporation" is the second greatest invention in human history (Tivo being the first ;D) as it allows for the extension of causes and ideas and the capitol to fulfill those aims beyond the lifespan of us mere mortals.  Doctors are often quite as bad as Insurance Companies when it comes to maintaining the bottom line - but that line is a personal one whereas a corporation's is its shareholders.  This is why it is so strange that someone with the means to do so would choose not to participate in the stock market and not only share in the wealth but also in the defining of direction and missions of that corporation.  Yes, it has been made deliberately confusing over the years to do so through the greed of those who seek more power & education in this particular area is sorely needed to be imparted to every citizen.

Instead of buying a Hummer, buy a sedan and a couple hundred shares of GM.  Conserve oil but use those extra funds to snatch up the record profits of Exxon.  When a more diverse cross section of people have a say in the way the special interests are run then they will cease being so special.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on September 04, 2008, 03:28:09 PM
OAD - On financial equality - smacks of socialism doesn't it?

 :) I thought you might wonder if I was freaking out about that. But no, I'm not afraid of socialism, I was really just curious about exactly what you meant and, I suppose, how you see it working.

I agree that big companies and corporations have been allowed to oppress the poor and I agree that somehow those who are poor and oppressed should be protected and helped. I guess I'm just not sure that absolute financial equality is the answer and I'm not sure how that would even be possible at the practical level. I guess I do react a little against tax increases for those with an income of $250,000+, mostly because I personally know many families in that bracket - they are mostly hard-working farmers (dairy farm and berry farms in this area surrounding, mostly north of, Bellingham) - many of them came over from Holland with nothing (and some very close friends of our from Switzerland) and worked to make a better life for themselves and their children and they have. They've become successful and their children are comfortable (and also hard-working - many of the guys I went to high school with always had farm work to do before anything else - it was just their life). But you would not look at these families and say they are wealthy (even if they fall in that 250K bracket) nor that they are hard-nosed and unsympathetic towards people who have less than they do - the ones I know give much of their income to community projects and charities and they are incredibly generous on a personal level. Anyway, my reaction is just personal on the level of my experience (and therefore limited, of course) and I suppose I just worry about people like these that I know being penalized, for all their work, past and current, along with big greedy corporations - in the interest of trying to make everyone financially equal. I don't know - I guess I just feel these people have earned the level of comfort they've achieved.

I guess I'm with Keith in that I would like to talk about justice rather than equality.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 04, 2008, 08:50:42 PM
I think I mention righting an injustice in my diatribe.

I like to think we are sympatico and just quibbling over terms, By equality, I mean it's time for our government to take up the battle against poverty. This involves more than just handing out money, it means raising awareness. It means a uniform educational system that pays teachers what their worth but also weeds out teachers who who are not flexible and/or take into account their students socio-economic background and tailor their lessons accordingly. It's time to do away with standardized tests that reward students who test well but punish those who don't even though they might actually know the material. My brother was one of those kids - he was not stupid but he did not take those tests well and was subjected to LD classes - ridiculous. I see my girlfriend's son put through the same garbage.

Sorry - off topic for a sec...

I don't think $250,000 puts your friends in the top 5% but I think their 250K trumps my 50K and so they should be prepared to pay more taxes - it's a simple rule - the more money you make, the more you pay but yet it seems as though the more you make, the easier it is for you to afford a competent tax lawyer who will provide you will some loopholes to avoid this burden. This only becomes more glaringly apparent as we creep up the financial brackets.
And here is the irony of this system: these people who are hard at work avoiding taxes (which help fund our government and keep it operational) are the ones with the loudest voices, the most pull in the system, as we have agreed that those with most money have a disproportionate say in the way this country is run. OAD - this is not aimed at your friends and in no way am I trying to imply anything negative. What I am saying is that the system helps the rich/well off to avoid paying taxes but yet gives them the loudest voice in our government. There is something inherently wrong with that and if there is a candidate that even implies the he/she might change this - then I am willing to give them a chance because I know where the other path leads.
In my mind - John McCain is that other path. He might present himself as maverick but he has been a cog in that same system for some time now and for him to have any success in it he must be quite comfortable with it's ways. I'll take an outsider who is an idealist (and with your perceived lack of experience) over someone who has been in bed with the devil and over the past 2 years only gotten cozier with him. Maybe McCain has snuggled up with the extreme right just to get elected as Keith implied, or maybe he just sees this as his last chance for the top job and he is willing to sell himself and his ideals (torture anyone) out. All you have is your word, honor and integrity - a relationship with an entire electorate is the same as one other person. You should not be given a pass for compromising the ideals that you have held onto for so long - it says something about your character and that's all I need to know.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: oneaprilday on September 04, 2008, 09:50:18 PM
I think I mention righting an injustice in my diatribe.

I like to think we are sympatico and just quibbling over terms, By equality, I mean it's time for our government to take up the battle against poverty. This involves more than just handing out money, it means raising awareness. It means a uniform educational system that pays teachers what their worth but also weeds out teachers who who are not flexible and/or take into account their students socio-economic background and tailor their lessons accordingly. It's time to do away with standardized tests that reward students who test well but punish those who don't even though they might actually know the material. My brother was one of those kids - he was not stupid but he did not take those tests well and was subjected to LD classes - ridiculous. I see my girlfriend's son put through the same garbage.

Sorry I overlooked the injustice reference and thanks for clarifying; I think you're right in terms of our being sympatico - I do agree with all of the above.

As to the tax stuff, thanks for taking the time to expand on your thoughts - you've given me some good stuff to mull over. It's still hard for me to see that either candidate is offering a solution, but I definitely see more clearly now where you're coming from.


Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 05, 2008, 09:10:52 AM
McCain's speech last night is indicative of his willingness to change his spots.
For months he has been riding on GWB's coattails energizing the base of the GOP now - *POOF!* - he's the old maverick John McCain, reaching out across the aisle, scolding his party for "allowing Washington to change them..." ???

Who will he be if he's elected?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on September 05, 2008, 09:28:03 AM
An eye-opening podcast is the 8-27-08 Fresh Air ep, "Lobbying for the Presidency". 

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=8-27-2008 (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=8-27-2008)


James Thurber of American University who worked with McCain and Obama on the lobbying reform bill reviews the lobbyists' role in each campaign.

We should all hear it and keep the info in mind when voting.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 05, 2008, 11:17:33 AM
An eye-opening podcast is the 8-27-08 Fresh Air ep, "Lobbying for the Presidency". 

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=8-27-2008 (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=8-27-2008)


James Thurber of American University who worked with McCain and Obama on the lobbying reform bill reviews the lobbyists' role in each campaign.

We should all hear it and keep the info in mind when voting.

yeah I listened to this last week, NPR's been a very good source of 3rd party reviews of the specific issues from what i've heard so far this year.  This is the one Terry did on the two health care plans. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93975730)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 05, 2008, 11:18:43 AM
I will listen to this asap.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 05, 2008, 08:50:11 PM
McCain's speech last night is indicative of his willingness to change his spots.
For months he has been riding on GWB's coattails energizing the base of the GOP now - *POOF!* - he's the old maverick John McCain, reaching out across the aisle, scolding his party for "allowing Washington to change them..." ???

Who will he be if he's elected?

Of course, he's only doing what every politician has done in modern history: pandering to whatever your audience is at the time. And don't think that doesn't include Barrack Obama.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on September 05, 2008, 08:59:38 PM
McCain's speech last night is indicative of his willingness to change his spots.
For months he has been riding on GWB's coattails energizing the base of the GOP now - *POOF!* - he's the old maverick John McCain, reaching out across the aisle, scolding his party for "allowing Washington to change them..." ???

Who will he be if he's elected?

Of course, he's only doing what every politician has done in modern history: pandering to whatever your audience is at the time. And don't think that doesn't include Barrack Obama.

In the words of Alexander Hamilton:  Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 05, 2008, 09:13:58 PM
That really worked out well for him...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on September 06, 2008, 08:32:04 AM
Out of curiosity have any of you guys taken an Economics class?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 06, 2008, 09:08:11 AM
Out of curiosity have any of you guys taken an Economics class?

Many yrs ago - but yes.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 06, 2008, 09:33:10 AM
McCain's speech last night is indicative of his willingness to change his spots.
For months he has been riding on GWB's coattails energizing the base of the GOP now - *POOF!* - he's the old maverick John McCain, reaching out across the aisle, scolding his party for "allowing Washington to change them..." ???

Who will he be if he's elected?

Of course, he's only doing what every politician has done in modern history: pandering to whatever your audience is at the time. And don't think that doesn't include Barrack Obama.

McCain has been in office long enough and changed his stripes enough that the term pandering does apply here. As all of you have so eloquently pointed out (repeatedly) Obama hasn't been in office that long, he is an unknown, according to most of you, so your pandering accusation may (or may not) hold water. For myself, I am willing to take that chance that he just might be sincere in his platform at least he comes to office without the taint of any major scandal like your intrepid flyer (Keating 5 anyone?). Being accused of improper judgment still leaves that stink of impropriety around you and following that up with the notoriously weak (and full of loopholes) Campaign finance reform act does not clean it off of you.

I'll take my chances with someone who agrees with me on social issues and is looking to actually help people like me. Hoping the rich and large corporations let their excess trickle down the ladder is not economic policy in my mind. Bailing out the big mortgage companies instead of the home buyers shows me where republican priorities lie. Like it or not - your boy is still linked to GWB (90% linked). He'll pursue the same foreign policy agenda and keep us mired in useless wars for years to come wasting blood and treasure tilting at phantom Islamic windmills in Iraq (and possibly Iran) and creating another cold war with Russia.

I take a pass on that. ;)
I'll take someone who really isn't part of the establishment.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on September 06, 2008, 09:44:12 AM
This (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/john-mccain-acc.html) is hilarious, but yet sad in some undefinable way.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on September 06, 2008, 11:36:16 AM
Out of curiosity have any of you guys taken an Economics class?

Many yrs ago - but yes.
Just curious...

We've already had a discussion about politics and debate in general.

I really shouldn't get involved in this at all so I will remain silent.  :-X
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on September 08, 2008, 05:12:28 PM
Out of curiosity have any of you guys taken an Economics class?

Of course. Economists seldom agree either, so if you are implying mccain is better for the us economy I would say that depends on what you think is better. For instance mccain came out in support of a gas tax holiday, which most economists said was a load of hooee (supply versus demand and all that).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on September 08, 2008, 07:48:24 PM
Out of curiosity have any of you guys taken an Economics class?

Of course. Economists seldom agree either, so if you are implying mccain is better for the us economy I would say that depends on what you think is better. For instance mccain came out in support of a gas tax holiday, which most economists said was a load of hooee (supply versus demand and all that).

most everyone said that was a load of hooee

drill baby drill!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 08, 2008, 08:15:31 PM
Out of curiosity have any of you guys taken an Economics class?

Of course. Economists seldom agree either, so if you are implying mccain is better for the us economy I would say that depends on what you think is better. For instance mccain came out in support of a gas tax holiday, which most economists said was a load of hooee (supply versus demand and all that).

Yeah - Economics is rife with political disagreement. You can bring in a theory to support either side of aisle.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Mandrake on September 10, 2008, 09:49:09 PM
I have been very hesitant to post in this thread because I am a political conservative, want to limit my discussion to film and entertainment, and am fearful of liberal left-wing response within the context of this board.  However, I want to say that I have a new respect for Barack Obama given the fact that agreed to go on The Factor with Bill O'Reilly in last few days.  This is a big political chess move on Obama's part as any, but I respect him for this interview (and so does O'Reilly apparently).

This does not mean I will vote for him - I will not.  But the guy is sincere.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 10, 2008, 10:47:09 PM
That's ok - when he wins - he'll still watch out for you. :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 10, 2008, 10:49:55 PM
I'm not going to knock Obama for going on the Factor, I agree it was a pretty bold move (and on the whole, I generally like it when politicians make bold moves). But I'd honestly prefer that he didn't. Every time a liberal goes on the Factor it feels like O'Reilly gets even further legitimized. It's bad enough that some conservatives already think he's actually a serious news man, but when people like Obama (and McCain, for that matter) go on his show it gives credence to the ridiculous idea that Bill O'Reilly actually matters.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 10, 2008, 10:59:21 PM
But for so many - he does matter...what I find scary is that people listen to these people at all - I will gladly lump Randi Rhodes (formerly of Air America) in that category...it is because of her that I quit listening to that station entirely.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Mandrake on September 10, 2008, 11:07:08 PM
That's ok - when he wins - he'll still watch out for you. :P

And that's what I don't want - Obama says "every morning I will wake up and think about what I can do to make your life better" - therein is the dilemma and the disagreement.

No one will make my life better than me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 10, 2008, 11:09:22 PM
ha ha ha
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 10, 2008, 11:11:14 PM
ha ha ha

that was more a general ha-ing, than specific to the previous post (but i do find the statement "No one will make my life better than me." to be extremely charged)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Mandrake on September 10, 2008, 11:13:11 PM
when people like Obama (and McCain, for that matter) go on his show it gives credence to the ridiculous idea that Bill O'Reilly actually matters.

Like it or not, the guy propels the conservative agenda.  Any thought that he should not be used towards promoting conservative ideals is foolish.  What do you want, Bill Crystal tonight?  O'Reilly matters whether you like it or not.  Its ok, Gateway, you don't need to apologize for him.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Mandrake on September 10, 2008, 11:15:55 PM
ha ha ha

that was more a general ha-ing, than specific to the previous post (but i do find the statement "No one will make my life better than me." to be extremely charged)

Not sure what you mean - at all.  Please explain.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 10, 2008, 11:21:21 PM
You're giving O'Reilly too much credit. Sure, O'Reilly matters to some - but the same can be said for the political opinions of Heidi Montag. He is still easily written off by many, but presidential candidates going on his show makes it harder to do that. I'd much prefer it for a candidate to actually take him to task and criticize him, not renege and make a ratings-boosting appearance. Especially Obama, what does he really have to lose? Is anybody who would be offended by him criticizing O'Reilly and refusing to appear on his show going to vote for him anyway?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Mandrake on September 10, 2008, 11:27:40 PM
You're giving O'Reilly too much credit. Sure, O'Reilly matters to some - but the same can be said for the political opinions of Heidi Montag. He is still easily written off by many, but presidential candidates going on his show makes it harder to do that. I'd much prefer it for a candidate to actually take him to task and criticize him, not renege and make a ratings-boosting appearance. Especially Obama, what does he really have to lose? Is anybody who would be offended by him criticizing O'Reilly and refusing to appear on his show going to vote for him anyway?

Who is Heidi Montag (to the average voter)?  Fox might help get the right folks elected.  That's all.  Last post in this thread.  I can tell certain others (not you) will upset me here.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 10, 2008, 11:39:28 PM
when people like Obama (and McCain, for that matter) go on his show it gives credence to the ridiculous idea that Bill O'Reilly actually matters.

Like it or not, the guy propels the conservative agenda.  Any thought that he should not be used towards promoting conservative ideals is foolish.  What do you want, Bill Crystal tonight?  O'Reilly matters whether you like it or not.  Its ok, Gateway, you don't need to apologize for him.

Next you'll be saying that Ann Coulter has credibility...

There are conservative idealists and then there are divisive polarizing demagogues - O'Reilly is the latter. If any one man has moved two camps apart - it's him...look - we don't have to agree on everything, in fact it's impossible but he spreads hate and fear and he polarizes people such as myself against you and yours - when he talks and people support him, he sounds as though he hates people like me - so I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun and anti-war does that mean I am worthy of your scorn?
Because if he propels the conservative agenda then he propels an agenda of hate. I don't listen to the demagogues of progressive politics - I make informed choices based on what I feel is right and wrong.

I don't hate you because of your politics and I respect your right to your views but it seems as though O'Reilly and his types want to silence my voice, tell me I am somehow wrong and unpatriotic for my views...that's not right and I would speak out to anyone who said the same of you.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 11, 2008, 12:01:46 AM
ha ha ha

that was more a general ha-ing, than specific to the previous post (but i do find the statement "No one will make my life better than me." to be extremely charged)

Not sure what you mean - at all.  Please explain.

a gesture to laugh it all off.  i started writing a response to something and felt my blood pumping and decided i didn't want to go down that path.  in response to my pulling your quote, i just meant that is a loaded statement, much more complex than can be bantered back and forth on a message board.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on September 11, 2008, 08:03:47 PM
this is awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU)

a clip of the 20/20 interview with Sarah Palin and Charlie Gibson that airs tonight and tomorrow night. The basic concept is Charlie asks Palin a question about the Bush Doctrine and she can't seem to answer because she has no idea what he's talking about! Fine for you and me but not our VP and possible next President!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 11, 2008, 08:06:33 PM
**shudder**
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 11, 2008, 10:52:39 PM
I don't really see that as Palin not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is. I see that as her just refusing to give Charlie Gibson a straight answer, because nobody running for office in 2008 is going to say verbatim "Yes, I agree with the Bush Doctrine."
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 11, 2008, 10:53:17 PM
yeah. no, she had no clue
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 11, 2008, 11:19:53 PM
yeah. no, she had no clue

yep.

(video association)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on September 11, 2008, 11:52:58 PM
that was so great
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 12, 2008, 12:30:24 AM
powerful blog - Women Against Sarah Palin (http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: philip918 on September 12, 2008, 01:29:59 AM
The Palin interview is absolutely stunning.  I can't wait until the full interview airs Friday night, because her  inept responses will give any semi-thoughtful voter pause.  She's running for the second highest office in the country and she could barely string together complete sentences outside of her talking points.

Also, I honestly cannot believe the GOP keeps insisting that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives Palin foreign policy experience.  Absolutely ludicrous.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on September 12, 2008, 08:41:58 AM
i'm really excited to watch this. unfortunately, not because i'm all that interested, but i want my liberal bloodlust to be satisfied. is that so wrong?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on September 12, 2008, 10:16:19 AM
I finally caught up with The Daily Show coverage of the RNC last week and that was just fantastic. I'm consistanly amazed by some of the old clips they come up with, that Bush/McCain acceptance speech & Karl Rove stuff was really just nuts.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 18, 2008, 09:15:17 AM
A little levity injected into this thread.... (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_in_photos/inside_obamas_emails)

Check out Obama's gmail acct.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on September 18, 2008, 10:19:13 AM
A little levity injected into this thread.... (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_in_photos/inside_obamas_emails)

Check out Obama's gmail acct.

I'm with Michelle on the MoveOn emails...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on September 18, 2008, 01:03:23 PM
i signed up for moveon many years ago because of the free pen they used to give away. i quickly unsubscribed
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 18, 2008, 09:39:20 PM
You signed up for a free pen?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on September 18, 2008, 10:44:26 PM
are you incredulous because you're jealous, or that you can't believe i signed up for something for a mere pen? because let me tell you, it was one awesome pen. it had a little scroll that you could pull out of the top that, when unfurled, showed the average us expenditures on something or something. it was stupid. but so incredibly free
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on September 25, 2008, 11:35:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on September 25, 2008, 12:05:43 PM
I've suspended commenting on the election until I sort out my finances.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 25, 2008, 01:37:11 PM
I've suspended commenting on the election until I sort out my finances.

obama is proving his turdness with this "financial crisis" - business as usual.  nice post from a NYT commenter:

Wall Street Haiku

Privatize profits

And then socialize losses

Financial Heaven

— AL, USA
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 25, 2008, 01:38:37 PM
I've suspended commenting on the election until I sort out my finances.

obama is proving his turdness with this "financial crisis" - business as usual.  nice post from a NYT commenter:

Wall Street Haiku

Privatize profits

And then socialize losses

Financial Heaven

— AL, USA

So O is the turd and Mac's the douche?  Damn it I've been wrong this whole time! ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on September 25, 2008, 01:42:24 PM
Did anyone else notice that McCain's eyes looked funny yesterday?  Like one was wider and one was drooping.  Has he always looked like that or is there something going on?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 25, 2008, 01:51:10 PM
I've suspended commenting on the election until I sort out my finances.

obama is proving his turdness with this "financial crisis" - business as usual.  nice post from a NYT commenter:

Wall Street Haiku

Privatize profits

And then socialize losses

Financial Heaven

— AL, USA

So O is the turd and Mac's the douche?  Damn it I've been wrong this whole time! ;D

they are both douchey turds - both business as usual.  O just has the intellectual gloss of a deliberator offering the empty slogan of HOPE (vomit!) (at least his identity card is valid) and M just does the "straight talking" decision-maker thing
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on September 25, 2008, 02:40:57 PM
obama is proving his turdness with this "financial crisis" - business as usual. 

You don't think there's a crisis, or you don't like his response to it?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 25, 2008, 03:11:28 PM
obama is proving his turdness with this "financial crisis" - business as usual. 

You don't think there's a crisis, or you don't like his response to it?

I would venture a guess that for Jon - Obama is not being populist enough (at all).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on September 25, 2008, 03:14:06 PM
Sure, I'm just wondering how fictional he thinks the "financial crisis" is.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 25, 2008, 03:17:38 PM
Sure, I'm just wondering how fictional he thinks the "financial crisis" is.

I don't think it's he's blind to the situation...

_________________________________________________________________________________________

This crisis was predicted long ago - it seems to be that we are a reactionary society and anything even resembling a proactive stance gets labled a knee-jerk reaction to a non-existent crisis or doomsaying.

No worries though - we will bail out wall street while main street loses their homes. CEO's will be protected while people like us are out in the cold. It matters not whether you are a democrat or republican - it just matters how much $$ you have. >:(
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 25, 2008, 03:24:08 PM
This crisis was predicted long ago - it seems to be that we are a reactionary society and anything even resembling a proactive stance gets labled a knee-jerk reaction to a non-existent crisis or doomsaying.

u advocating the bush doctrine now? ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 25, 2008, 03:36:40 PM
This crisis was predicted long ago - it seems to be that we are a reactionary society and anything even resembling a proactive stance gets labled a knee-jerk reaction to a non-existent crisis or doomsaying.

u advocating the bush doctrine now? ;)

I am not talking foreign policy - we are speaking of economic policy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on September 25, 2008, 03:38:25 PM
they are both douchey turds - both business as usual.  O just has the intellectual gloss of a deliberator offering the empty slogan of HOPE (vomit!) (at least his identity card is valid) and M just does the "straight talking" decision-maker thing


''Any change is as good as a vacation at this point.  I don't know if you've paid much attention to the past eight years, but it has been a s---burger supreme. If somebody gives me an empty burger, it's better than eating s---.''

--Stephen Colbert

I have to concur with Colbert.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on September 25, 2008, 09:43:49 PM
Stephen Colbert said that? Was it in character?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on September 25, 2008, 09:49:55 PM
Stephen Colbert said that? Was it in character?
Google says no. (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20228603,00.html)

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on September 25, 2008, 10:29:37 PM
Stephen Colbert said that? Was it in character?

No it was part of the interview he & Jon Stewart did for the current issue of EW, the interview specifically said he was out of character.

BTW awesome cover:


(http://i34.tinypic.com/20j06ts.jpg)

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 26, 2008, 12:38:05 AM
obama is proving his turdness with this "financial crisis" - business as usual.

You don't think there's a crisis, or you don't like his response to it?

i certainly don't like his response, its a freaking joke.  as marty writes, the shitslide has been going on for some time now, this is just a last minute cash grab for bush cronies.  i don't think this is anything dire that needs immediate attention - especially the half-assed attention it is being given. the fact that all of a sudden there is a rush to hand-out 700 funcking billion dollars is nonsense.  i side with Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine)" thinking - create a (sense of) catastrophe and the powerful can rewrite the rules, grab more cash, and shore up their power.  is there an economic problem in the U.S. and globally? of course, but these "spook jobs" are the means that amplify and perpetuate the problems.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on September 26, 2008, 12:58:24 AM
So . . . both?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 26, 2008, 01:06:10 AM
So . . . both?

basically.  i do acknowledge there is a problem, though i am reluctant to fall in line with calling this a crisis.  this slide has been going on too long to all of a sudden think immediate action needs to occur, especially the action that is being taken.  by treating this as a crisis, the current economic climate only slides closer and/or deeper into something more crisis-like.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 26, 2008, 01:14:26 AM
So . . . both?

basically.  i do acknowledge there is a problem, though i am reluctant to fall in line with calling this a crisis.  this slide has been going on too long to all of a sudden think immediate action needs to occur, especially the action that is being taken.  by treating this as a crisis, the current economic climate only slides closer and/or deeper into something more crisis-like.

so nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd kinda thing?  I would say in that the "crisis" of Bear..Fanny...Freddy.. already generated the psycological crisis of confidence that helped to thwart Lehman, AIG & now WaMu (biggest run on a bank in US histry btw).  Whether you buy into the psycology or not - its here and it was unaided by the gov't until a fortnight ago.  your arguing chicken and egg scenarios while the world has already moved on and said who cares, the nest is on fire.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on September 26, 2008, 01:15:02 AM
I can more or less agree with that, skjerva, though I'm wholly unqualified to determine how serious this all is.  But the Bush plan certainly does follow their model of using a crisis (real or not) as an excuse for an unprecedented expansion of executive power.  An expansion Obama is quite rightly opposing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 26, 2008, 01:35:44 AM
I guess I freakin over WaMu cuz its a bank bank, not an investment firm or a morgage lender or an insurance company.  This is grandma's savings account and uncle wally's check book we're talking about now so the panic that failed to affect the masses will no longer fail to do so.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 26, 2008, 01:48:51 AM
while i'm also not clearly in-the-know, i'll repeat my earlier citing of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine) - this "crisis" fits that model perfectly.  the bush admin is squaking chicken little demanding folks get scared, not even calming them to shop.  i don't think the basic question of why there is a need for a bailout has been answered, especially under the rushed circumstances and with the massive price tag. 

along the lines of Klein's Shock Doctrine is Adam Curtis' The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727&ei=kIXcSKOXFYWirALtmrWnCw&q=power+of+nightmares)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 26, 2008, 01:58:49 AM
I'm not in the know either - no one who wasn't at the closed door briefing Paulson & Bernanky gave earlier in the week was... every senator, blue and red, came out of that room spooked though.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on September 26, 2008, 03:14:01 AM
I am curious how one can argue that there isn't really a crisis while simultaneously calling Sen. Obama a CINECAST! for not being bold enough in his response to said non-existent crisis.

Anyway, like I said, I agree that the right is using this whatever-you-call-it as a pretext for a power grab.  If Naomi Klein wants to call it a "Shock Doctrine", that's fine too.  But it's not a particularly new idea.  Orwell used it in 1984, to cite one obvious precursor.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 26, 2008, 03:41:39 AM
I am curious how one can argue that there isn't really a crisis while simultaneously calling Sen. Obama a CINECAST! for not being bold enough in his response to said non-existent crisis.


i'm not criticizing Obama for not being bold enough, i'm criticizing him for being a lapdog
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 26, 2008, 04:31:50 AM
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear


I bloody love those Adam Curtis programmes!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ses on September 26, 2008, 11:31:13 AM
Debate is on!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on September 26, 2008, 11:32:10 AM
This series of debates should prove truly exciting. I'm pumped!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 26, 2008, 11:39:22 AM
Is it broadcast somewhere on Das Web?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on September 26, 2008, 11:49:52 AM
i'm not criticizing Obama for not being bold enough, i'm criticizing him for being a lapdog

Tomato, potato.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: edgar00 on September 26, 2008, 12:07:00 PM
I just read that tonight's debate is taking place. I suppose there was a decent reason to delay it, but it's a much better situation if it occurs tonight.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on September 26, 2008, 12:16:19 PM
Absolutely.  I'm looking forward to all 3 debates.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on September 26, 2008, 12:42:20 PM
Absolutely.  I'm looking forward to all 3 debates.

Don't discount Biden-Palin!  Should be hilarious eight different ways.  :D

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on September 26, 2008, 01:59:25 PM
Absolutely.  I'm looking forward to all 3 debates.

Don't discount Biden-Palin!  Should be hilarious eight different ways.  :D

pixote

Could you list them?  ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on September 26, 2008, 02:02:14 PM
Absolutely.  I'm looking forward to all 3 debates.

Don't discount Biden-Palin!  Should be hilarious eight different ways.  :D

pixote

Could you list them?  ;)

I hope Tina Fey shows up in her place.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on September 26, 2008, 03:50:43 PM
Absolutely.  I'm looking forward to all 3 debates.

Don't discount Biden-Palin!  Should be hilarious eight different ways.  :D

pixote

I wasn't!  I thought it was 3 total, 2 pres and one VP.  There are 3 pres. debates??
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on September 26, 2008, 05:10:52 PM
Is it broadcast somewhere on Das Web?

http://www.c-span.org (http://www.c-span.org)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 26, 2008, 05:45:44 PM
Thank you, Junior.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on September 26, 2008, 06:03:46 PM
Absolutely.  I'm looking forward to all 3 debates.
Don't discount Biden-Palin!  Should be hilarious eight different ways.  :D
I wasn't!  I thought it was 3 total, 2 pres and one VP.  There are 3 pres. debates??
Yup!

Quote from: Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/08/22/debate_schedule_is_set/)
The debates are all scheduled to air at 9 p.m. Eastern and will last 90 minutes:

First debate
Sept. 26 at University of Mississippi
Topic: Foreign policy and national security
Moderator: Jim Lehrer of PBS
Staging: Podiums
Format: Broken into nine 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment, then facilitate a discussion for the remaining 5 minutes.

Second debate
Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville.
Moderator: Tom Brokaw of NBC
Staging: Town hall
Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the Internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute.

Third debate
Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.
Topic: Domestic and economic policy
Moderator: Bob Schieffer of CBS
Staging: Seated at a table
Format: Same as first presidential debate, plus each candidate will get a 90-second closing statement.
And the Vice Presidential Debate is October 2 at Washington University, St. Louis, MO.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on September 26, 2008, 10:27:10 PM
I missed the debate. Is there any place I can watch the full debate online?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 27, 2008, 12:04:09 AM
rewatching on cnn now - what's the deal with all the lines anc circles and such?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 27, 2008, 01:37:05 AM
btw - anyone else get the sense that they have no idea how to market W. ?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on September 27, 2008, 01:48:46 AM
It was a glorious mess. I think it was possibly the most ineffectual debate I've ever seen. The whole room roared at the beginning of McCain's final statement.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 27, 2008, 09:08:55 AM
Yeah - both sides showed some strengths and some weakness. If strictly froma temperment point of view - I think Obama looked and acted more presidential but his insistence on reaching across the aisle and agreeing with McCain (or highlighting where they agreed) will be used against him. Obama definitely showed more command of knowledge foreign policy issues than McCain.

I am looking forward to the next.

How do you think Biden is prepping for his debate?
Watching old 3 Stooges shorts and reading USA Today?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: edgar00 on September 27, 2008, 06:14:24 PM
I am listening to the debate right now on YouTube. I admit that I haven't paid as much attention to the campaign as I should (I find politics rather interesting, corruption, lies and all...).

I find Obama very articulate. He explains himself very well.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 28, 2008, 12:07:31 AM
I really liked the format of this debate, though granted, I'm looking at it from a bit of a different perspective. I'm completely unable to understand the mindset of the undecided voter. I basically knew who I was going to vote for as soon as the primaries wrapped up, and the idea that nearly four months later after non-stop media coverage a person would need a set of three debates to choose which candidate they want to vote for just seems ridiculous to me. So basically I just watch these for the political theater, and it was nice to see a debate where it was almost exclusively McCain and Obama. Jim Lehrer was basically a cue card with minimal involvement, and there were no audience reactions at all. Joy to watch, though I thought it was a waste of time if for some reason you were expecting actual information.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ses on September 28, 2008, 12:27:01 AM
I thought Lehrer was a really bad moderator. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on September 28, 2008, 02:15:05 AM
I thought Lehrer was a really bad moderator. 
He had no control unless Obama bequeathed it to him.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: edgar00 on September 28, 2008, 10:25:00 AM
From the perspective of someone living in Canada, I couldn't help but chuckle when I heard McCain say something in the nature of 'We can't hand the health system over to the federal government.'


Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 28, 2008, 12:39:13 PM
I'm completely unable to understand the mindset of the undecided voter.

Its pretty simple if your not a card carrying member of either of these shitty parties and the two terrible option they give us every 4 years.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on September 29, 2008, 01:34:23 PM
From the perspective of someone living in Canada, I couldn't help but chuckle when I heard McCain say something in the nature of 'We can't hand the health system over to the federal government.'




Yeah. I really don't understand why the government is worse than greedy insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. Our health care system may not be the greatest in the world, and it probably doesn't always work as it should, but at least I can rest assured knowing that if I suddenly get very sick and need extremely expensive hospital care, or even if I just break my leg, I'm covered. Does it cost me more in taxes? Sure. But it's totally worth it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on September 29, 2008, 01:45:10 PM
From the perspective of someone living in Canada, I couldn't help but chuckle when I heard McCain say something in the nature of 'We can't hand the health system over to the federal government.'




Yeah. I really don't understand why the government is worse than greedy insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. Our health care system may not be the greatest in the world, and it probably doesn't always work as it should, but at least I can rest assured knowing that if I suddenly get very sick and need extremely expensive hospital care, or even if I just break my leg, I'm covered. Does it cost me more in taxes? Sure. But it's totally worth it.

But what about those of us who are immortal? Why should we be forced to support your measly human immune systems?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on September 29, 2008, 01:46:29 PM
But what about those of us who are immortal? Why should we be forced to support your measly human immune systems?
(http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=510;type=avatar)

You mean, this monkey will never go to heaven?

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on September 29, 2008, 01:52:06 PM
From the perspective of someone living in Canada, I couldn't help but chuckle when I heard McCain say something in the nature of 'We can't hand the health system over to the federal government.'




Yeah. I really don't understand why the government is worse than greedy insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. Our health care system may not be the greatest in the world, and it probably doesn't always work as it should, but at least I can rest assured knowing that if I suddenly get very sick and need extremely expensive hospital care, or even if I just break my leg, I'm covered. Does it cost me more in taxes? Sure. But it's totally worth it.

agreed

on the bailout grab for cash, this (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=235) pretty decently sums up my take
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 29, 2008, 02:03:32 PM
once again Moore proves what an ass he is.

Also the bill is dead in the house now anyway:

"More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill."

so yeah that kinda kills any speculation that this is all "Bush and his cronies" ::)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 29, 2008, 02:33:02 PM
Also today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7642394.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7642394.stm)

Benelux banking giant Fortis was partially nationalised by the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg governments to ensure its survival

The Icelandic government took control of the country's third-largest bank, Glitnir, after the company had faced short-term funding problems

UK Gov't nationalising ford & Bingley (B&B).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 29, 2008, 02:34:10 PM
It's about time to buy a gun as all social order is about to collapse.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 29, 2008, 02:35:20 PM
It's about time to buy a gun as all social order is about to collapse.

 ;D

Cat's & dogs, living together...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 29, 2008, 02:37:11 PM
oh, this hasn't come up before but i'm with the left on gun control.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 29, 2008, 02:40:18 PM
Also today:

UK Gov't nationalising Bradford & Bingley (B&B).

Am I the only one who finds economic meltdown... pretty exciting?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 29, 2008, 02:41:44 PM
Also today:

UK Gov't nationalising Bradford & Bingley (B&B).

Am I the only one who finds economic meltdown... pretty exciting?

As in Chronenberg's Crash, running down Wall Street in a trenchcoat kinda exciting?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 29, 2008, 02:52:30 PM
No, just... is it just me? I also got quite exited about the possibility of the world ending the other week, when the LHC was turned on. No? I see it like going on a big roller coaster. Basically, I think I'd like to like in one of these Clockwork Orange/Blade Runner worlds.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 29, 2008, 03:04:04 PM
No, just... is it just me? I also got quite exited about the possibility of the world ending the other week, when the LHC was turned on. No? I see it like going on a big roller coaster. Basically, I think I'd like to like in one of these Clockwork Orange/Blade Runner worlds.

yeah, quite a bust that turned out to be, stupid faulty wiring.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 29, 2008, 03:06:00 PM
oh, this hasn't come up before but i'm with the left on gun control.

As am I but after reading The Road I am starting to change my mind. :D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 29, 2008, 03:33:59 PM
Really looking forward to this week's debate. Biden should bring up dinosaurs.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 29, 2008, 03:42:14 PM
oh, this hasn't come up before but i'm with the left on gun control.

As am I but after reading The Road I am starting to change my mind. :D

hmmm, haven't done that yet.

Really looking forward to this week's debate. Biden should bring up dinosaurs.

yeah, for some reason I feel that I'll be getting a kind of sick pleasure from this debate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on September 29, 2008, 04:57:53 PM
But what about those of us who are immortal? Why should we be forced to support your measly human immune systems?
(http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=510;type=avatar)

You mean, this monkey will never go to heaven?

pixote
poor monkey.  :'(

Why be immortal to begin with. Life sucks enough as is, imagine an infinite lifetime of suckyness. No thanks.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on September 29, 2008, 10:51:31 PM
From the perspective of someone living in Canada, I couldn't help but chuckle when I heard McCain say something in the nature of 'We can't hand the health system over to the federal government.'




Yeah. I really don't understand why the government is worse than greedy insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. Our health care system may not be the greatest in the world, and it probably doesn't always work as it should, but at least I can rest assured knowing that if I suddenly get very sick and need extremely expensive hospital care, or even if I just break my leg, I'm covered. Does it cost me more in taxes? Sure. But it's totally worth it.

I particularly liked John McCain's assertion that he is against any federal involvement in healthcare because decisions should be between an individual and his doctor.  For me and pretty much everyone I know, healthcare decisions are between me, my doctor, and my insurance company and what they will deign to pay for.  I want to be someone who is served by my health insurance, not an annoying "cost center" in the minus column, cutting into someone's profit/dividend/stock options/golden parachute fund. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 30, 2008, 12:23:54 AM
once again Moore proves what an ass he is.

Also the bill is dead in the house now anyway:

"More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill."

so yeah that kinda kills any speculation that this is all "Bush and his cronies" ::)

Something I found telling: if you look at the people who opposed the bill, the vast majority of them are in tight races for re-election this year. Most who voted for it safe bets to keep their seats this year. My interpretation of that fact? A lot of the people who voted against the bill have absolutely no cojones whatsoever.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 30, 2008, 12:39:10 AM
once again Moore proves what an ass he is.

Also the bill is dead in the house now anyway:

"More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill."

so yeah that kinda kills any speculation that this is all "Bush and his cronies" ::)

Something I found telling: if you look at the people who opposed the bill, the vast majority of them are in tight races for re-election this year. Most who voted for it safe bets to keep their seats this year. My interpretation of that fact? A lot of the people who voted against the bill have absolutely no cojones whatsoever.

very few politicians do, no matter which way they voted.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on September 30, 2008, 12:59:27 AM
golden parachute fund. 

The concept of a golden parachute has always struck me as funny, mostly because that sounds like a trick you would play on someone to kill them.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: joem18b on September 30, 2008, 01:16:48 AM
once again Moore proves what an ass he is.

Also the bill is dead in the house now anyway:

"More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill."

so yeah that kinda kills any speculation that this is all "Bush and his cronies" ::)

Something I found telling: if you look at the people who opposed the bill, the vast majority of them are in tight races for re-election this year. Most who voted for it safe bets to keep their seats this year. My interpretation of that fact? A lot of the people who voted against the bill have absolutely no cojones whatsoever.

very few politicians do, no matter which way they voted.
speaking of cojones, only 13 reps need to flip to pass the bill. be interesting to see, if the markets take a big dive, what happens when the house reconvenes in a couple of days.

most of the dems who voted no were from the left wing of their party; most of the republicans who voted no were from the right wing of their party. the center didn't hold.

many of the no voters were freshmen/freshwomen congresspeople. their calls and emails from home were running strongly "no." brings up that old question: vote your conscience or vote the will of the people?

can/will either obama or mccain flip 13 reps on their own. if one or both do, then do they claim victory on the basis of their leadership, or keep quiet while waiting to see what happens next?

mostly, nobody knows anything.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on September 30, 2008, 03:45:58 AM
McCain is so screwed. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 30, 2008, 08:36:58 AM
Palin has been consistently off message whenever she is let loose on her own. McCain has contradicted himself at every turn through this crisis.
Neither McCain nor Obama need to be diverted from the election (IMO) they need to concentrate on giving the electorate enough information about themselves and on substantive issues instead of mudslinging - forget about grandstanding. In fact it just showed how little respect McCain is getting from his own party. Nice leadership - while he brags about the bailout and his "reaching across the aisle" - it fails.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 30, 2008, 10:29:40 AM
I thought McCain's "North Koreans are dwarves" comment (I'm paraphrasing) was a bit odd. Maybe he also thinks they have horns and live in caves.

And Ebert is right - the lack of eye contact was creepy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on September 30, 2008, 11:19:40 AM
I thought McCain's "North Koreans are dwarves" comment (I'm paraphrasing) was a bit odd. Maybe he also thinks they have horns and live in caves.



it took me awhile to figure out that he was implying malnutrition. another failed line:

"the government spent 3 million dollars on dna testing for bears. i don't know if it was paternal or criminal, but it was still excessive"

wait, that was a joke? nice delivery
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 30, 2008, 01:30:41 PM
And even star orator Obama came out with some clumsy lines, stumbling over points which were supposed to sound hard hitting. A bit like in Bottle Rocket where Dignon has to ask for extra large bags for maps and atlases.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on September 30, 2008, 01:32:01 PM
were there any good soundbites from the debate? i know that reducing complex issues to catchy sentences is bad and all, but without them the debate is really really dry
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 30, 2008, 01:51:08 PM
It was quite dry - it was 3am when I saw it, and I struggled to stay awake. The moderator was trying to encourage more back-and-forth between the two, but this failed to really get off the ground. McCain's closing speech was dreadful - some mawkish bit about War Vets. And both should be ashamed of playing the "mourner's bracelet" one-upmanship game.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on September 30, 2008, 02:18:21 PM
I thought McCain's "North Koreans are dwarves" comment (I'm paraphrasing) was a bit odd. Maybe he also thinks they have horns and live in caves.



it took me awhile to figure out that he was implying malnutrition.

I thought that was rather clear.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on September 30, 2008, 02:21:26 PM
I thought McCain's "North Koreans are dwarves" comment (I'm paraphrasing) was a bit odd. Maybe he also thinks they have horns and live in caves.



it took me awhile to figure out that he was implying malnutrition.

I thought that was rather clear.
It was one of those phrases that was far too sensational for its own good.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 30, 2008, 02:24:06 PM
And he was talking about nuclear arms programs when it came up, so it was a bit left field as something to swerve to.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on September 30, 2008, 05:11:55 PM
And he was talking about nuclear arms programs when it came up, so it was a bit left field as something to swerve to.
Definitely not entirely scripted.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on September 30, 2008, 05:17:01 PM
I felt like flagging up 'citation needed' at some of what was said (apologies, XKCD).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 30, 2008, 06:00:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk)


Sarah Silverman - such a potty mouth - makes her hot. :D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on September 30, 2008, 11:08:51 PM
so now the Senate is going to pass the bail-out package as an attachment to a tax cut.  i'm all for tax cuts but really - where is all this cash coming from?  wasn't part of the reason the investment baks folded is because they leverages themselves 30 to 1 or so on each dollar of income to make more?  how much is the federal gov't leveraging itself now?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: joem18b on October 01, 2008, 01:46:23 AM
so now the Senate is going to pass the bail-out package as an attachment to a tax cut.  i'm all for tax cuts but really - where is all this cash coming from?  wasn't part of the reason the investment baks folded is because they leverages themselves 30 to 1 or so on each dollar of income to make more?  how much is the federal gov't leveraging itself now?
where is all this cash coming from? there is no cash. this is just more debt.

the fed doesn't have to worry about leveraging. when push comes to shove, it can just turn on the printing presses.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 01, 2008, 01:48:00 AM
Hopefully our new Chinese masters won't interfere in the Far East Bracket.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 01, 2008, 09:43:29 AM
That Silverman's one sexy Jew.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 01, 2008, 10:53:34 AM
so now the Senate is going to pass the bail-out package as an attachment to a tax cut.  i'm all for tax cuts but really - where is all this cash coming from?  wasn't part of the reason the investment baks folded is because they leverages themselves 30 to 1 or so on each dollar of income to make more?  how much is the federal gov't leveraging itself now?
where is all this cash coming from? there is no cash. this is just more debt.

the fed doesn't have to worry about leveraging. when push comes to shove, it can just turn on the printing presses.

my points exactly

Hopefully our new Chinese masters won't interfere in the Far East Bracket.

pixote

depends - are the films pro or con the regime?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 01, 2008, 10:58:46 AM
Ooh, yeah, more Palin funny stuff*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliverburkemanblog/2008/oct/01/uselections2008.sarahpalin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliverburkemanblog/2008/oct/01/uselections2008.sarahpalin)





*Though if she gets elected, it will cease to be funny, and will simply be depressing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 01, 2008, 11:00:43 AM
On the Today Show they reported that Palin has gone to debate camp this week. I laughed forever.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 01, 2008, 11:04:06 AM
I'm really glad the American TV media have people like Katie Couric.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 01, 2008, 11:10:47 AM
Although I hope to God that Biden won't underestimate Palin. NPR was describing what her debate tactics will be, and this could turn out to be suprising rough for Biden.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 01, 2008, 12:43:10 PM
Although I hope to God that Biden won't underestimate Palin. NPR was describing what her debate tactics will be, and this could turn out to be suprising rough for Biden.

Is one of her tactics going to be putting lipstick on Biden?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 01, 2008, 12:44:00 PM
Yes she is.  ;D


They said she'll probably be an attack dog and try to pin down Biden since that's what she did well at the convention.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on October 01, 2008, 02:41:58 PM
Yes she is.  ;D


They said she'll probably be an attack dog and try to pin down Biden since that's what she did well at the convention.


Are they debating on WWE Raw?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 01, 2008, 02:44:46 PM
Unfortunately no.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 01, 2008, 02:52:04 PM
Has she ever left the country?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ses on October 01, 2008, 02:52:36 PM
Has she ever left the country?

Isn't seeing Russia from where you live enough?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 01, 2008, 03:00:22 PM
Yes she is.  ;D


They said she'll probably be an attack dog and try to pin down Biden since that's what she did well at the convention.


But keep in mind - she wasn't debating at the convention and she didn't talk about substantive issues - all she did was rabble rouse the right-wing-christian-evangelical-base. Now she is going up against a real pit bull of a debater. Biden's biggest challenge will be to not be seen as condescending or too aggressive. As a policy wonk - I don't think Palin will be too much of a challenge - her strengths are her idealogy she won't have a lot experience to back it up. I am betting Biden will trap her as she will inevitably stray off the McCain line and then he will pounce.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 01, 2008, 03:02:22 PM
Has she ever left the country?

Isn't seeing Russia from where you live enough?

Apparently Alaska airspace is invaded quite often by the Russians and she is a really an agent for CONTROL fighting the invisible, unheard cold war.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ses on October 01, 2008, 03:04:59 PM
Yes she is.  ;D


They said she'll probably be an attack dog and try to pin down Biden since that's what she did well at the convention.


But keep in mind - she wasn't debating at the convention and she didn't talk about substantive issues - all she did was rabble rouse the right-wing-christian-evangelical-base. Now she is going up against a real pit bull of a debater. Biden's biggest challenge will be to not be seen as condescending or too aggressive. As a policy wonk - I don't think Palin will be too much of a challenge - her strengths are her idealogy she won't have a lot experience to back it up. I am betting Biden will trap her as she will inevitably stray off the McCain line and then he will pounce.

I just hope she goes beyond the rote, memorized answers she is practicing right now in her "debate boot camp."  Her interviews have been so repetitive, it is hard to believe anything she says is something that she thought up on her own.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 01, 2008, 03:10:16 PM
Yeah,  I hope Biden gets to break her out of that and engage her in an ad-hoc debate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 01, 2008, 03:12:42 PM
Yes she is.  ;D


They said she'll probably be an attack dog and try to pin down Biden since that's what she did well at the convention.


Are they debating on WWE Raw?

She's actually going to come out during the next Obama/McCain debate and hit McCain over the head with a steel chair. Then she'll stand over his limp body and rip off her pant suit to reveal an Obama '08 shirt while Brokaw screams "OH MAH GAWD" in the background.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on October 01, 2008, 03:14:23 PM
Yes she is.  ;D


They said she'll probably be an attack dog and try to pin down Biden since that's what she did well at the convention.


Are they debating on WWE Raw?

She's actually going to come out during the next Obama/McCain debate and hit McCain over the head with a steel chair. Then she'll stand over his limp body and rip off her pant suit to reveal an Obama '08 shirt while Brokaw screams "OH MAH GAWD" in the background.

Nice. McCain will still win the election somehow anyway.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 01, 2008, 03:16:24 PM
Yes she is.  ;D


They said she'll probably be an attack dog and try to pin down Biden since that's what she did well at the convention.


Are they debating on WWE Raw?

She's actually going to come out during the next Obama/McCain debate and hit McCain over the head with a steel chair. Then she'll stand over his limp body and rip off her pant suit to reveal an Obama '08 shirt while Brokaw screams "OH MAH GAWD" in the background.

Nice. McCain will still win the election somehow anyway.

I'm sorry, I was confused.  McCain is actually going to hit Palin with a steel chair and introduce his new running mate, Vince MacMahon.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 01, 2008, 03:16:41 PM
His campaign is imploding - anyone with half a brain can see him for the hypocrite that he is. He is all talk but w/o any support from his own party - I guess maverick is another word for disliked.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: joem18b on October 01, 2008, 06:37:42 PM
Has she ever left the country?
she's been to kuwait once.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on October 01, 2008, 08:21:54 PM
McCain will still win the election somehow anyway.

No, McCain is screwed.  Have you seen the most recent polls?  Obama is pulling ahead in many of the swing states. This is after a lackluster debate showing by Obama (and McCain).  I see McCain's defeat as a function of his campaign managers.  What a group of poor advisors he's pulled together! Unfortunately, that speaks to McCain's decision-making ability, as does his sensational, though pathetic, VP choice. 

McCain cannot pull this out now. He's tried lots of things to turn the campaign to his advantage and ended up looking weak and vulnerable instead of Presidential.

Obama would have to flash the audience on live TV for McCain to win. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on October 01, 2008, 08:24:24 PM
Obama would have to flash the audience on live TV for McCain to win. 

Bold statement. How do you figure that affects Ron Paul's chances?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 01, 2008, 08:25:16 PM
Let's not  speak too quickly. Somebody better knock on wood. After all Biden has a real knack for wedging his foot into his mouth.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on October 01, 2008, 08:27:53 PM
Let's not  speak too quickly. Somebody better knock on wood. After all Biden has a real knack for wedging his foot into his mouth.

Biden could flash the audience on live TV, and Sarah Palin's lack of authority and knowledge would still dominant the post-debate talk.

Who's Ron Paul? ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: roujin on October 01, 2008, 08:33:08 PM
Obama would have to flash the audience on live TV for McCain to win. 

Bold statement. How do you figure that affects Ron Paul's chances?

They might go up slightly from 0%.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 01, 2008, 09:24:25 PM
Let's not  speak too quickly. Somebody better knock on wood. After all Biden has a real knack for wedging his foot into his mouth.

Not likely possible considering the best ever debate zinger delivered, was during a VP debate by what ended up being the losing ticket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI)

It did destroy Quayle's career - but who really cared?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on October 01, 2008, 10:09:59 PM
Let's not  speak too quickly. Somebody better knock on wood. After all Biden has a real knack for wedging his foot into his mouth.

My friends and I like to make up drinking games for the presidential debates. So far the three times we've done this, our holy grail rule has been if any candidate utters a racial epithet, we drain the bottle. With Biden in the VP debate though, we're thinking of backing off that rule.

(Though granted, one of the ideas we tossed around was drinking every time Palin mention's she's from Alaska, so we'll probably run out pretty quickly anyway)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 02, 2008, 02:10:26 AM
i really think Biden will say something that will be taken as deeply offensive to CNN useless table of pundits and then we'll get a couple days of Palin sympathizing to deal with.

also - terry gross is fanfreakintastic.  loved today's interview on how the wall street we just saw implode came to be.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95241895 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95241895)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 02, 2008, 02:12:13 AM
I'm dreading the days and days of complaints about how Gwen Ifill showed her Obama bias by daring to ask Palin about the world and stuff.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 02, 2008, 02:20:25 AM
I'm dreading the days and days of complaints about how Gwen Ifill showed her Obama bias by daring to ask Palin about the world and stuff.

pixote

I'm not sure she'll still be moderator in 18 hrs time.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 02, 2008, 02:21:02 AM
Crisis averted!

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 02, 2008, 09:23:07 AM
i really think Biden will say something that will be taken as deeply offensive to CNN useless table of pundits and then we'll get a couple days of Palin sympathizing to deal with.

also - terry gross is fanfreakintastic.  loved today's interview on how the wall street we just saw implode came to be.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95241895 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95241895)


Oh God, it's going to happen.  :-[
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 02, 2008, 11:32:56 AM
Crisis averted!

pixote

McCain & Palin playing down the moderator's "bias" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/14207) OK NM, yr right.  They will play it down before hand then spin it the otherway 5 minutes after the debate ends - direct from the Spin Yurt.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Think_Long on October 02, 2008, 02:54:39 PM
Crisis averted!

pixote

McCain & Palin playing down the moderator's "bias" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/14207) OK NM, yr right.  They will play it down before hand then spin it the otherway 5 minutes after the debate ends - direct from the Spin Yurt.

i thought it was the "spin casa" now. man, they just keep changing it
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on October 02, 2008, 08:00:35 PM
I'm a McCain supporter and even I know what they're doing. There's no need for McCain and Palin to go after Ifill, that's what pundits are for. As long as people like Limbaugh and Hannity rail on her, McCain and Palin can both praise her and claim they're taking the high road.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 02, 2008, 08:18:17 PM
Damn, I think that Debating Bot Camp may have worked.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 02, 2008, 08:44:02 PM
God I hope people aren't believe in her crap.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 02, 2008, 08:55:55 PM
Her section on the war was incredibly poor.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on October 02, 2008, 09:12:13 PM
I cringed when she said we need to bring Iraq-surge tactics into Afghanistan. Being a history major with an emphasis on the Middle East, I can say confidently that would be a total failure.

Palin needs to stop being colloquial. It's incredibly grating.

Biden had a nice quip during the same-sex marriage question about Palin agreeing with him. Nice way to undermine her cred with the social conservatives that are in love with her.

Why does Biden keep referring to himself in the third person?

Biden mentioned that hundreds of medrassas have been built on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and that there should be schools being built there instead. I know what he was getting at (he's trying to say terrorist training camps or extremist centers) but does he not understand that medrassa means "school?"
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on October 02, 2008, 10:13:38 PM
McCain is pulling out of MI.  The landslide to Obama is beginning.  By election day the phrase "swing state" won't apply. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 02, 2008, 11:30:28 PM
Palin needs to stop being colloquial. It's incredibly grating.

Do people really not get that there is a whole other country out there where this legitimately means something to people? To change the politicians, you have to change that culture first.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 03, 2008, 08:33:11 AM
McCain is pulling out of MI.  The landslide to Obama is beginning.  By election day the phrase "swing state" won't apply. 

I want to believe this but I think that vote caging and election day shenanigans made a critical difference in 2000 and 2004 and not nearly enough attention has been given to those tactics.  I really hate that people in this country have cynically undermined my faith in the process that much.  And I hate that those same people get away on a daily basis with accusing people like me of hating this country.  Nothing says "I hate my country" like gaming its democratic processes and institutions.

I'm not celebrating anything until I hear a McCain concession speech.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 03, 2008, 10:00:47 AM

Why does Biden keep referring to himself in the third person?


When Froham is trying to make a point he also refers to himself in the third person.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 03, 2008, 10:43:43 AM
Her whole section on the Middle East was repugnant.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on October 03, 2008, 01:12:05 PM
If you buy aggregate poll numbers (which I don't, I just find them fun), Obama is over the electoral threshold and is roughly a 2 or 3 point shift from creating a landslide. McCain has 2 weeks, I'd say, if he really wants to turn this around. I assume pulling out of Michigan is to reallocate resources to Florida, Ohio, and PA, but they better find a new topic to lead with.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 03, 2008, 01:14:13 PM
... but they better find a new topic to lead with.

Manimals!

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 03, 2008, 01:31:53 PM
If you buy aggregate poll numbers (which I don't, I just find them fun), Obama is over the electoral threshold and is roughly a 2 or 3 point shift from creating a landslide. McCain has 2 weeks, I'd say, if he really wants to turn this around. I assume pulling out of Michigan is to reallocate resources to Florida, Ohio, and PA, but they better find a new topic to lead with.

apparently he shifted some funds to Maine - its one of those weird states that gives out electoral voted via its 4 districts and not enmass.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Osprey on October 03, 2008, 07:37:55 PM
McCain is in serious trouble- he seems to have to defend Florida and Missouri, which he absolutely must have. Pennsylvania is not looking too good.  He is looking like a loser in Iowa.  He has to keep everything else Bush won and stop Obama from taking Colorado and any other state out West that he seems to be leading in- unless he can grab New Hampshire, which would help him a little. Losing Virginia, Ohio or Florida would be the end.

I think you can make a legitimate argument that the race shouldn't be as close as it is, given the incumbent party and the state of the economy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on October 03, 2008, 11:41:24 PM
I think you can make a legitimate argument that the race shouldn't be as close as it is, given the incumbent party and the state of the economy.
Except he's non-white in an United States election.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 04, 2008, 10:15:37 AM
If you buy aggregate poll numbers (which I don't, I just find them fun), Obama is over the electoral threshold and is roughly a 2 or 3 point shift from creating a landslide. McCain has 2 weeks, I'd say, if he really wants to turn this around. I assume pulling out of Michigan is to reallocate resources to Florida, Ohio, and PA, but they better find a new topic to lead with.

apparently he shifted some funds to Maine - its one of those weird states that gives out electoral voted via its 4 districts and not enmass.

Obama is working Omaha for the same reason, despite overall Nebraska poll numbers being wildly for McCain.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 04, 2008, 10:21:26 AM
Is anyone else suffering from election overload?

I am completely drawn into it but at the same time, I am getting quickly burned out.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 04, 2008, 10:24:22 AM
I plan to go do early voting this week (cuz we can in Georgia!) and then tune the whole thing out until the actual results come in.

Oh who am I kidding, I visit the Yahoo election map once a day and check all the numbers on the states that have stripes.

But yeah, I'm getting tired of it.  This would be a good time for a montage sequence.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ses on October 04, 2008, 11:00:00 AM
Is anyone else suffering from election overload?

I am completely drawn into it but at the same time, I am getting quickly burned out.

i went through this a few weeks ago, i couldn't read/listen/watch anything about the election

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 04, 2008, 11:00:49 AM
Is anyone else suffering from election overload?

I am completely drawn into it but at the same time, I am getting quickly burned out.

I pretty much was burned out after the primaries went on and on and on.  
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 04, 2008, 11:04:29 AM


Obama is working Omaha for the same reason, despite overall Nebraska poll numbers being wildly for McCain.

He probably likes it because his name is quite similar. John McCain... Maine?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 04, 2008, 12:21:04 PM
This would be a good time for a montage sequence.

that is a great idea.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on October 04, 2008, 06:23:42 PM
Palin needs to stop being colloquial. It's incredibly grating.

Do people really not get that there is a whole other country out there where this legitimately means something to people? To change the politicians, you have to change that culture first.

You know what's a good way to change the culture of a country? Leadership. Leaders have the ability to influence the tone of a nation, at least to some extent. Sarah Palin talking to the people of the United States like they're children doesn't help.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 06, 2008, 03:19:27 PM
I'm too lazy to check if anyone has mentioned this already but Nailin' Paylin (http://www.tmz.com/2008/10/03/nailin-palin/) is in the works.  I'm guessing Tina Fey won't be starring in this one?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on October 06, 2008, 04:37:07 PM
I'm too lazy to check if anyone has mentioned this already but Nailin' Paylin (http://www.tmz.com/2008/10/03/nailin-palin/) is in the works.  I'm guessing Tina Fey won't be starring in this one?

"The video is in pre-production, but is being fast tracked for release before the election."

Hmm, I really hope that doesn't mean a rushed script and poor production values.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 06, 2008, 06:12:59 PM
I think Paul Haggis is being brought in to write...so it should suck.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 06, 2008, 09:12:15 PM
Hmm, I really hope that doesn't mean a rushed script and poor production values.

"I'm here to deliver some cream"
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 06, 2008, 09:16:42 PM
I guess a russian trade mission will be arriving and she will be doing the nailing...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on October 07, 2008, 02:09:41 PM
I think Paul Haggis is being brought in to write...so it should suck.

I thinking sucking is a requirement of the genre.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 07, 2008, 02:23:53 PM
I think Paul Haggis is being brought in to write...so it should suck.

I thinking sucking is a requirement of the genre.

 ::)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 08, 2008, 12:06:44 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_meltdown_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_meltdown_1)

huh.  didn't think that could happen.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on October 08, 2008, 08:56:50 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_meltdown_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_meltdown_1)

huh.  didn't think that could happen.
Oh good god.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 08, 2008, 09:48:58 AM
I didn't watch the debate but I did see this post-debate video that cracked me up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI0iIOqPGak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI0iIOqPGak)

Sure, some of you might claim that tap on the shoulder, no shake her hand reversal was rude but I thought it was hilarious.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 08, 2008, 10:09:40 AM
McCain is so rude! Has he made eye contact with him at all yet?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 08, 2008, 10:27:22 AM
Reverse shoulder tap, that's old school.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 08, 2008, 12:11:10 PM
At least I not the only one who wondered what the heck the old guy was blathering about (with this phrase)

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/a-steady-hand-a.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/a-steady-hand-a.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 08, 2008, 01:57:41 PM
Ha, I didn't realize your question was serious.  I could have answered it, from that one time I went sailing at camp.

I capsized, by the way, but you should vote for me regardless.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 09, 2008, 11:55:15 PM
as he continues to be news in the election cycle (much to his distaste), it doesn't seem too outrageous to point folks to a statement of support (http://www.supportbillayers.org/) for one of my committee-persons, the beautifully humane bill ayers
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on October 09, 2008, 11:56:42 PM
Received my absentee ballot in the mail today. Still very undecided, and very disappointed about the absence of Ron Paul's name on it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 09, 2008, 11:58:50 PM
are you really one of those?  (i guess i had my ayn rand phase when i was in high school :P )
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on October 10, 2008, 12:00:57 AM
Received my absentee ballot in the mail today. Still very undecided, and very disappointed about the absence of Ron Paul's name on it.

If you're undecided at this point, just flip a coin.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 10, 2008, 12:27:20 AM
Received my absentee ballot in the mail today. Still very undecided, and very disappointed about the absence of Ron Paul's name on it.

Vote for Ralph. At least he cares about you.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Osprey on October 10, 2008, 01:10:45 AM
He sounds like an ass, judging by his Wikipedia page.  Good to see he grew up, but that doesn't excuse his past.. particularly since he seems to have somehow gotten off scot free.

as he continues to be news in the election cycle (much to his distaste), it doesn't seem too outrageous to point folks to a statement of support (http://www.supportbillayers.org/) for one of my committee-persons, the beautifully humane bill ayers
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 01:11:42 AM
Received my absentee ballot in the mail today. Still very undecided, and very disappointed about the absence of Ron Paul's name on it.

If you're undecided at this point, just flip a coin.

That's what i did for the primary - but they were in fact two sides of the same coin.  Wouldn't feel right doing that in a general.  I always wondered why there is this idea that undecided voters are idiots who probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.  I have to assume its propagated by our two illustrious parties.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 01:13:38 AM
are you really one of those?  (i guess i had my ayn rand phase when i was in high school :P )

and what would you call yr current phase? ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 10, 2008, 08:12:37 AM
Received my absentee ballot in the mail today. Still very undecided, and very disappointed about the absence of Ron Paul's name on it.

How can you be undecided mouse?
McCain does not have the temperament needed to run this country - he has resorted to the worst kind of campaigning in desperation. Be bold - pick an unknown over a known Bush supporter.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 10, 2008, 09:15:20 AM

How can you be undecided mouse?


Just because you are undecided doesn't automatically mean you are choosing between Obama and McCain.  Living in Illinois (where Obama doesn't need any help), I'm pretty tempted to vote for Nader just to give a third party some support.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 10, 2008, 10:34:27 AM

How can you be undecided mouse?


Just because you are undecided doesn't automatically mean you are choosing between Obama and McCain.  Living in Illinois (where Obama doesn't need any help), I'm pretty tempted to vote for Nader just to give a third party some support.

That (IMO) is ridiculous - Nader doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning and if you believe in any sort of way that this country needs change then you are simply wasting a vote in Nader. Make it count for something. Voting for Nader is like not voting at all - it's simply a cop out for making a true decision. I mean - define what you mean by "third party support" - what does it gain for this third party?
Do you really think Ralph Nader would make a good president?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 11:10:27 AM

How can you be undecided mouse?


Just because you are undecided doesn't automatically mean you are choosing between Obama and McCain.  Living in Illinois (where Obama doesn't need any help), I'm pretty tempted to vote for Nader just to give a third party some support.

That (IMO) is ridiculous - Nader doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning and if you believe in any sort of way that this country needs change then you are simply wasting a vote in Nader. Make it count for something. Voting for Nader is like not voting at all - it's simply a cop out for making a true decision. I mean - define what you mean by "third party support" - what does it gain for this third party?
Do you really think Ralph Nader would make a good president?

the change we need is away from these two puppets - neither of them will bring anything new to the table I fear but their standard baggage. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 10, 2008, 11:10:45 AM

How can you be undecided mouse?


Just because you are undecided doesn't automatically mean you are choosing between Obama and McCain.  Living in Illinois (where Obama doesn't need any help), I'm pretty tempted to vote for Nader just to give a third party some support.

That (IMO) is ridiculous - Nader doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning and if you believe in any sort of way that this country needs change then you are simply wasting a vote in Nader. Make it count for something. Voting for Nader is like not voting at all - it's simply a cop out for making a true decision. I mean - define what you mean by "third party support" - what does it gain for this third party?
Do you really think Ralph Nader would make a good president?

Saying that voting for a third party candidate is like not voting at all is arrogant and the reason why this country will never get away from a two party system.  Even if you vote for someone that has no chance at winning, if you believe they are the best candidate for the job it's not a cop out.  Simply resigning yourself to the fact that you have to choose between two options is absurd.  Regarding Nader & Barr & Paul and the rest of the small candidates, I don't see how having more options is a bad thing.  Voting for them is not like voting for my uncle or Mickey Mouse.

When I said third party support, I meant in regards to a third party receiving recognition once it gets over a certain percentage of votes (I think it's like 5 or 10% depending on the state).  I think Ralph Nader wouldn't be any worse than what we've had lately and I'd prefer him over McCain (I know there is plenty of ill-will directed at him after 2000 but I never bought into that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" line of logic).  All of this being said, I probably won't actually vote for him but I don't think it's as ridiculous a notion as both parties like to make it seem.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 10, 2008, 11:16:49 AM
I think the 2 party system is screwed for sure and I don't mean to sound arrogant but the only way you can truly affect change in this current political climate is to work from within. I think the only way you will find a legitimate third party is when you get a splinter group from one of the 2 big ones. Hopefully this group will contain enough proponents of change and a desire to break the two party system that they will be successfull - this has to a willful attempt to break the stranglehold the elephants and donkeys have on the gateways to a political career. Money will be the key - setting up a grassroots movement that will generate enough cash to make a 3rd party viable.

I believe that the best way to do this is from the inside.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 11:19:06 AM
I think the 2 party system is screwed for sure and I don't mean to sound arrogant but the only way you can truly affect change in this current political climate is to work from within. I think the only way you will find a legitimate third party is when you get a splinter group from one of the 2 big ones. Hopefully this group will contain enough proponents of change and a desire to break the two party system that they will be successfull - this has to a willful attempt to break the stranglehold the elephants and donkeys have on the gateways to a political career. Money will be the key - setting up a grassroots movement that will generate enough cash to make a 3rd party viable.

I believe that the best way to do this is from the inside.

Joe Lieberman for President!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 10, 2008, 11:19:46 AM
I should also add that if I lived in a swing state or a heavily red state, I wouldn't even consider a third party option. I think it's safe to say that Obama would do just fine in Illinois with or without my support (because let's face it, if he can't win Illinois by a wide margin, he's doing something really wrong).

An unrelated question for you Martin.  How do you feel about all of the last minute attempts to dredge up all the Ayers and ACORN dirt? Do you think it will be effective in making the undecided voter think twice about Obama and the company he keeps (obviously this is a drum being beat heavily by Fox News and I haven't seen it mentioned too much on the other news sources)?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 10, 2008, 11:21:14 AM
I think the 2 party system is screwed for sure and I don't mean to sound arrogant but the only way you can truly affect change in this current political climate is to work from within. I think the only way you will find a legitimate third party is when you get a splinter group from one of the 2 big ones. Hopefully this group will contain enough proponents of change and a desire to break the two party system that they will be successfull - this has to a willful attempt to break the stranglehold the elephants and donkeys have on the gateways to a political career. Money will be the key - setting up a grassroots movement that will generate enough cash to make a 3rd party viable.

I believe that the best way to do this is from the inside.

Alright, I like this response a lot more than your first one (and I'm inclined to agree with you).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on October 10, 2008, 11:23:57 AM
Any scientist will tell you that bi-polar systems are inherently unstable.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: edgar00 on October 10, 2008, 11:29:17 AM
I'm fascinated by this discussion about third party voting. It is true that in the eyes of many, the political arena in the United States is is open to only two parties (Democrats and Republicans). This is simply not true however. Ron Paul, Nader and others all have at least some kind of support, so they aren't non-existent. It must be said that so long as voters continue to abide by the philosophy that says third parties don't need votes because it isn't worth it, the 'two party' system will only perpetuate itself.

There is a similar, although not identical situation in Canada. The Liberals and Conservatives are the two traditional parties vying for power, with the NDP finishing third. Recently, the Green Party has made certain inroads on the political scene in terms of media attention (not seats in the House). I'm hearing a lot of people around here complaining that they would like to vote Green but won't because they don't stand a chance to win the riding in question. It's the same situation as with the United States elections. Set the traditional voting philosophy aside and things may change.

It's all about a collective effort by the electorate that can, if it wants to, to change the political landscape.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 10, 2008, 11:41:40 AM
I should also add that if I lived in a swing state or a heavily red state, I wouldn't even consider a third party option. I think it's safe to say that Obama would do just fine in Illinois with or without my support (because let's face it, if he can't win Illinois by a wide margin, he's doing something really wrong).

An unrelated question for you Martin.  How do you feel about all of the last minute attempts to dredge up all the Ayers and ACORN dirt? Do you think it will be effective in making the undecided voter think twice about Obama and the company he keeps (obviously this is a drum being beat heavily by Fox News and I haven't seen it mentioned too much on the other news sources)?

I can understand the IL thing and you are right - if he can't wn there then he is in trouble. By that reasoning I should vote Nader here (AZ) as write in at the very least. But I think it will be closer than a lot of people think here. I see a lot of support on the roads (I use a very informal car magnet survey) for Obama. I think that the polls are going to be skewed unless they are hitting the mobile phones out there. If a lot of young people actually get out to vote this yr then you might see a surprising change in the way it goes. I still think McCain will win (AZ) but it's closer than people think.

As for the Ayers thing - I think it's a sad commentary on this country that there is no forgiveness out there. This was 40 yrs ago and by the standards being set by anyone seriously considering this as a negative, no one can ever change. Isn't this the country where change is a good thing?
Once a criminal, always a criminal...?
I think this line of reasoning is very dangerous as there are very few people out there that don't have any skeletons in their closets. Be them arrests or just "indescretions" - most us have all done something that is frowned upon. So if we have to cover everything up because we're guilty by association, then don't we (as a society) make it harder to conduct our political affairs with any sort of transparency?
For myself, I rather have someone who has been around the block, so to speak, and isn't naive. That doesn't mean that they have to be former heroin junkies and violent activists but just people who know how to deal their own dark side and other's. It can be an ugly place out there...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 10, 2008, 11:45:41 AM
He sounds like an ass, judging by his Wikipedia page.  Good to see he grew up, but that doesn't excuse his past.. particularly since he seems to have somehow gotten off scot free.

as he continues to be news in the election cycle (much to his distaste), it doesn't seem too outrageous to point folks to a statement of support (http://www.supportbillayers.org/) for one of my committee-persons, the beautifully humane bill ayers

how so?  i zipped through the article and found nothing very assy.  i'm not sure if the article mentioned it, but him getting off "scot free" was due to years of police and fbi harassment and illegal activities.  because i zipped through the article, perhaps i also missed the fact that nobody was ever injured during their bombings - aside from their comrades building a bomb.  their bombings were meant to be symbolic statements against (namely) the Vietnam war-machine.  the bombs were small and always called in to evacuate the area.

frankly, i wish more people today would be politically active like the Weathermen were.  and i don't mean people doing things like killing abortion providers - though at least McSame and Palin stand up for those types.

funny that the Ayers non-issue has become newsworthy whereas the more recent, repulsive, and relevant work of McCain in the Keating Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5) has gone largely uncommented upon.  perhaps McSame would make the best president as he has the relevant experience in croneyism that defrauds tax-payers for suspect-to-illegal banking practices that the US clearly needs some help navigating.

are you really one of those?  (i guess i had my ayn rand phase when i was in high school :P )

and what would you call yr current phase? ;)

not sure, i'll let you know in 10-20 years if i'm still around.  clearly, i'm very dis-satisfied with corporate socialism (or whatever one might want to call it) that is aggressively at work here in the states - supported by lap dogs Obama and McCain.

i'll likely vote for the ticket headed by a black person and supported by a woman:

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa216/skjerva/cynthia-rosa.jpg)

vote your convictions
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 11:51:17 AM
The 3 ways I see the cration of a viable 3rd party entering the US system - i.e. winning a seat in congress - are 1) how marty laid it down, the splinter/break away method that Ariel Sharon pulled off so well in Israel, 2) A regional issue party that gains a deep foothold in the southeast, north east, appalachia, califiornia, pac-nw wherever.  If a regional issue becomes so strong as to rally the electorate around and encourage rank breaking between national and local views of the major parties vote splitting them and gaining converts to a new 3rd party.  They start winning local elections and gain a foot-hold from which to spring to national prominence.  The 3rd way would be a global party alliance of some sort.  How many countries have a "Green Party" now?  You will never get the $ from this country to fund a third party run because corporate sponsorship is very happy with the way things run -  but if there is some form of Global PAC that can fund and support candidates from an international level this may get the ball rolling.  Though i'm not 100% on the legality of this one with regard to election and fund raising laws.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: edgar00 on October 10, 2008, 12:14:39 PM
interesting post _Keith_.

While I don't what it would take for a splinter movement to occur in one of the two major parties, I did find your comments on alliance creation interesting. It worked in Canada after all. Back in 2001-2002, the Progressive Conservatives, after years of being in the spotlight, were down for the count. The Canadian Alliance was gaining popularity, but only in the west. Since both parties had very similar political ideologies, they decided to come together and become one. The birth of the Conservative Party of Canada was official.

Who's governing party in Canada as we speak (current election campaign notwithstanding)?.... The Conservative Party.


The regional party idea is a bit iffy. From what I understand, there are some stark philosophical differences between the various regions in the United States. What you don't want with a regional party, if your goal is to go national, is to remain a fringe party, unwilling to be open to other interpretations of how things should be run. There are some examples of that in Canada as well and  can tell you right now that they'll never get elected. The key here would be to have a regional philosophy that could be translate well at the national level.

Fascinating discussion. I love this stuff.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 10, 2008, 12:23:32 PM
after the panel: MILK (http://www.thepaincomics.com/)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 10, 2008, 12:23:46 PM
Joe Lieberman for President!

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 10, 2008, 12:30:43 PM
Joe Lieberman for President!

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

pixote

I think there a long of people that voted for him 2004 that want to punch him in his kermit the frog face.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 10, 2008, 12:42:56 PM
Joe Lieberman for President!

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

pixote

I think there a long of people that voted for him 2004 that want to punch him in his kermit the frog face.

If Lieberman looked like Kermit, I'd like him.

There's only one character he looks like:
(http://www.cartoon-secrets.com/Photos/DroopyDog3.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on October 10, 2008, 12:50:31 PM
CINECAST! Joe Lieberman.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 01:03:23 PM
Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 10, 2008, 01:15:48 PM
Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

Lieberman in 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTJbqKuDDM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTJbqKuDDM)

Lieberman now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8WyDgn2hXQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8WyDgn2hXQ)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 01:28:49 PM
Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 10, 2008, 01:33:58 PM
He sounds like an ass, judging by his Wikipedia page.  Good to see he grew up, but that doesn't excuse his past.. particularly since he seems to have somehow gotten off scot free.

This is exactly the attitude I was speaking of in my previous post.

At what point is this man allowed to move from his mistakes in the past?
Is he to be considered a pariah because of his past associations and not be allowed in the public arena?
When is a person forgiven for their past and allowed to move ahead?

Personally - I have a stake in these questions. I made some mistakes in my past. I have a felony possession charge on my record but I did my punishment and I learned my lesson - should bar me forever from ever serving the public?
Or do I deserve to be allowed to put this behind me?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on October 10, 2008, 01:38:52 PM
I disliked Lieberman since I had any idea of what he was doing. When us Conneticutioners tried to get Ned Lamont to take his place he pandered to the Republican vote so that he could stay in the Senate. That's kinda CINECAST!ed up.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 10, 2008, 01:43:49 PM
I wish I had more time to participate in this - I will have to catch up later tonight...sigh...I actually have to work right now.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 01:56:35 PM
I disliked Lieberman since I had any idea of what he was doing. When us Conneticutioners tried to get Ned Lamont to take his place he pandered to the Republican vote so that he could stay in the Senate. That's kinda CINECAST!ed up.

You aren't elected by a party - you are elected by the people.  When a majority thinks you'd do a better job than some party hack I think its a good thing.  The connecticut democratic party is what was CINECAST!ed up in that election.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: edgar00 on October 10, 2008, 01:58:49 PM
The video clips of Lieberman posted earlier are good example of towing the party line. But when does towing the party line go to far?  I am not terribly familiar with Lieberman but from what I gather he's suddenly turned his back on the Democrats for various (or a few specific) ideological reasons. Was he merely towing the party line back in '06, all the while keeping to himself some ideological positions that would never have gotten him elected? Or is this rather a new Lieberman with a new philosophy?

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 10, 2008, 02:02:03 PM
Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

How about when the party helped fund and run his campaign to run again as senator? When Barack Obama campaigned for him when he was up again. And when the entire democratic party nominated him as VP in 2000? Parties don't elect people, but they sure as heck help.

He turned his back on a party that helped him get elected and then bashed their candidate, who was someone key in his reelection as senator and he had praised many times on national TV. I call that hypocrisy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on October 10, 2008, 02:08:36 PM
I disliked Lieberman since I had any idea of what he was doing. When us Conneticutioners tried to get Ned Lamont to take his place he pandered to the Republican vote so that he could stay in the Senate. That's kinda CINECAST!ed up.

You aren't elected by a party - you are elected by the people.  When a majority thinks you'd do a better job than some party hack I think its a good thing.  The connecticut democratic party is what was CINECAST!ed up in that election.

That doesn't stop me from thinking that he just wanted to get back in the Senate any way he could, no matter what any of his original supporters thought.

I have a friend who said that a lot of Republicans voted for him just so Ned Lamont wouldn't win. They didn't care if Lieberman actually had any kind of shared views, they just didn't like Lamont.

I also don't get any kind of warm feeling from him. It seems to me that he just wants to keep his job no matter what the consequences for his state.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 02:33:40 PM
Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

How about when the party helped fund and run his campaign to run again as senator? When Barack Obama campaigned for him when he was up again. And when the entire democratic party nominated him as VP in 2000? Parties don't elect people, but they sure as heck help.

He turned his back on a party that helped him get elected and then bashed their candidate, who was someone key in his reelection as senator and he had praised many times on national TV. I call that hypocrisy.

they didn't fund his 2006 campaign - the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party funded it

Quote
"Connecticut for Lieberman is a new political party that carries on what used to be the ideals of the Democratic Party: A liberal approach to domestic issues coupled with a strong commitment to a robust foreign policy. New members who subscribe to this platform are welcome."

The dems funded the campaign of Ned Lamont.  Obama didn't support him, Hillary didn't support him, Dean didn't support him.  They all all turned their back on him not the other way around. Someone that they praised 6 years earlier for VP. I call that hypocrisy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 02:56:10 PM
The video clips of Lieberman posted earlier are good example of towing the party line. But when does towing the party line go to far?  I am not terribly familiar with Lieberman but from what I gather he's suddenly turned his back on the Democrats for various (or a few specific) ideological reasons. Was he merely towing the party line back in '06, all the while keeping to himself some ideological positions that would never have gotten him elected? Or is this rather a new Lieberman with a new philosophy?

He took a stand on one issue -the conduct of the Iraq war- that was different from the democratic stance at the time.  this lead a collection of anti-war PACs and bloggers to raise support for an anti-war candidate.  Primary rules being what they are - not a gauge of the electorate but of the most vocal (ne radical) members of a party to select who will then run in a general election where you have to win the support of a plurality of the whole constituency, they narrowly selected Lamont.  Lieberman decided that he would press on to the general as an independent candidate where he won the general election over Lamont without the support of the Dems.

I think all politicians do that (toe the line) when they have personal beliefs that conflict with those of their party.  They rarely speak about these issues - unless they are in a position without consequence.  Taking the two current PA senators as an example.  Bob Casey is our junior senator, he is a staunch catholic and pro-life... but he is a democrat.  Thus they tolerate him but he will never rise to prominence in the party and would likely lose a primary campaign to a pro-choice candidate if he made a big deal of pushing this view.  The reason he is in office is name recognition - the Casey's are a very respected PA political institution.  Arlen Spector on the other hand is a classic northeastern moderate Republican who will never be defeated in this state.  He is an institution unto himself and can say what he wants with impunity.  The christian coalition has called for his head over some of his comments on evolution and the fact that he is pro-choice (but also the head Rep on the judiciary committee - who approve judges to the nations courts).  He rarely has to toe anything and can thus differ with them whenever he wishes because they can't defeat him in an election.

Junior - every politician in the end is interested in keeping themselves in office as its is how they earn a living.  Sometimes this means toeing the line, sometimes they can say what they want (Barney Frank is now on the legalize it tip!)  It all depends on many factors.  Whenever you get a warm feeling about a candidate - just pull the opposite lever. Its the safest thing to do. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Osprey on October 10, 2008, 03:11:59 PM
You do realize that Lieberman is an independent because he lost his last primary election to some total nonentity from Greenwich, if I remember correctly, I think largely because of the war.  Lieberamn absolutely walked all over him in the general election as an independent.  If that happened to me, I might not be that thrilled with the Democratic party.

Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

How about when the party helped fund and run his campaign to run again as senator? When Barack Obama campaigned for him when he was up again. And when the entire democratic party nominated him as VP in 2000? Parties don't elect people, but they sure as heck help.

He turned his back on a party that helped him get elected and then bashed their candidate, who was someone key in his reelection as senator and he had praised many times on national TV. I call that hypocrisy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 10, 2008, 03:15:04 PM
Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

How about when the party helped fund and run his campaign to run again as senator? When Barack Obama campaigned for him when he was up again. And when the entire democratic party nominated him as VP in 2000? Parties don't elect people, but they sure as heck help.

He turned his back on a party that helped him get elected and then bashed their candidate, who was someone key in his reelection as senator and he had praised many times on national TV. I call that hypocrisy.

they didn't fund his 2006 campaign - the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party funded it

Quote
"Connecticut for Lieberman is a new political party that carries on what used to be the ideals of the Democratic Party: A liberal approach to domestic issues coupled with a strong commitment to a robust foreign policy. New members who subscribe to this platform are welcome."

The dems funded the campaign of Ned Lamont.  Obama didn't support him, Hillary didn't support him, Dean didn't support him.  They all all turned their back on him not the other way around. Someone that they praised 6 years earlier for VP. I call that hypocrisy.

You got me on the funding. But Obama and Clinton did infact support him:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/)

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Osprey on October 10, 2008, 03:22:43 PM
Yes, I'm sure this grand group of guys and girls making NAIL bombs were really not looking to hurt anybody. In fact, I came up with that sentiment before reading this:

"On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of an officers' dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[18] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated due to a wiring malfunction. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion. Cathy Wilkerson and Kathy Boudin escaped unharmed..... An FBI report later stated that the group had possessed sufficient amounts of explosive to "level ... both sides of the street".[19]

The bomb preparations have been pointed out by critics of the claim that the Weatherman group did not try to take lives with its bombings. Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003, "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."[18]"

Just because the FBI was harassing the Weathermen doesn't make what they did less illegal- they're just lucky they had a way to get off.  There are ways of getting people involved that don't involve blowing things up. Also, from what I've read, it's quite questionable how much Ayers really regrets.  Where's the line- what if this guy had actually "accidentally" killed somebody with his Haymarket bomb?  Could he be rehabilitated then?

He sounds like an ass, judging by his Wikipedia page.  Good to see he grew up, but that doesn't excuse his past.. particularly since he seems to have somehow gotten off scot free.

as he continues to be news in the election cycle (much to his distaste), it doesn't seem too outrageous to point folks to a statement of support (http://www.supportbillayers.org/) for one of my committee-persons, the beautifully humane bill ayers

how so?  i zipped through the article and found nothing very assy.  i'm not sure if the article mentioned it, but him getting off "scot free" was due to years of police and fbi harassment and illegal activities.  because i zipped through the article, perhaps i also missed the fact that nobody was ever injured during their bombings - aside from their comrades building a bomb.  their bombings were meant to be symbolic statements against (namely) the Vietnam war-machine.  the bombs were small and always called in to evacuate the area.

frankly, i wish more people today would be politically active like the Weathermen were.  and i don't mean people doing things like killing abortion providers - though at least McSame and Palin stand up for those types.

funny that the Ayers non-issue has become newsworthy whereas the more recent, repulsive, and relevant work of McCain in the Keating Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5) has gone largely uncommented upon.  perhaps McSame would make the best president as he has the relevant experience in croneyism that defrauds tax-payers for suspect-to-illegal banking practices that the US clearly needs some help navigating.

are you really one of those?  (i guess i had my ayn rand phase when i was in high school :P )

and what would you call yr current phase? ;)

not sure, i'll let you know in 10-20 years if i'm still around.  clearly, i'm very dis-satisfied with corporate socialism (or whatever one might want to call it) that is aggressively at work here in the states - supported by lap dogs Obama and McCain.

i'll likely vote for the ticket headed by a black person and supported by a woman:

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa216/skjerva/cynthia-rosa.jpg)

vote your convictions
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 03:30:56 PM

You got me on the funding. But Obama and Clinton did infact support him:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/)

This was at the outset of the Primary election - by the general they'd all jumped ship.

Only 5 Dem senators endorsed Lieberman in the general.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 10, 2008, 03:45:05 PM
You said they didn't support him, I'm just saying at one time during his election they were ardent supporters. Of course before he became an independent, but I don't know why he ever called himself a Democrat when he's conservative on so many issues. Since it was mostly registered Democrats that voted for him in 2000 on the Democratic party ticket I think the party has every right to be mad. It wasn't just going against issues it's going against people who supported him.

And again I refer to the two videos I posted. He did an absolute 360 on his own party first.


You got me on the funding. But Obama and Clinton did infact support him:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/)

This was at the outset of the Primary election - by the general they'd all jumped ship.

Only 5 Dem senators endorsed Lieberman in the general.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 04:08:34 PM
You said they didn't support him, I'm just saying at one time during his election they were ardent supporters. Of course before he became an independent, but I don't know why he ever called himself a Democrat when he's conservative on so many issues. Since it was mostly registered Democrats that voted for him in 2000 on the Democratic party ticket I think the party has every right to be mad. It wasn't just going against issues it's going against people who supported him.

And again I refer to the two videos I posted. He did an absolute 360 on his own party first.


You got me on the funding. But Obama and Clinton did infact support him:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/)

This was at the outset of the Primary election - by the general they'd all jumped ship.

Only 5 Dem senators endorsed Lieberman in the general.

He called himself a democrat because you pretty much have to be a member of one of those two parties to even have a chance.  However a Democrat in Conn can mean holding very different positions than a democrat in Seattle or Austin.  There is a large regional difference amongst the parties and a very strong independant streak that runs thru certain areas like New England or the Intermountain West.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 10, 2008, 05:08:17 PM
You said they didn't support him, I'm just saying at one time during his election they were ardent supporters. Of course before he became an independent, but I don't know why he ever called himself a Democrat when he's conservative on so many issues. Since it was mostly registered Democrats that voted for him in 2000 on the Democratic party ticket I think the party has every right to be mad. It wasn't just going against issues it's going against people who supported him.

And again I refer to the two videos I posted. He did an absolute 360 on his own party first.


You got me on the funding. But Obama and Clinton did infact support him:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/)

This was at the outset of the Primary election - by the general they'd all jumped ship.

Only 5 Dem senators endorsed Lieberman in the general.

He called himself a democrat because you pretty much have to be a member of one of those two parties to even have a chance.  However a Democrat in Conn can mean holding very different positions than a democrat in Seattle or Austin.  There is a large regional difference amongst the parties and a very strong independant streak that runs thru certain areas like New England or the Intermountain West.

So he affiliated himself with Democratic party so he could get a elected. So in other words he used the party to get elected? He lied about his ideology so he could benefit? I think a lot of people are allowed to be mad then.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 10, 2008, 05:25:53 PM
You said they didn't support him, I'm just saying at one time during his election they were ardent supporters. Of course before he became an independent, but I don't know why he ever called himself a Democrat when he's conservative on so many issues. Since it was mostly registered Democrats that voted for him in 2000 on the Democratic party ticket I think the party has every right to be mad. It wasn't just going against issues it's going against people who supported him.

And again I refer to the two videos I posted. He did an absolute 360 on his own party first.


You got me on the funding. But Obama and Clinton did infact support him:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/)

This was at the outset of the Primary election - by the general they'd all jumped ship.

Only 5 Dem senators endorsed Lieberman in the general.

He called himself a democrat because you pretty much have to be a member of one of those two parties to even have a chance.  However a Democrat in Conn can mean holding very different positions than a democrat in Seattle or Austin.  There is a large regional difference amongst the parties and a very strong independant streak that runs thru certain areas like New England or the Intermountain West.

So he affiliated himself with Democratic party so he could get a elected. So in other words he used the party to get elected? He lied about his ideology so he could benefit? I think a lot of people are allowed to be mad then.

His ideology in most instances did and still does match up with the democratic party.  Without a party affiliation you cannot get elected in this country.  Were they a corporation they would be sued by the gov't and broken up as an oligarchy.  Given the choice of job or no job, you go with job and fudge your resume.  Anyone who gets mad when the person is able to throw off the party is naive or terribly misinformed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 10, 2008, 07:53:33 PM
You said they didn't support him, I'm just saying at one time during his election they were ardent supporters. Of course before he became an independent, but I don't know why he ever called himself a Democrat when he's conservative on so many issues. Since it was mostly registered Democrats that voted for him in 2000 on the Democratic party ticket I think the party has every right to be mad. It wasn't just going against issues it's going against people who supported him.

And again I refer to the two videos I posted. He did an absolute 360 on his own party first.


You got me on the funding. But Obama and Clinton did infact support him:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/)

This was at the outset of the Primary election - by the general they'd all jumped ship.

Only 5 Dem senators endorsed Lieberman in the general.

He called himself a democrat because you pretty much have to be a member of one of those two parties to even have a chance.  However a Democrat in Conn can mean holding very different positions than a democrat in Seattle or Austin.  There is a large regional difference amongst the parties and a very strong independant streak that runs thru certain areas like New England or the Intermountain West.

So he affiliated himself with Democratic party so he could get a elected. So in other words he used the party to get elected? He lied about his ideology so he could benefit? I think a lot of people are allowed to be mad then.

His ideology in most instances did and still does match up with the democratic party.  Without a party affiliation you cannot get elected in this country.  Were they a corporation they would be sued by the gov't and broken up as an oligarchy.  Given the choice of job or no job, you go with job and fudge your resume.  Anyone who gets mad when the person is able to throw off the party is naive or terribly misinformed.

I'm sorry you think I'm naive and or misinformed, (seeing as I'm one of those mad people with a pitchfork and a lynching rope  ;) ). But I guess it depends if Lieberman is conservative, by the issues you look at, such as the war, education, social security, and crime.

But it's hard to see how Lieberman did NOT betray the Democratic party after: taking advantage of the party's connections to benefit and further his career, to claim independence, and endorse the opponet of someone who had campaigned for him, and he had been endorsing for two years previously.

But maybe we should agree to disagree.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 10, 2008, 08:20:46 PM
This discussion looks interesting, but all the excessive quoting hurts my head to much to read it.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 10, 2008, 08:35:41 PM
This discussion looks interesting, but all the excessive quoting hurts my head to much to read it.

pixote

Is this better?  ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Osprey on October 11, 2008, 08:56:35 PM
I have no issue with Lieberman running as an independent.  I didn't particularly like him, but not because of the war- the party in CT seemed like it really moved away from him, not the other way around.  He is way too liberal to ever be a candidate for national office on the Republican ticket- in fact McCain would have loved to have Lieberman as his running mate, but it would have never flown with the base.  The fact that Lieberman could walk all over Lamont in the general election leads me to believe that there was something particularly weird about the democratic primary that year.

Something definitely needs to be done about special interests, though.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on October 12, 2008, 03:06:57 PM

I'm sorry you think I'm naive and or misinformed, (seeing as I'm one of those mad people with a pitchfork and a lynching rope  ;) ). But I guess it depends if Lieberman is conservative, by the issues you look at, such as the war, education, social security, and crime.

But it's hard to see how Lieberman did NOT betray the Democratic party after: taking advantage of the party's connections to benefit and further his career, to claim independence, and endorse the opponet of someone who had campaigned for him, and he had been endorsing for two years previously.

But maybe we should agree to disagree.

Here's my question to you though: why is that a bad thing? There are dozens of Democrats in Congress who don't agree with much of the party's platform. Numerous Democratic senators and representatives are anti-abortion, pro death penalty, anti-gun control, pro deregulation, etc. Both the Republican party and the Democratic party have often advertised themselves as a big tent, supposedly welcome to multiple viewpoints and ideals (regardless of how much they actually mean it). Don't we want our elected officials to actually act upon their own ideals, as opposed to the ideals of a party? We elect individual person after all, we do not elect parties. So Lieberman endorses McCain, that's his choice. Why should he endorse Obama simply because the senator from Illinois campaigned for him? In an ideal world wouldn't everybody actually endorse the candidate they think would make a better president, instead of endorsing the candidate they owe a favor to?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 12, 2008, 06:36:37 PM

I'm sorry you think I'm naive and or misinformed, (seeing as I'm one of those mad people with a pitchfork and a lynching rope  ;) ). But I guess it depends if Lieberman is conservative, by the issues you look at, such as the war, education, social security, and crime.

But it's hard to see how Lieberman did NOT betray the Democratic party after: taking advantage of the party's connections to benefit and further his career, to claim independence, and endorse the opponet of someone who had campaigned for him, and he had been endorsing for two years previously.

But maybe we should agree to disagree.

Here's my question to you though: why is that a bad thing? There are dozens of Democrats in Congress who don't agree with much of the party's platform. Numerous Democratic senators and representatives are anti-abortion, pro death penalty, anti-gun control, pro deregulation, etc. Both the Republican party and the Democratic party have often advertised themselves as a big tent, supposedly welcome to multiple viewpoints and ideals (regardless of how much they actually mean it). Don't we want our elected officials to actually act upon their own ideals, as opposed to the ideals of a party? We elect individual person after all, we do not elect parties. So Lieberman endorses McCain, that's his choice. Why should he endorse Obama simply because the senator from Illinois campaigned for him? In an ideal world wouldn't everybody actually endorse the candidate they think would make a better president, instead of endorsing the candidate they owe a favor to?

My problem is not the difference of opinion between Lieberman and the Democrats, but that 1. he used the Democratic party to help him get elected for years, the same party that nominated him as VP. 2. that I've watched him campaign for Obama before he even started running for Prez, and now only after he leaves the party he has the gull to support Mccain. To me that shows he didn't have the spine before to say what he really thought, or he is incredibly two-faced. Which either way to me as a former supporter is maddening, because I feel like I really knew the man politically.

But that's just me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 12, 2008, 06:47:22 PM

I'm sorry you think I'm naive and or misinformed, (seeing as I'm one of those mad people with a pitchfork and a lynching rope  ;) ). But I guess it depends if Lieberman is conservative, by the issues you look at, such as the war, education, social security, and crime.

But it's hard to see how Lieberman did NOT betray the Democratic party after: taking advantage of the party's connections to benefit and further his career, to claim independence, and endorse the opponet of someone who had campaigned for him, and he had been endorsing for two years previously.

But maybe we should agree to disagree.

Here's my question to you though: why is that a bad thing? There are dozens of Democrats in Congress who don't agree with much of the party's platform. Numerous Democratic senators and representatives are anti-abortion, pro death penalty, anti-gun control, pro deregulation, etc. Both the Republican party and the Democratic party have often advertised themselves as a big tent, supposedly welcome to multiple viewpoints and ideals (regardless of how much they actually mean it). Don't we want our elected officials to actually act upon their own ideals, as opposed to the ideals of a party? We elect individual person after all, we do not elect parties. So Lieberman endorses McCain, that's his choice. Why should he endorse Obama simply because the senator from Illinois campaigned for him? In an ideal world wouldn't everybody actually endorse the candidate they think would make a better president, instead of endorsing the candidate they owe a favor to?

My problem is not the difference of opinion between Lieberman and the Democrats, but that 1. he used the Democratic party to help him get elected for years, the same party that nominated him as VP. 2. that I've watched him campaign for Obama before he even started running for Prez, and now only after he leaves the party he has the gull to support Mccain. To me that shows he didn't have the spine before to say what he really thought, or he is incredibly two-faced. Which either way to me as a former supporter is maddening, because I feel like I really knew the man politically.

But that's just me.

Then yes, you were misinformed about his actual political beliefs.  The using is a mute point as it is necessity - people use the party, the party uses people.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 12, 2008, 08:56:42 PM

I'm sorry you think I'm naive and or misinformed, (seeing as I'm one of those mad people with a pitchfork and a lynching rope  ;) ). But I guess it depends if Lieberman is conservative, by the issues you look at, such as the war, education, social security, and crime.

But it's hard to see how Lieberman did NOT betray the Democratic party after: taking advantage of the party's connections to benefit and further his career, to claim independence, and endorse the opponet of someone who had campaigned for him, and he had been endorsing for two years previously.

But maybe we should agree to disagree.

Here's my question to you though: why is that a bad thing? There are dozens of Democrats in Congress who don't agree with much of the party's platform. Numerous Democratic senators and representatives are anti-abortion, pro death penalty, anti-gun control, pro deregulation, etc. Both the Republican party and the Democratic party have often advertised themselves as a big tent, supposedly welcome to multiple viewpoints and ideals (regardless of how much they actually mean it). Don't we want our elected officials to actually act upon their own ideals, as opposed to the ideals of a party? We elect individual person after all, we do not elect parties. So Lieberman endorses McCain, that's his choice. Why should he endorse Obama simply because the senator from Illinois campaigned for him? In an ideal world wouldn't everybody actually endorse the candidate they think would make a better president, instead of endorsing the candidate they owe a favor to?

My problem is not the difference of opinion between Lieberman and the Democrats, but that 1. he used the Democratic party to help him get elected for years, the same party that nominated him as VP. 2. that I've watched him campaign for Obama before he even started running for Prez, and now only after he leaves the party he has the gull to support Mccain. To me that shows he didn't have the spine before to say what he really thought, or he is incredibly two-faced. Which either way to me as a former supporter is maddening, because I feel like I really knew the man politically.

But that's just me.

Then yes, you were misinformed about his actual political beliefs.  The using is a mute point as it is necessity - people use the party, the party uses people.

Well I'm one of those silly people who thinks having integrity is not having to use anybody. But that's just little old naive me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 12, 2008, 08:58:45 PM
a mute point

:D

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ses on October 12, 2008, 09:01:21 PM
a mute point

:D

pixote

Well that was unnecessary  ;) (this is first, and probably only, installment of ses' generic joke of the week)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 13, 2008, 02:43:58 AM
a mute point

:D

pixote

Well that was unnecessary  ;) (this is first, and probably only, installment of ses' generic joke of the week)

i thought it was funny the first time round ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 13, 2008, 06:11:24 PM
Hey, promo pics (http://thesuperficial.com/2008/10/sarah_paylin_makes_a_porno.php) for Nailin' Paylin.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Kevin Shields on October 13, 2008, 10:21:57 PM
Hey, promo pics (http://thesuperficial.com/2008/10/sarah_paylin_makes_a_porno.php) for Nailin' Paylin.

I wouldn't mind seeing that.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 13, 2008, 11:01:15 PM
really?  c'mon people 

as much as i dislike palin, i am extremely tired of misogynist framing of her as a sexual object
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 13, 2008, 11:55:01 PM
Plus, who'd want to see a pit bull in a porno?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 14, 2008, 11:09:34 AM
Plus, who'd want to see a pit bull in a porno?

She's more of a chihuahua. :D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 14, 2008, 11:18:59 AM
With lipstick.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 14, 2008, 01:46:39 PM
really?  c'mon people 

as much as i dislike palin, i am extremely tired of misogynist framing of her as a sexual object

Pshaw.  I'm hardly a misogynist, and my first thought was hey, whod'a thought, a hottt Republican?

Of course, the revelation of her personality has taken the bloom off the rose.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 14, 2008, 01:49:49 PM
really?  c'mon people 

as much as i dislike palin, i am extremely tired of misogynist framing of her as a sexual object

Pshaw.  I'm hardly a misogynist, and my first thought was hey, whod'a thought, a hottt Republican?

Of course, the revelation of her personality has taken the bloom off the rose.

FoxNews has plenty of attractive anchors.  But as you said Colleen, once they start to talk, game over.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 14, 2008, 01:51:25 PM
FoxNews has plenty of attractive anchors.  But as you said Colleen, once they start to talk, game over.

Guy who's not Steve Doocy?

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 14, 2008, 01:54:25 PM
FoxNews has plenty of attractive anchors.  But as you said Colleen, once they start to talk, game over.

Guy who's not Steve Doocy?

pixote

HE HAS A NAME.

I can never remember what it is though? Brian maybe?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 14, 2008, 02:02:18 PM
really?  c'mon people 

as much as i dislike palin, i am extremely tired of misogynist framing of her as a sexual object

Pshaw.  I'm hardly a misogynist, and my first thought was hey, whod'a thought, a hottt Republican?

Of course, the revelation of her personality has taken the bloom off the rose.

FoxNews has plenty of attractive anchors.  But as you said Colleen, once they start to talk, game over.

The Barbie doll anchor look never did it for me.  I think the hook for Palin was the glasses + red hair + feisty seeming.  Implied smart & spunky, 2 of my favorite things.  I was soon disabused.

Of course now I have to point out my true new TV girlfriend, who is both super smart and spunky:  Rachel Maddow. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 14, 2008, 02:03:22 PM

Of course now I have to point out my true new TV girlfriend, who is both super smart and spunky:  Rachel Maddow. 

She's very good.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 14, 2008, 02:53:47 PM
And hottt!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on October 14, 2008, 08:45:42 PM
really?  c'mon people 

as much as i dislike palin, i am extremely tired of misogynist framing of her as a sexual object

Pshaw.  I'm hardly a misogynist, and my first thought was hey, whod'a thought, a hottt Republican?

Of course, the revelation of her personality has taken the bloom off the rose.

FoxNews has plenty of attractive anchors.  But as you said Colleen, once they start to talk, game over.

The Barbie doll anchor look never did it for me.  I think the hook for Palin was the glasses + red hair + feisty seeming.  Implied smart & spunky, 2 of my favorite things.  I was soon disabused.

Of course now I have to point out my true new TV girlfriend, who is both super smart and spunky:  Rachel Maddow. 

She annoys the crap out of me with her line, "Talk me down." Not only that, but appearance wise she needs an upgrade: that moused up Melanie Griffith Working Girl hair? that frosted pink lipstick? power suit sholder pads? Certainly there's an unemployed professional stylist out there that could get their hands on her and work some magic. Has she ever heard of a lipstick lesbian?

(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081003/capt.e6f1b9528b4e47ea82129669f0361ea0.tv_rachel_maddow_nyet650.jpg)


(http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes3/WorkingGirl20.jpeg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 14, 2008, 11:59:05 PM
So today was incredibly disheartening.  First NPR interviews people in North Carolina talking about how they are voting for Obama because he seems more presidential and seems to know what he's talking about (never agreeing nor disagreeing on any issue) the those daily show clips of the crazy old woman who is voting for McCain and very pissed that Obama is an Arab?  I hate all of you. ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 15, 2008, 12:13:08 AM
Face it. Most people treat elections (particularly American elections) like a glorified student body election. It all comes down to the popular guy.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 15, 2008, 12:14:52 AM
This (http://jalopnik.com/5062960/barack-obama-advertising-inside-online-racing-video-games-attempts-to-pick-up-crucial-xbox-360-vote) is pretty awesome though... but what happens when the ghost in the machine starts going negative?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on October 15, 2008, 08:13:07 PM
joe the plumber drinking game?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 15, 2008, 11:48:01 PM
joe the plumber drinking game?

I'm game.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 16, 2008, 11:56:37 AM
This just about sums things up. (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Republican-presidential-nominee-shaking-hands-Senator-Barack-Obama-presidential-debate/photo/081016/ids_photos_ts/r1772410910.jpg/)

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 16, 2008, 12:00:07 PM
He is slobbering after Obama's butt.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 16, 2008, 01:45:11 PM
Des McCain have anger issues? He is an increasingly strange little man.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 16, 2008, 02:01:55 PM
Des McCain have anger issues? He is an increasingly strange little man.

I liked him back when he was funny.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 16, 2008, 02:21:08 PM
Des McCain have anger issues? He is an increasingly strange little man.

i'll let marty answer that one. ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 16, 2008, 02:21:23 PM
Des McCain have anger issues? He is an increasingly strange little man.

I liked him back when he was funny.

He still is funny, just not intentionally.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 16, 2008, 02:31:43 PM
Des McCain have anger issues? He is an increasingly strange little man.

i'll let marty answer that one. ;D

There are very few people who have been through what he endured as a POW that don't have some sort of emotional/anger issues. I learned of this back in 2000 when I did like him as a candidate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 16, 2008, 02:37:29 PM
Des McCain have anger issues? He is an increasingly strange little man.

i'll let marty answer that one. ;D

There are very few people who have been through what he endured as a POW that don't have some sort of emotional/anger issues. I learned of this back in 2000 when I did like him as a candidate.

That was fair and balanced.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 16, 2008, 02:39:59 PM
<--------------- Fox News ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on October 16, 2008, 02:48:57 PM
This just about sums things up. (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Republican-presidential-nominee-shaking-hands-Senator-Barack-Obama-presidential-debate/photo/081016/ids_photos_ts/r1772410910.jpg/)

pixote

I would vote for Zombie McCain.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on October 16, 2008, 02:50:39 PM
Des McCain have anger issues? He is an increasingly strange little man.

I liked him back when he was funny.

I liked him when he was in King of the Hill
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 16, 2008, 02:54:27 PM
infected with Rage
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on October 16, 2008, 02:58:38 PM
(http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll208/baby_shoe22/Television/King%20of%20the%20Hill/King-Of-The-Hill-tv-26.jpg)
(http://harryallen.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/john-mccain2.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 16, 2008, 03:04:28 PM
If only he'd played up a Shatner-like pomo hipster irony he'd be winning by a landslide as all the scrawny kids at urban outfitters would feast on tables of his merch instead of their tables of Obama accessories. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 16, 2008, 03:49:42 PM
I feel very uncomfortable in Urban Outfitters.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 16, 2008, 09:13:54 PM
I feel very uncomfortable in Urban Outfitters.

uh, don't go there
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on October 16, 2008, 10:04:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 16, 2008, 10:16:40 PM
Welcome to Pennsyltucky.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on October 17, 2008, 10:05:56 AM
Wow.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 17, 2008, 10:12:42 AM
i couldn't finish that - disturbing and depressing
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 17, 2008, 10:17:24 AM
That could represent a good portion of my family that lives in Southwestern PA...embarrassing...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 17, 2008, 10:30:53 AM
I had to turn it off too.  The awful thing is, if Obama does win, these guys will never give him a chance.  They will wake up on November 5th bleating about Acorn and vote fraud and stolen elections, and even if he does an amazing job and somehow pulls out miracles from all the crap he's going to be left with, none of these folks will give him an ounce of credit for it.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 17, 2008, 11:45:26 AM
Registering fraudulent voters doesn't mean a damn thing unless you can get their votes.

It's only been a few isolated cases but this serves the GOP in that they get to point fingers and direct the attention away from their own voter fruad and intimidation practices.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: joem18b on October 17, 2008, 03:47:23 PM
Registering fraudulent voters doesn't mean a damn thing unless you can get their votes.

It's only been a few isolated cases but this serves the GOP in that they get to point fingers and direct the attention away from their own voter fruad and intimidation practices.
so true. i'm just starting the movie "Uncounted," which is a documentary about registration and voter fraud. Spout sent it to me to review. Once thing is for sure. There have always been shenanigans at the polling place, almost always operating on low-income and minority voters.

There is incontrovertible evidence in the Lascaux cave drawings that in one of the annual cave elections, the Neanderthals stole some of the clubs used in the voting and thus soundly defeated the Cro-Magnons. The Neanderthal who was elected started some unnessary wars, flubbed local aid after the neighborhood volcano erupted, and caused the cave-dwelling population in general to seriously rethink the whole business of voting-with-clubs technology.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 17, 2008, 06:50:29 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 18, 2008, 05:56:38 AM
I feel very uncomfortable in Urban Outfitters.

uh, don't go there

Uh, I don't.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 18, 2008, 09:57:45 AM
I feel very uncomfortable in Urban Outfitters.

uh, don't go there

Uh, I don't.

:)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: roujin on October 18, 2008, 12:43:49 PM
I think I saw an Urban Outfitters once. I kinda passed by it wondering what it was.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 18, 2008, 12:55:21 PM
I think I saw an Urban Outfitters once. I kinda passed by it wondering what it was.

a lifestyle choice.

(edit: and realizing i'm wearing a hoodie & a t from said lifestyle)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on October 18, 2008, 11:45:01 PM
It's so rich that Sarah Palin is implying that Obama is a socialist.  Alaska is the only state I know of that writes checks to every man, woman, and child from the Oil Permanent Fund.  Doesn't that spread the wealth?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 18, 2008, 11:55:16 PM
It's so rich that Sarah Palin is implying that Obama is a socialist.  Alaska is the only state I know of that writes checks to every man, woman, and child from the Oil Permanent Fund.  Doesn't that spread the wealth?

Also, every time you enter Alaska doesn't a man at a toll boot give you a thousand dollars?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on October 19, 2008, 12:03:39 AM
I don't think the McCain/Palin team realizes how dated the cold war rhetoric sounds and how it re-enforces the notion that McCain is from the era past .
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: joem18b on October 19, 2008, 12:19:26 AM
I don't think the McCain/Palin team realizes how dated the cold war rhetoric sounds and how it re-enforces the notion that McCain is from the era past .
just watched "shut up and sing." i think some of the folks in that movie are now showing up at the mccain/palin rallies.

i've heard it suggested several times in the past few days that the repubs have given up on the idea of winning the presidency and are now focusing on red states to try and limit their losses in congress.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 03:50:12 PM
Final Nail? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_on_el_pr/powell)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 19, 2008, 04:56:08 PM
That Colin Powell's a nice chap.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 05:41:38 PM
I am not American so I may get flamed for this but; who could possibly vote republican this time? I mean how could any human with even one functioning brain cell possible even consider voting republican? What possible RATIONAL reason could a person use beyond blind racism or party loyalty to vote anything but democratic? I really don't understand it at all. Yet more than 40% of Americans will still vote republican..........WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 05:51:11 PM
I am not American so I may get flamed for this but; who could possibly vote republican this time? I mean how could any human with even one functioning brain cell possible even consider voting republican? What possible RATIONAL reason could a person use beyond blind racism or party loyalty to vote anything but democratic? I really don't understand it at all. Yet more than 40% of Americans will still vote republican..........WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

Well I was leaning McCain due to the man, not the party.  The fact that he even had a chance was in spite of the party.  Of course since he threw out any mention of fiscal responsibility in response to the economic situation i'll likely find a 3rd party candidate who's promises i feel like buying into more - still knowing they aren't worth a damn thing.

That Colin Powell's a nice chap.

always though so.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 06:00:08 PM
I am not American so I may get flamed for this but; who could possibly vote republican this time? I mean how could any human with even one functioning brain cell possible even consider voting republican? What possible RATIONAL reason could a person use beyond blind racism or party loyalty to vote anything but democratic? I really don't understand it at all. Yet more than 40% of Americans will still vote republican..........WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

Well I was leaning McCain due to the man, not the party.  The fact that he even had a chance was in spite of the party.  Of course since he threw out any mention of fiscal responsibility in response to the economic situation i'll likely find a 3rd party candidate who's promises i feel like buying into more - still knowing they aren't worth a damn thing.

That Colin Powell's a nice chap.

always though so.


I hate trolls and I would never be one but really you are not informed enough to vote...period. Remember this, the two wars are your fault, the failing economy is your fault, the desecration of your freedoms are your fault, the world-wide hatred of America is your fault. You voted for all of those things and now you want to vote for more. Really the unending gullibility of people is mind boggling.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 06:04:10 PM
This is really the first election I have ever seen where I honestly think there is no way to even say, the others person perspective is valid and a respectful dialogue is warranted. Some things are just plain wrong. Anyone voting republican this time is just plain wrong. There can be no possible justification for such a vote.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FifthCityMuse on October 19, 2008, 06:37:01 PM
This is really the first election I have ever seen where I honestly think there is no way to even say, the others person perspective is valid and a respectful dialogue is warranted. Some things are just plain wrong. Anyone voting republican this time is just plain wrong. There can be no possible justification for such a vote.

Do you really think Obama will be any better than McCain? Do you really not think politics runs on cycles? If Bush had been a Democrat, you would be calling people stupid for voting for Obama.

The biggest issue with McCain is his age and his running mate. If he was 10 years younger, with a smarter choice of VP, he'd be in with a good chance, and perhaps with good reason.

Personally, politics makes me angry. I'm an Australian, and there's no way you'll ever get me to say K Rudd is any better than Johnny. He's new. And younger. That's it. Politics is a losing game.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 06:46:23 PM
Do you really think Obama will be any better than McCain?

Yes.

Quote from: Atrios
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FifthCityMuse on October 19, 2008, 06:53:45 PM
Hope springs eternal, I suppose.


Oh, and by the way, I think he will be to. He's charismatic and charming, and very idealistic. I don't think he'll achieve half of what he intends, but what he does achieve should be vast improvements on the current situation.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on October 19, 2008, 07:15:25 PM
Do you really think Obama will be any better than McCain?

I can see what you're saying in the sense that regardless of the individual, after the election, structures and institutions constrain one's ability to produce change. From protest to power is a political dilemma. 

However, there is no question that there is a significant difference between them; they have different priorities. And therefore it is completely reasonable for a voter to think one is better than the other.


Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 07:16:46 PM
Do you really think Obama will be any better than McCain?
Turning it around:  Do you really think Al Gore would have been as bad a president as George Bush?

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/politics/video/play.shtml?mea=229115 (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/politics/video/play.shtml?mea=229115)

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 07:26:26 PM
You realize that the president is not a king? Voting for a Mcain is voting for a republican who will work with republicans who have done the worst job on record for the last 8 years. If I were American I would honestly (no exaggeration) vote for any human being and some non humans who were not republican in this election.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 08:02:09 PM
You realize that the president is not a king? Voting for a Mcain is voting for a republican who will work with republicans who have done the worst job on record for the last 8 years. If I were American I would honestly (no exaggeration) vote for any human being and some non humans who were not republican in this election.

WHAT PART OF MAVERICK DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!  :P

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 08:47:21 PM
You realize that the president is not a king? Voting for a Mcain is voting for a republican who will work with republicans who have done the worst job on record for the last 8 years. If I were American I would honestly (no exaggeration) vote for any human being and some non humans who were not republican in this election.

Not if he has a democratic congress - also they've been in charge of that section for the last couple years, housing rules laxed under clinton who is really responsible for the financial crisis, blah blah blah, 

Its all a blame game, feel free to hurl them at whoever, throw a rock in the air you'll hit someone guilty.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 08:48:52 PM
blame game

Off-topic, I guess, but this expression needs to die.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 10:16:31 PM
You realize that the president is not a king? Voting for a Mcain is voting for a republican who will work with republicans who have done the worst job on record for the last 8 years. If I were American I would honestly (no exaggeration) vote for any human being and some non humans who were not republican in this election.

Not if he has a democratic congress - also they've been in charge of that section for the last couple years, housing rules laxed under clinton who is really responsible for the financial crisis, blah blah blah, 

Its all a blame game, feel free to hurl them at whoever, throw a rock in the air you'll hit someone guilty.


Wow are you delusional. Clinton is responsible for the financial crisis????????? Yes he helped the bank deregulation. He also left A HUGE surplus and balanced almost every budget. YOU ARE IN TWO WARS WHICH COST BILLIONS EVERY WEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes the democrats are partly responsible for all of it. Say 90% republicans 10% dems. So by all means lets all vote for the guys who are 90% culpable.


Talking to you I am starting to understand who these people who are going to vote republican. 

TURN OFF THE FOX NEWS.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 10:19:25 PM
1 Rule: PLAY NICE!

Bumped.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 10:21:48 PM
Yes I agree I am getting rowdy but COME ON! Its not a time for niceness. These people MUST be stopped! They are not only ruining America, they are destroying the entire planet.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 10:23:27 PM
Yes I agree I am getting rowdy but COME ON! Its not a time for niceness. These people MUST be stopped! They are not only ruining America, they are destroying the entire planet.

You're right.  This is all _Keith_'s fault.  Luckily for us the conscending tone of your posts has set him straight and I'll have universal health care any minute now.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on October 19, 2008, 10:25:28 PM
You're mispronouncing his name. It is supposed to be underscorekeithunderscore. He thanks you through me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 10:26:37 PM
pump your breaks kid.

again - internets hard to convey sarcasm (thought - blah blah blah said it but whatev).  i don't think either dems or reps are solely responsible, they are EQUALLY responsible.  its the people that think in your way who are not smart enough to vote - long live democracy ;) - you let your anger get in the way of common sense.  swapping parties as the pendulum of fortune swings back and forth every few years is not the answer to anything.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 10:27:33 PM
You're mispronouncing his name. It is supposed to be underscorekeithunderscore. He thanks you through me.

wait - i thought it was thunderscore?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FifthCityMuse on October 19, 2008, 10:28:00 PM
Yes I agree I am getting rowdy but COME ON! Its not a time for niceness. These people MUST be stopped! They are not only ruining America, they are destroying the entire planet.

As is everyone else. Perhaps not so quickly, but no one's helping.

Except possibly the Dutch. And the Scandinavians. Actually a lot of continential Europeans are doing good stuff. Maybe I'll move there....
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 10:29:07 PM
Except possibly the Dutch.

Don't let them fool you!

Seriously, I just don't trust them.  They worse me than clowns.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 10:30:08 PM
Except possibly the Dutch.

Don't let them fool you!

pixote

there are two things in this world I hate - people who don't respect other people's cultures and the dutch!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on October 19, 2008, 10:30:18 PM
You're mispronouncing his name. It is supposed to be underscorekeithunderscore. He thanks you through me.

wait - i thought it was thunderscore?

Well, only on special occasions. Like all the time.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 19, 2008, 10:30:36 PM
As an observing Canadian, supporter of Obama, I can say that you shouldn't get all worked up about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's all bullshit. It's that kind of talk that's the reason nothing constructive has gotten done over the last 8 - and particularly the last 2 - years. Just calm down. Even I admit that a John McCain administration wouldn't be soooo bad.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 10:31:05 PM
You are right the dems and repubs are exactly 50/50 responsible LOLOLOLOLOL. Please vote republican. You will have well earned the inevitable result.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FifthCityMuse on October 19, 2008, 10:31:58 PM
My grandparents are Dutch...

The old school sort, not the new-fangled liberal ones.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 10:34:29 PM
Even I admit that a John McCain administration wouldn't be soooo bad.

I am at a loss. How can you people go through the last 8 years as still think this? I guess I just dont understand Americans! You should all vote republican. The world needs more war, a worse environment, a greater income gap, and, really, America has such good international will that you have alot to burn. Sounds like a plan.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 10:36:28 PM
As an observing Canadian...

Quoted for the reading-impaired.

Given your avatar, you should know that rule #2 is also "Play nice."

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 19, 2008, 10:39:00 PM
Even I admit that a John McCain administration wouldn't be soooo bad.

I am at a loss. How can you people go through the last 8 years as still think this? I guess I just dont understand Americans! You should all vote republican. The world needs more war, a worse environment, a greater income gap, and, really, America has such good international will that you have alot to burn. Sounds like a plan.

I think you just need to calm down. McCain does not equal Bush. Even if Obama has tried to paint him as such. Not the same guy. Not the same style. And most important, willing to listen to opposing viewpoints. The only thing that really scares me about a McCain administration would be the tippin of the Supreme Court into a conservative entity. I don't like that. Otherwise I think he'd make a fine leader. Though if he died I'd be pretty damn scared of Palin.

Playing nice is fun btw.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 10:41:55 PM
I do think a McCain presidency would be disastrous, however.  He's just not that interested in governing.  And that might be his single greatest commonality with Bush — and the thing about him I fear most (though it's a long list, with a lot of candidates vying for that top spot).

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 19, 2008, 10:45:15 PM
I do think a McCain presidency would be disastrous, however.  He's just not that interested in governing.  And that might be his single greatest commonality with Bush — and the thing about him I fear most (though it's a long list, with a lot of candidates vying for that top spot).

pixote

I don't see how you got that impression.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 10:45:33 PM
He's just not that interested in governing. 

That's one i've not heard before - what make you say so?  I'd think he'd spend every moment governing as opposed to Dubya who'd rather be ranchin' or some such.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 10:46:44 PM
I realize I am getting worked up. I have watched a country I use to love fall apart over the last eight years for one reason. Republicans and the bush administration.  I use to be the biggest America supporter around. Right after 9/11 I flew down and volunteered at ground zero for 9 days ( I am an archaeologist so I was asked to look for body parts, it was terrible). Over the last 8 years I have watched my love of America slowly erode to the point I catch myself saying obviously stupid things like "All Americans are stupid" or "they deserve it". Its terrible. You all elected them in 2004 AGAIN! You then got Katrina and the financial crisis and NO end to either war. Yet there are still 45% of Americans who will vote republican again. Its VERY hard to watch from afar.

Here is the one very good reason to NOT vote republican even if you want to. The bush administration exhausted the entire pool of good republican talent. this means a Mcain administration would have to draw from the lowest talent pool that remains. The best republicans (and yes I think there are great ones) have been burned so bad by the last administration that they dont want to serve.  So even if you think Mcain is a good man. His administration will be full of the weakest republican talent pool.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 19, 2008, 10:48:47 PM
I've got to run.  More about McCain's disinterest in governing later, maybe.

Nice post, Clovis8.  8)

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 10:59:58 PM
I completely agree with you on that EXCEPT that 1) a McCain admin would not be just republicans and 2) bush burned through the NeoCons there are quite a few wings of the Rep party (Rockefeller Republicans, Libertarians, Fiscal conservatives, moderates, hell even the Log Cabin kids given his obvious Atheist leanings) that (would have) felt very safe with McCain though the campaign likely has turned quite a few of even them off.

There are more groups and bits and pieces of each party available than you may realize - there have to be as we only have two of 'em.  Bush's leadership posts were mostly made up of social conservatives and neocons who have very distinct world views that don't represent the views of these other factions within the GOP - much like the discussion we had about the Dems and Lieberman a few days ago.  

That said (and as I said in response to your first post) I likely not vote for either the Rep or Dem candidate this time round and instead waste my vote on some loony 3rd party no chance hack (sarcasm).  Frankly they both piss me off policy wise.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 19, 2008, 11:04:34 PM
I completely agree with you on that EXCEPT that 1) a McCain admin would not be just republicans and 2) bush burned through the NeoCons there are quite a few wings of the Rep party (Rockefeller Republicans, Libertarians, Fiscal conservatives, moderates, hell even the Log Cabin kids given his obvious Atheist leanings) that (would have) felt very safe with McCain though the campaign likely has turned quite a few of even them off.

There are more groups and bits and pieces of each party available than you may realize - there have to be as we only have two of 'em.  Bush's leadership posts were mostly made up of social conservatives and neocons who have very distinct world views that don't represent the views of these other factions within the GOP - much like the discussion we had about the Dems and Lieberman a few days ago. 

That said (and as I said in response to your first post) I likely not vote for either the Rep or Dem candidate this time round and instead waste my vote on some loony 3rd party no chance hack (sarcasm).  Frankly they both piss me off policy wise.

These parts of the party do not exist anymore. I wish they did. I actually consider myself a small C conservative libertarian. All positions of power in the current republican party are filled by the neocons. It will be VERY hard for Mcain to change that.

One more reason to not vote republican.....



(http://www.boot.com/USbudgetDeficitChart.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 19, 2008, 11:43:01 PM
yeah - I am a big fan of Bill from a fiscal perspective. But you also have to take into consideration that bush 1 had a democratic congress and that clinton had a republican one for the majority of his time.  also that bush 1 had a recession while clinton had a boom, high tide raises all ships. 

Of course the president can influence fiscal policy thru the treasury dept but its congress that actually controls spending and thus the surplus and defect of the budget.  Again those were different Republicans.  I don't believe big government conservatism is in any way sound but when Gingrich/Dole and Clinton went to war to essentially claim victory over the same thing, a balanced budget agreement in 1996 it was a win/win for this country.  Though I agree with certain aspects of Keynesian economics (given that this country hasn't run a deficit surplus since the Jackson administration) I don't think he had these levels of deficit spending in mind when he made his arguments - especially the amount of cash that isn't even accounted for in the figures on that chart or the calculator in NYC.  I also don't think its right as more and more of that debt is being gobbled up by non-americans,  one will never call in a debt on ones self, but i don't doubt someone else would if it suited their purposes. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on October 20, 2008, 10:05:51 AM
thanks for the reminder of why i don't like visiting this thread :p
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 20, 2008, 10:12:24 AM
Clovis - I understand your frustration but I also know that it wasn't only the GOP that got us into this financial mess. Clinton started the deregulation of the banking industry which ulitmately led us to this point. Yes - the GOP could have reigned in the madness as anyone with a brain could have saw where this was heading  several years back. In fact as a Realtor - I did notice how loose families were with their borrowing, fudging information so they could leverage themselves the maximum amount of money to buy a house, putting themselves into 80/20 ARMS, ARM's, fized mortgages w/o reading the fine print - it was a frenzy that can equally be blamed on the lenders and borrowers. A democratic congress could have checked FREDDIE MAC and FANNY MAE a could of yrs back. The GOP congress could have not allowed leveraging assets at the ratios that THEY did. Allan Greenspan most certainly saw this coming and assumed/hoped he would have been out of the public eye before it all caught up with him.
HUBRIS more than anything - by either party, by the banks, by the lenders led to this. This idea that there is such a thing as a friendly free market that magically moves along and is beneficial to anyone who competes in it is ridiculous - w/o strict oversight - all you get w/o regulation is the wealthy corporations and big business setting rules and buying influence. Not everything in this capitalist society (so-called) should be available for purchase. People, business wants deregulation up until the market tanks THEN they want the government to bail them out - sounds fishy to me.
People pride themselves on this outmoded, outdated, cold war philosophy of us against the commies/socialists but don't even realize that they are turning to those same principles when they need a handout and when their own precious ideals have put their backs to the wall. I hear this at all levels of society - not just the upper crust. It's frustrating when people will defend a way of living when it doesn't even include them, nor does it ever plan to. For this free-market to continue to exist, we will always need the haves (them) and the have-nots (us). It's this idea that someday they will be able to have that causes poor angry people to defend the rights of the wealthy and helps strengthen the GOP position and continue us down the path to financial ruin.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 20, 2008, 10:53:05 AM
Can I just speak as an outsider? Many, generally right-leaning American voters think the rest of the world should 'keep their noses out' of the US's business when it comes to their elections (as seen by the backlash against that recent 'If The Rest of the World Could Vote' website. But, bloody hell, it's not like the US is some isolated, obscure country somewhere - of course it's in the worlds' interest who becomes president of the United States.


I do despair sometimes, and thankfully Stephen Fry's recent (and wonderful) series 'In America' has helped restore my faith in what is a fantastic country. That and the weekend's Obama gains :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 20, 2008, 11:00:18 AM
I do despair sometimes, and thankfully Stephen Fry's recent (and wonderful) series 'In America' has helped restore my faith in what is a fantastic country. That and the weekend's Obama gains :)

Did that cancel out the fact that Chihuahua spent two weeks at #1? ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 20, 2008, 11:06:38 AM
I do despair sometimes, and thankfully Stephen Fry's recent (and wonderful) series 'In America' has helped restore my faith in what is a fantastic country. That and the weekend's Obama gains :)

Did that cancel out the fact that Chihuahua spent two weeks at #1? ;)

You, sir, seem to be implying that Chihuahua spending two weeks at #1 was a bad thing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 20, 2008, 12:07:55 PM
I do despair sometimes, and thankfully Stephen Fry's recent (and wonderful) series 'In America' has helped restore my faith in what is a fantastic country. That and the weekend's Obama gains :)

Did that cancel out the fact that Chihuahua spent two weeks at #1? ;)

You, sir, seem to be implying that Chihuahua spending two weeks at #1 was a bad thing.

Not from my perspective - but this being a political thread I guess its possible that everyone isn't as enlightened as myself.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 20, 2008, 12:55:05 PM
I do despair sometimes, and thankfully Stephen Fry's recent (and wonderful) series 'In America' has helped restore my faith in what is a fantastic country. That and the weekend's Obama gains :)

Did that cancel out the fact that Chihuahua spent two weeks at #1? ;)

You, sir, seem to be implying that Chihuahua spending two weeks at #1 was a bad thing.

Not from my perspective - but this being a political thread I guess its possible that everyone isn't as enlightened as myself.

Few are. I really wish you'd go back to your previous avatar. It was so perfect. The way the chihuahua sort of peek out of the avatar cut-off was beautiful.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 20, 2008, 01:13:58 PM
I do despair sometimes, and thankfully Stephen Fry's recent (and wonderful) series 'In America' has helped restore my faith in what is a fantastic country. That and the weekend's Obama gains :)

Did that cancel out the fact that Chihuahua spent two weeks at #1? ;)

You, sir, seem to be implying that Chihuahua spending two weeks at #1 was a bad thing.

Not from my perspective - but this being a political thread I guess its possible that everyone isn't as enlightened as myself.

Few are. I really wish you'd go back to your previous avatar. It was so perfect. The way the chihuahua sort of peek out of the avatar cut-off was beautiful.

There is always the DVD release to look forward to. :D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 20, 2008, 02:09:22 PM
It is nice to know that only a miracle at this point would lead to a McCain victory. It is looking more and more like an electoral college landslide for Obama.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 20, 2008, 02:19:22 PM
It is nice to know that only a miracle at this point would lead to a McCain victory. It is looking more and more like an electoral college landslide for Obama.

I don't think I would use the word miracle to describe a McCain victory.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 20, 2008, 02:27:31 PM
It is nice to know that only a miracle at this point would lead to a McCain victory. It is looking more and more like an electoral college landslide for Obama.

I don't think I would use the word miracle to describe a McCain victory.

I love you, Marty.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 20, 2008, 02:30:51 PM
It is nice to know that only a miracle at this point would lead to a McCain victory. It is looking more and more like an electoral college landslide for Obama.

I don't think I would use the word miracle to describe a McCain victory.


Come on, who else's side would god be on? Its obvious.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 20, 2008, 02:46:24 PM
If he (McCain) wins then it proves there is no god.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 20, 2008, 02:49:52 PM
gee marty tell us how you really feel ;)

... just taking any excuse to get back in the conversation...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FLYmeatwad on October 20, 2008, 03:53:28 PM
It is nice to know that only a miracle at this point would lead to a McCain victory. It is looking more and more like an electoral college landslide for Obama.

I don't think I would use the word miracle to describe a McCain victory.


Come on, who else's side would god be on? Its obvious.

My American Drama professor told us that the biggest lie ever believed by a group of people is that the Republican Party is based on Christian Values.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on October 21, 2008, 08:24:10 PM
I am a Christian, and am no Republican.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 22, 2008, 04:35:15 PM
I'm still wondering what constitutes a 'real' American according to those associated with the mccain campaign...

... and thinking that edwards' 400 dollar haircuts don't look so bad anymore.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 22, 2008, 04:48:47 PM
I'm still wondering what constitutes a 'real' American according to those associated with the mccain campaign...

... and thinking that edwards' 400 dollar haircuts don't look so bad anymore.

Hey - he was trying to impress 2 women...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 22, 2008, 04:51:48 PM
true that... and I'll say the expenditure doesn't look so bad anymore... he still looks like a shwarmy lawyer
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 22, 2008, 04:59:06 PM
Is there any other kind?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 22, 2008, 05:07:34 PM
ummmm..... I think there is a 'shwarmy lawyer scale' that goes from 'young and idealistic' to 'no i don't want to shake your hand I'd need to shower afterward'
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 22, 2008, 05:10:12 PM
Michael Tomasky is great  :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/22/uselections2008-sarahpalin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/22/uselections2008-sarahpalin)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 22, 2008, 05:25:30 PM
exploring videos there is not helping me log off and move on with my day. :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 22, 2008, 05:29:37 PM
Heh, what are we going to do with ourselves when the election's over? I will go into mourning.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 22, 2008, 05:37:54 PM
elections never end... they just migrate to another country


it will make the conversations in my office a little more boring.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 22, 2008, 07:23:51 PM
Heh, what are we going to do with ourselves when the election's over? I will go into mourning.

Complain about how the winner is screwing us over.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on October 22, 2008, 07:38:06 PM
Watch the circular firing squads ensue on both the winners and the losers sides.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 22, 2008, 07:59:14 PM
Heh, what are we going to do with ourselves when the election's over? I will go into mourning.

Complain about how the winner is screwing us over.

Watch The Daily Show to see how Jon Stewart can live with himself cracking jokes about Obama everyday.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 22, 2008, 09:30:32 PM
Watch the circular firing squads ensue on both the winners and the losers sides.

Quote
circular firing squads

I like that.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 23, 2008, 12:56:03 AM
i love the attention ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081022/pl_politico/14830 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081022/pl_politico/14830)

but the giant unmentioned elephant in that entire story is RACISM.  really disappointing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 23, 2008, 01:34:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fXaJmDbsY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fXaJmDbsY)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 23, 2008, 02:58:19 PM
The John Woo and Kevin Smith ones were crap, but that Wes Anderson one was brilliant. If you had said Anderson had actually directed it as a spoof on himself I probably would have believed you.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 23, 2008, 03:26:03 PM
The John Woo and Kevin Smith ones were crap, but that Wes Anderson one was brilliant. If you had said Anderson had actually directed it as a spoof on himself I probably would have believed you.

Yeah, it's best to skip the first two.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 23, 2008, 07:51:15 PM
My favourite moment is suring the slo-mo when the guy in the middle throws the paper up in the air. That moment somehow perfectly captures the essence of Wes Anderson.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on October 24, 2008, 02:10:36 AM
Heh, what are we going to do with ourselves when the election's over? I will go into mourning.

Complain about how the winner is screwing us over.

Watch The Daily Show to see how Jon Stewart can live with himself cracking jokes about Obama everyday.

I'm not quite sure if you're praising Stewart for his ability to make fun of Obama or criticizing him for daring to mock the junior senator from Illinois... I'm hoping for the former.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 24, 2008, 07:15:02 AM
I don't know if everyone else has found www.fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com), but for a place that is all about polls they do a decent job of showing what can go wrong with them. I'm still laughing at this... whats wrong with this picture (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-aka-nate.html)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: edgar00 on October 24, 2008, 07:30:25 AM
Fascinating stuff for any politics fan.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 24, 2008, 08:48:55 AM
I don't know if everyone else has found www.fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com), but for a place that is all about polls they do a decent job of showing what can go wrong with them. I'm still laughing at this... whats wrong with this picture (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-aka-nate.html)

I believe that poll was actually the one for the cast members of The Hills. Heidi & Spencer are huge supporters.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: edgar00 on October 24, 2008, 09:18:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fXaJmDbsY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fXaJmDbsY)

Both the Woo and Anderson clips were quite funny.

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on October 24, 2008, 01:38:57 PM
I don't know if everyone else has found www.fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com), but for a place that is all about polls they do a decent job of showing what can go wrong with them. I'm still laughing at this... whats wrong with this picture (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-aka-nate.html)

Nate Silver's a genius.  I've been reading his baseball stuff for years.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on October 24, 2008, 10:02:38 PM
Nate Silver's a genius.  I've been reading his baseball stuff for years.

I wish I was smart enough to work at Baseball Prospectus.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 25, 2008, 12:54:15 PM
wow:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)

Then:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/?iref=hpmostpop (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/?iref=hpmostpop)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 25, 2008, 01:19:39 PM
Pretty desperate and racist attempt to smear Mr O.

In fact, it has a Batman ring to it...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 25, 2008, 04:18:06 PM
http://vimeo.com/2053858 (http://vimeo.com/2053858)

nice.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 25, 2008, 05:50:49 PM
No need for spoof videos, when the real campaigns are much funnier...

PALIN GOES ROGUE! (http://"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/25/uselections2008-sarahpalin")
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 25, 2008, 08:31:38 PM
No need for spoof videos, when the real campaigns are much funnier...

PALIN GOES ROGUE! (http://"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/25/uselections2008-sarahpalin")

I love the notion that Palin would be running for potus in 2012. Hello! She's half the reason McCain is about to lose the election
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 26, 2008, 01:10:33 AM
I love the notion that Palin would be running for potus in 2012. Hello! She's half the reason McCain is about to lose the election

For symmetry, I hope she runs in 2012 as Joe Lieberman's running mate.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 26, 2008, 05:24:05 AM
I suppose with 4 years mentoring/brainwashing, she could become a female Bush. Oh my, is this the future? puppet 'Jo Plumber' presidents?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 26, 2008, 08:08:03 AM
female Bush.

giggle.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 26, 2008, 09:08:45 AM
Race baiting - nice - she wasn't even smart enough to carve the B in her face properly...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 26, 2008, 10:05:29 AM
Clearly she was unfamiliar with the phrase 'mirror image'.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 26, 2008, 10:38:36 AM
There's a proper way to carve a B into your own face?

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on October 26, 2008, 11:34:51 AM
Er, the right way round for starters.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 26, 2008, 11:45:07 AM
There's a proper way to carve a B into your own face?

pixote

Yes. I'm sure Wikipedia has an article about it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 27, 2008, 12:13:36 PM
I am sorry but with this "B"-thing, the republican party has official and completely lost its collective mind.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 27, 2008, 12:22:23 PM
i'm not sure about the party in general... but she is certainly not the sanest person on the continent.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on October 27, 2008, 06:10:00 PM
For a glimpse into Sarah Palin's private war on science, read this. (http://www.slate.com/id/2203120/) 

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 27, 2008, 06:34:05 PM
growl
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Mandrake on October 27, 2008, 07:05:21 PM
Things are scary.  Collapse is all around us.  Can Obama survive a presidency?

                                    (a good movie plot?)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 27, 2008, 07:07:35 PM
Things are scary.  Collapse is all around us.  Can Obama survive a presidency?

                                    (a good movie plot?)

I believe it's called 24.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Mandrake on October 27, 2008, 07:13:09 PM
Things are scary.  Collapse is all around us.  Can Obama survive a presidency?

                                    (a good movie plot?)

I believe it's called 24.

gotcha - have never watched it - am I missing out?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 27, 2008, 07:17:26 PM
Things are scary.  Collapse is all around us.  Can Obama survive a presidency?

                                    (a good movie plot?)

I believe it's called 24.

gotcha - have never watched it - am I missing out?

Depends if you like a lot of action and are willing to suspend some disbelief (although that's more an issue with later seasons).  Season 1 is definitely worth watching, the rest of the seasons are pretty good to just ok.  Season 5 was a lot of fun, but not necessarily the most believable.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Mandrake on October 27, 2008, 07:19:39 PM
Things are scary.  Collapse is all around us.  Can Obama survive a presidency?

                                    (a good movie plot?)

I believe it's called 24.

gotcha - have never watched it - am I missing out?

Depends if you like a lot of action and are willing to suspend some disbelief (although that's more an issue with later seasons).  Season 1 is definitely worth watching, the rest of the seasons are pretty good to just ok.  Season 5 was a lot of fun, but not necessarily the most believable.

will queue Season 1 - thanks!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wilson on October 27, 2008, 07:24:40 PM
Season 3 was its finest hour(s).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on October 27, 2008, 07:34:46 PM
1 3 and 5 (mostly for the dastardlyness of the President and his relationship with his wife) are the most fun. The sixth got dull, despite the presence of Robocop.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 27, 2008, 08:05:34 PM
Season 3 was its finest hour(s).

Not really. Maybe the last 3rd was great, but the lead-up was crap. The only worthwhile season was the first.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 27, 2008, 08:16:12 PM
Season 3 was its finest hour(s).

Not really. Maybe the last 3rd was great, but the lead-up was crap. The only worthwhile season was the first.

Seasons 2-4 pretty much blur together in my mind.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on October 27, 2008, 08:18:46 PM
Seasons 2-4 pretty much blur together in my mind.

Maybe you have a weird sort of amnesia?

(I stopped watching after season one, which was nineteen episodes after the point where I lost interest.)

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on October 28, 2008, 12:50:53 AM
up to the first couple episodes of season 5 the show was great - I hope they can revive it with the 2 hr movie & season 7.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wilson on October 28, 2008, 08:27:11 AM
Season 3 was its finest hour(s).

Not really. Maybe the last 3rd was great, but the lead-up was crap. The only worthwhile season was the first.

no way, season 3 was great.  The only drawback with Kim and the babysitting storyline, but other than that it was great.  Saunders is still the best villain 24's ever had, the Palmers doing what they do best, Chase being badass, Sylar and Jin running around the place, Tony & Michelle <3, the introduction of Chloe, Ferlito being hot and the awesome facial expressions of Ramon and Hector.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 30, 2008, 01:56:48 PM
This is a really great read. An insightful, firsthand encounter with McCain's Straight Talk Express. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-jarecki/the-straight-talk-train-w_b_139218.html)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 30, 2008, 05:01:31 PM
I skipped reading it when I was it on huffingtonpost... so thanks for guiding me back to it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 30, 2008, 05:12:25 PM
I skipped reading it when I was it on huffingtonpost... so thanks for guiding me back to it.

HAHAHA. I was going to say the same thing. No HuffPo for me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on October 31, 2008, 10:36:42 AM
see I don't say no HuffPo... I just pick and choose

... I am enjoying the dailybeast (http://www.dailybeast.com) though
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 31, 2008, 10:53:42 AM
I skipped reading it when I was it on huffingtonpost... so thanks for guiding me back to it.

HAHAHA. I was going to say the same thing. No HuffPo for me.

You are missing out - or you supporting that lame dog McCain?
And don't tell me about how you are giving Ralph Nader a voice with your vote as the man is not fit to run the country anyway - even if he could get elected (which he can't)...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 31, 2008, 10:57:54 AM
I skipped reading it when I was it on huffingtonpost... so thanks for guiding me back to it.

HAHAHA. I was going to say the same thing. No HuffPo for me.

You are missing out - or you supporting that lame dog McCain?
And don't tell me about how you are giving Ralph Nader a voice with your vote as the man is not fit to run the country anyway - even if he could get elected (which he can't)...

Funny you mentioned Nader Marty, that reminded me of a few weeks ago when I said I'd consider voting for him.  At the time I didn't realize he wasn't the Green Party candidate so voting for him to support a third party would be silly.  McKinney is who I'd vote for if I decided to go third party.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 31, 2008, 11:00:33 AM
I don't want to come off as against a 3rd party because, in fact, it's what this country needs. But it needs to be a viable 3rd party candidate that actually has a chance of getting elected. Working from within the current 2 part system is, IMO, the only way you will change the status quo.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 31, 2008, 11:03:22 AM
I don't want to come off as against a 3rd party because, in fact, it's what this country needs. But it needs to be a viable 3rd party candidate that actually has a chance of getting elected. Working from within the current 2 part system is, IMO, the only way you will change the status quo.

Yeah, we've been down this road already.  I wasn't really meaning to bring it up again, just modifying my statement from a while back.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 31, 2008, 11:07:29 AM
Yeah - we have...I get what you're saying - I was just restating my position...these internets are tough at relating subtlety sometimes...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on October 31, 2008, 11:20:36 AM
Yeah - we have...I get what you're saying - I was just restating my position...these internets are tough at relating subtlety sometimes...

DISAGREE!!!!!!!


see, it's not that hard  ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on October 31, 2008, 11:35:31 AM
I skipped reading it when I was it on huffingtonpost... so thanks for guiding me back to it.

HAHAHA. I was going to say the same thing. No HuffPo for me.

You are missing out - or you supporting that lame dog McCain?
And don't tell me about how you are giving Ralph Nader a voice with your vote as the man is not fit to run the country anyway - even if he could get elected (which he can't)...

I am a Canadian so I can't vote anyway. I do support Obama though. I just can't stand Arianna Huffington or her stupid post. I prefer to get a more balanced opinion on things, even when it's clearly biased. I don't find I get that from The Huffington Post.


see I don't say no HuffPo... I just pick and choose

... I am enjoying the dailybeast (http://www.dailybeast.com) though

The Daily Beast is great!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 31, 2008, 11:40:23 AM
Dude you are so wrong about Arianna - her transformation from staunch tigh-ass conservative to eyes-wide-open porgressive liberal was amazing. Her stance on a lot of issues calls to task both Dems and repubs alike - she is issues oriented - not partisan.

She is easily one of my favorite political commentators today.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on October 31, 2008, 06:43:27 PM
Dude you are so wrong about Arianna - her transformation from staunch tigh-ass conservative to eyes-wide-open porgressive liberal was amazing. Her stance on a lot of issues calls to task both Dems and repubs alike - she is issues oriented - not partisan.

She is easily one of my favorite political commentators today.

I could not agree more. She is amazing. A rare intelligent voice in a sea of mindless talking heads. Listen to the podcast Left, Right and Center which she is on. Its an absolute breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 01, 2008, 12:30:34 PM
My friend just told me he's been standing in the early voting line for 3 hrs already and it'll probably be at least 2 hrs. more.  Hearing this makes me very glad I don't live in a college town in a swing state.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 01, 2008, 12:37:39 PM
Dude you are so wrong about Arianna - her transformation from staunch tigh-ass conservative to eyes-wide-open porgressive liberal was amazing. Her stance on a lot of issues calls to task both Dems and repubs alike - she is issues oriented - not partisan.

She is easily one of my favorite political commentators today.

I could not agree more. She is amazing. A rare intelligent voice in a sea of mindless talking heads. Listen to the podcast Left, Right and Center which she is on. Its an absolute breath of fresh air.

I listen regularly - I enjoy the give and take of that show. I even follow Tony Blankley's (the Right) views on the show...he quite entertaining.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 01, 2008, 02:55:53 PM
My friend just told me he's been standing in the early voting line for 3 hrs already and it'll probably be at least 2 hrs. more.  Hearing this makes me very glad I don't live in a college town in a swing state.

Yeah, i'm kinda dreading Tuesday... for a couple reasons ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 01, 2008, 03:07:42 PM
My friend just told me he's been standing in the early voting line for 3 hrs already and it'll probably be at least 2 hrs. more.  Hearing this makes me very glad I don't live in a college town in a swing state.

Yeah, i'm kinda dreading Tuesday... for a couple reasons ;D

The local McCain supporters here on the board have been oddly silent lately. :-\
Is it painful to watch a Great American Hero like John McCain implode so spectacularly?


I suppose there's always Palin in 2012...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on November 01, 2008, 03:46:42 PM
No Martin, we merely lead busy lives. I am rather disappointed that one of the most noteworthy American legislators since Henry Clay will almost certainly be denied the presidency, however. Though granted, Clay himself never got there either after being denied several times. It would be interesting to see what this country would look like though had we seen a President Clay instead of a President Jackson or President Polk (particularly Polk, actually).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 01, 2008, 04:55:42 PM
Quote
I am rather disappointed that one of the most noteworthy American legislators since Henry Clay will almost certainly be denied the presidency

He isn't being denied - he lost it.
In my memory, I haven't seen a candidate conduct such a negative campaign (aside from GWB of course) - even the campaigns directed by Lee Atwater were not this negative.
Personally - I don't think McCain is deserving of such lofty rhetoric - I have yet to see him act "presidential" - only like a grumpy old man. To put him in the same category as Henry Clay seems...excessive.

As for being busy - I am approaching 60 hours for this week at work but yet I find time to follow the most important election of my lifetime. If we don't throw off the yoke of GWB and the neocon agenda then we are truly doomed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on November 01, 2008, 05:41:01 PM
When the hell did I ever say I wasn't following the election? I just haven't posted on this thread in a few days. My apologies if not posting on a message board is somehow a betrayal of my democratic duties. For that matter, I don't like the insinuation that I implied the election is being stolen. In my mind, denied=lost. You're coming awfully close to putting words in my mouth, and I would appreciate it if you would stop.

The idea that McCain is running the most negative campaign in recent memory seems ridiculous to me. He hasn't even gone past what the Clintons were doing to Obama - and that was in the primary. You think his campaign has been worse than the Willie Horton sham against Dukakis? The viciousness of the Democratic primaries in 1992? The Daisy ads against Barry Goldwater? Nixon's re-election campaign against McGovern, particularly after the withdrawal of Thomas Eagleton?

And I stand by every word of my comparison of McCain to Henry Clay. He has been my idea presidential candidate for years, probably as long as I've been consciously aware of the American political process. Some campaign stumbles aren't going to change that for me.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on November 01, 2008, 05:46:20 PM
McCain made one exceptionally poor decision in his campaign for the Presidency.  That decision and timing doomed his bid. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on November 01, 2008, 06:01:24 PM
Things that killed McCain's bid, in order of significance IMO:

1) the economic crisis
2) the off-the-charts terrible choice of Palin (easily the most pathetic person to ever run for high office)
3) bush
4) history- its time to end the old white man reign over the presidency
5) McCain's terrible hate fueled campaign (he abandoned everything which made him so appealing)
6) Obama's nearly flawless campaign



Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on November 01, 2008, 06:17:01 PM
Hey, lets not get ahead of ourselves here, folks. We don't want to jinx things  :) *


*I say 'we'. In the interests of balance I'd also like to wave to our McCain fans here. I'm actually a McCain fan, but more due to his comedy value.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 01, 2008, 08:06:06 PM
Getting a little touchy?

Quote
He hasn't even gone past what the Clintons were doing to Obama - and that was in the primary.

That is probably the most ridiculous statement I have read in this thread.
I never heard the word socialist once in the Clinton campaign. I never saw Obama's face superimposed over a map of the middle east in a Clinton mailer. I never heard Clinton try and make out an unfavorable link with Rashid Khalidi and Obama. All of which trade in on people's fear of empty cold war rhetoric or their fear of brown skinned men with bombs. The sad thing is that redistributing wealth is what the government does, has been doing ever since it started collecting taxes and providing services of any kind for people. That big bad bailout that the republicans were clamoring for was nothing but the biggest piece of socialist legislation since the New Deal. The man will say anything to get elected.
You can try and sugar coat it but McCain is not the honorable man you make him out to be - rather he is a skirt chasing spoiled rich boy who traded in on his military legacy of his last name (he wasn't even that good of a pilot). If nothing else - the abhorrent way he treated his first wife after she had her accident should have precluded him from any consideration or maybe you are one of those who say his personal life is of no concern to you or has no bearing on his political career - if so then good for you but it does mean something. It meant something when he had his hand out to Charles Keating Jr back in the 80's and it means something now that he cannot make a simple decision, such as his own running mate, without it becoming a weight around his own neck. I actually supported the guy back in the 2000 election but since then, through the magic of the internet, I have learned enough about this tool to realize how wrong I was.

Quote
You think his campaign has been worse than the Willie Horton sham against Dukakis? The viciousness of the Democratic primaries in 1992? The Daisy ads against Barry Goldwater? Nixon's re-election campaign against McGovern, particularly after the withdrawal of Thomas Eagleton?

yes. yes. yes. And a big yes - McGovern should have vetted Eagleton (hello - Palin anyone?) better not to mention the fact that the entire Democratic party laid down and died before the general election even started.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on November 02, 2008, 01:25:31 AM
I know it's stupid for me to wonder, but where are those medical records?  What's lurking there?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 02, 2008, 02:29:42 AM
1. the bail out wasn't socialism... it wasn't done right but it wasn't socialism. 
2. i though i'd acknowledged that i had pretty much abandoned support for mccain a while ago
3. its not mccain's loss that i'm dreading - its the fact that the horrible horrible liberals will be in charge and in the type of atmosphere that will let them actually institute their horrible horrible ideas ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 02, 2008, 08:10:05 AM
Yeah- health care for the poor, tax relief for the middle class, education reform (read: trash No Child Left Behind), ending our dependency on fossil fuels, addressing global warming (finally) getting us out of a needless war - all horrible ideas.

Conservatives had their chance and they ran this country into the ground - our global standing is horrible, our economy is in ruins, we lag behind too many countries in education, life expectancy - we need more of the same leadership...?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 02, 2008, 10:20:16 AM
Yeah- health care for the poor, tax relief for the middle class, education reform (read: trash No Child Left Behind), ending our dependency on fossil fuels, addressing global warming (finally) getting us out of a needless war - all horrible ideas.

Conservatives had their chance and they ran this country into the ground - our global standing is horrible, our economy is in ruins, we lag behind too many countries in education, life expectancy - we need more of the same leadership...?

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 02, 2008, 12:12:53 PM
Yeah- health care for the poor, tax relief for the middle class, education reform (read: trash No Child Left Behind), ending our dependency on fossil fuels, addressing global warming (finally) getting us out of a needless war - all horrible ideas.

Conservatives had their chance and they ran this country into the ground - our global standing is horrible, our economy is in ruins, we lag behind too many countries in education, life expectancy - we need more of the same leadership...?

Stealing money from one group and giving it to another is wrong, the government isn't robbin hood.  The left is just as responsible for NCLB as Bush so sorry, no points there.  Also the middle class are paying less in taxes than they were 8 years ago... again no points.  Yeah we need to get out of Iraq, they are the ones making sure of that though not any politicians over here.

Bush has obviously not governed as any kind of fiscal conservative... it'd be nice to have someone who is in the white house.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 02, 2008, 12:54:23 PM
Compassion, equalizing the economic playing field - these are things I want from a president and it looks as though a lot of other people do too. For far too long we have been subject to the whims and desires of special interests - I am willing to take a chance on being disappointed by someone who claims to interested in righting social injustices.
Conservatives had their chance and got fooled by GWB, not once but twice. I can honestly say that I am not interested in your ideas of government as they failed us during the Reagan yrs and both sets of Bush yrs. Top down economics is a sham and fraud - a theory designed by the rich in order for them to keep and consolidate their power base while giving false hope to the  majority. The idea of an ownership society just creates a nation of consumers and spenders which is a shaky platform to keep the economy chugging along - there is no proactive action taken only a wait-and-see-attitude and knee-jerk reaction when something does go wrong. All the signs were there for this meltdown, even I could see trouble on the horizon and all I did was sell real estate.
There is no room for social compassion in conservatism - just see Reagan's non-response to the beginning of the AIDs epidemic. Show me there is some sort of compassion in conservative ideals because all I see is hate and disdain.
This country was founded on the idea of questioning authority and keeping an eye on your own government - but because I am liberal I have people telling me I am not patriotic, telling me I am unamerican. Because I question our actions abroad I get told I don't support this country from people I work with, because I think we went too far with the Patriot Act - I support terrorism, because I think we need to shut down Guantanamo Bay - I side with Al Queada. Habeas Corpus being the foundation of our legal system and all - we can't even effectively fight terrorism with our own laws - we have to deny alleged terrorists basic rights that we would file complaints about in the World Court if another country did what we did. The glaring hypocrisy is embarrassing as an American - I want us to live up to the promise of what we stand for - not just act in selfish self interest.
Sorry this rant has gone past what you wrote keith and it's not directed at you but I am angry. I am angry that I cannot believe what I do without my love for own country being questioned. It's this basic republican strategy - calling us unamerican - that makes me want to close the door in the face of conservatism. I am one pissed off liberal and this election is LONG OVERDUE - the pendulum MUST swing this far to left to balance out the past 8 yrs of ignorance and greed. Conservatives out there - deal with it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 02, 2008, 01:16:46 PM
I just had to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkBE0lWeYU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkBE0lWeYU)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: winrit on November 02, 2008, 02:07:43 PM
I love how there are sounds of an angry child mob in the background!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 02, 2008, 04:36:15 PM
Compassion, equalizing the economic playing field.
Conservatives had their chance and got fooled by GWB, not once but twice. I can honestly say that I am not interested in your ideas of government as they failed us during the Reagan yrs and both sets of Bush yrs. Top down economics is a sham and fraud - a theory designed by the rich in order for them to keep and consolidate their power base while giving false hope to the  majority. The idea of an ownership society just creates a nation of consumers and spenders which is a shaky platform to keep the economy chugging along - there is no proactive action taken only a wait-and-see-attitude and knee-jerk reaction when something does go wrong.
There is no room for social compassion in conservatism - just see Reagan's non-response to the beginning of the AIDs epidemic. Show me there is some sort of compassion in conservative ideals because all I see is hate and disdain.
I prefer an ownership society to an entitlement society which devalues the inherent dignity of work and encourages weakness and dependency.  When given the option I think most people will like water will take the path of least resistance until we all end up at the bottom.

Social and fiscal conservatism are two different things and while I subscribe to the latter the former I am not for.  Reagan's response to the aids crisis had little to do with "conservatism" and was more a product of an exclusionary national ideal where people on the fringes of society were not even regarded let alone considered for gov't support.  I'm not a Reaganite by any means as I agree that social conservatism is more a subtle way to promote hatred but I also think that social liberalism encouraged a revoltingly collectivism.  Everyone has the right to be an asshole but the gov't should legislate morality either.

Quote
This country was founded on the idea of questioning authority and keeping an eye on your own government - but because I am liberal I have people telling me I am not patriotic, telling me I am unamerican. Because I question our actions abroad I get told I don't support this country from people I work with, because I think we went too far with the Patriot Act - I support terrorism, because I think we need to shut down Guantanamo Bay - I side with Al Queada. Habeas Corpus being the foundation of our legal system and all - we can't even effectively fight terrorism with our own laws - we have to deny alleged terrorists basic rights that we would file complaints about in the World Court if another country did what we did. The glaring hypocrisy is embarrassing as an American - I want us to live up to the promise of what we stand for - not just act in selfish self interest.
Sorry this rant has gone past what you wrote keith and it's not directed at you but I am angry. I am angry that I cannot believe what I do without my love for own country being questioned. It's this basic republican strategy - calling us unamerican - that makes me want to close the door in the face of conservatism. I am one pissed off liberal and this election is LONG OVERDUE - the pendulum MUST swing this far to left to balance out the past 8 yrs of ignorance and greed. Conservatives out there - deal with it.

you have no arguement with me on this point - except that it is not conservatism.  Its closer to fascism than anything else.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on November 02, 2008, 06:23:41 PM
Compassion, equalizing the economic playing field - these are things I want from a president and it looks as though a lot of other people do too. For far too long we have been subject to the whims and desires of special interests - I am willing to take a chance on being disappointed by someone who claims to interested in righting social injustices.
Conservatives had their chance and got fooled by GWB, not once but twice. I can honestly say that I am not interested in your ideas of government as they failed us during the Reagan yrs and both sets of Bush yrs. Top down economics is a sham and fraud - a theory designed by the rich in order for them to keep and consolidate their power base while giving false hope to the  majority. The idea of an ownership society just creates a nation of consumers and spenders which is a shaky platform to keep the economy chugging along - there is no proactive action taken only a wait-and-see-attitude and knee-jerk reaction when something does go wrong. All the signs were there for this meltdown, even I could see trouble on the horizon and all I did was sell real estate.
There is no room for social compassion in conservatism - just see Reagan's non-response to the beginning of the AIDs epidemic. Show me there is some sort of compassion in conservative ideals because all I see is hate and disdain.
This country was founded on the idea of questioning authority and keeping an eye on your own government - but because I am liberal I have people telling me I am not patriotic, telling me I am unamerican. Because I question our actions abroad I get told I don't support this country from people I work with, because I think we went too far with the Patriot Act - I support terrorism, because I think we need to shut down Guantanamo Bay - I side with Al Queada. Habeas Corpus being the foundation of our legal system and all - we can't even effectively fight terrorism with our own laws - we have to deny alleged terrorists basic rights that we would file complaints about in the World Court if another country did what we did. The glaring hypocrisy is embarrassing as an American - I want us to live up to the promise of what we stand for - not just act in selfish self interest.
Sorry this rant has gone past what you wrote keith and it's not directed at you but I am angry. I am angry that I cannot believe what I do without my love for own country being questioned. It's this basic republican strategy - calling us unamerican - that makes me want to close the door in the face of conservatism. I am one pissed off liberal and this election is LONG OVERDUE - the pendulum MUST swing this far to left to balance out the past 8 yrs of ignorance and greed. Conservatives out there - deal with it.

best post of the thread!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on November 02, 2008, 06:27:21 PM
Getting a little touchy?


My apologies Martin, but I tend to get a little touch when accused of being a lazy apathetic voter. I don't feel that was called for.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on November 03, 2008, 12:44:45 AM
With all the election huffing and puffing from all of us entitled folks, let's take a break and read this personal story (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1103/p09s02-coop.html).  Yes, it's pro-Obama, but more than that it's pro-America and all that represents.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 12:56:48 AM
With all the election huffing and puffing from all of us entitled folks, let's take a break and read this personal story (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1103/p09s02-coop.html).  Yes, it's pro-Obama, but more than that it's pro-America and all that represents.

I really hope (heh) he comes through on his promises for the sake of the people in this article. and not like this (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11012008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_2012__four_years_later_136356.htm) ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on November 03, 2008, 01:00:48 AM
With all the election huffing and puffing from all of us entitled folks, let's take a break and read this personal story (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1103/p09s02-coop.html).  Yes, it's pro-Obama, but more than that it's pro-America and all that represents.

I really hope (heh) he comes through on his promises for the sake of the people in this article.

It took me a long time to climb aboard the Obamatrain, so, yeah, fingers crossed that he's not an empty suit and will fulfill their expectations and a few of mine too. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Colleen on November 03, 2008, 08:19:35 AM
The funny thing is, this swing is not THAT far to the left either.  Just in comparison to the last 25 years or so.  Teddy Roosevelt (conservative hero) believed in a more interventionist government in some ways than Obama does.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 03, 2008, 12:05:56 PM
Huffinging Post is generally okay, I guess, but Atrios (http://www.eschatonblog.com/) is still the only political blog I consider required reading (required for me, I mean; not necessarily for you).

Quote from: Atrios
Let The Concern Trolling Begin

No matter how much Obama wins by, if he wins, the media will have Joe Lieberman and Harold Ford explain to us what it really means, which is that the American public supports exactly what Harold Ford supports. The establishment is "center right," whatever that means, and no matter what public sentiment actually is, they will tell you that the American People support their agenda.
Sigh.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 12:22:12 PM
I really hope (heh) he comes through on his promises for the sake of the people in this article. and not like this (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11012008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_2012__four_years_later_136356.htm) ;)

It took me a long time to climb aboard the Obamatrain, so, yeah, fingers crossed that he's not an empty suit and will fulfill their expectations and a few of mine too. 

Agreed and agreed - believe it or not I was a late comer to Obama as well - but I am all in simply for the fact that I am going to back who ever is the heir apparent to breaking the Red hold on the executive branch of the government...

I fully expect to be disappointed in some ways because a candidate never entirely fulfills their campaign promises - but even if he does half the things he is promising - it will be for the better. (IMO of course)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 12:24:10 PM
Getting a little touchy?


My apologies Martin, but I tend to get a little touch when accused of being a lazy apathetic voter. I don't feel that was called for.

That was never my intent and I apologize for making you feel that way...I got a lot of respect for all of the opinions here and for the fact that we can can disagree but still come together where it counts - discussing film.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on November 03, 2008, 01:23:48 PM
This is so odd. I have been a voting Canadian for 20 years (having voted in every election) and I have never been more nervous or worried than I am about Tuesday. I want to go to sleep and wake up after the election. I am not even American for crying out loud.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: winrit on November 03, 2008, 01:36:48 PM
McCain Stops By Saturday Night Live

"His party may not have been able to pony up for a half-hour special on three major networks, but John McCain worked in a final plea to voters on national television by appearing on SNL over the weekend. Accompanied by Tina Fey as Sarah Palin (and even a cameo by wife Cindy), the presidential hopeful appeared on "QVC" selling everything from Joe action figures to "Palin in 2012" t-shirts (Fey goes rouge for that one). Who knew McCain had that kind of comedic timing in him?"


http://www.hulu.com/embed/NQ9fOxqj1K1a4-Rht17nDg (http://www.hulu.com/embed/NQ9fOxqj1K1a4-Rht17nDg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 03, 2008, 01:48:54 PM
McCain Stops By Saturday Night Live

"His party may not have been able to pony up for a half-hour special on three major networks, but John McCain worked in a final plea to voters on national television by appearing on SNL over the weekend. Accompanied by Tina Fey as Sarah Palin (and even a cameo by wife Cindy), the presidential hopeful appeared on "QVC" selling everything from Joe action figures to "Palin in 2012" t-shirts (Fey goes rouge for that one). Who knew McCain had that kind of comedic timing in him?"


I'll admit the McCain Fine Gold Collection made me chuckle.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 01:49:41 PM
Who knew McCain had that kind of comedic timing in him?"

Anyone whose seen him on Stewart or Letterman from 2000 thru 2006 ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on November 03, 2008, 01:56:30 PM
This just reinforces my view that he was trying to lose the election on purpose.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 01:59:35 PM
I don't want the funniest guy in the room - I want the smartest. :P
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on November 03, 2008, 02:00:21 PM
i think of the 2000 thru 2006 stuff as pre2008 election... and everything recent as post. He seems like a different person/candidate now so I tend to forget that he is the same guy I laughed at/with in the past.


btw--- All of you know who I would vote for, but regardless of your personal leanings if you are registered make sure you cast a ballot. This will be the first election since I came of age where I won't be voting and as all of you probably guessed this is through no choice of my own. Somehow my voter registration hit a snafu and I won't be able to vote tomorrow... I don't know if it is because I was in the process of moving that my electronic paper trail somehow didn't line up and with all the fear of voter fraud they are being hyper vigilant, or if somehow there was a typo from someone doing data entry... but regardless I went from having my registration pending to not being in the system at all. At least I'm not in a swing state, but if it's the end of the day and you're tired and can't be bothered... cast my ballot for me and go vote.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 02:01:54 PM
It's cool - ACORN registered me about 5 times so I will make one of those votes for you Lise!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 02:02:04 PM
I don't want the funniest guy in the room - I want the smartest. :P

Technically I think that's Biden if internet ads to enticing me to take an IQ test are to be believed. ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 02:03:12 PM
i think of the 2000 thru 2006 stuff as pre2008 election... and everything recent as post. He seems like a different person/candidate now so I tend to forget that he is the same guy I laughed at/with in the past.


btw--- All of you know who I would vote for, but regardless of your personal leanings if you are registered make sure you cast a ballot. This will be the first election since I came of age where I won't be voting and as all of you probably guessed this is through no choice of my own. Somehow my voter registration hit a snafu and I won't be able to vote tomorrow... I don't know if it is because I was in the process of moving that my electronic paper trail somehow didn't line up and with all the fear of voter fraud they are being hyper vigilant, or if somehow there was a typo from someone doing data entry... but regardless I went from having my registration pending to not being in the system at all. At least I'm not in a swing state, but if it's the end of the day and you're tired and can't be bothered... cast my ballot for me and go vote.

can you do a provisional balot?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on November 03, 2008, 02:05:28 PM
Wow, that sucks Lise.

I didn't realize you were an African-American felon.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on November 03, 2008, 02:06:43 PM
can you do a provisional balot?
I can... but it won't count. They only count provisional in extreme cases and even then because my registration got wiped from the system it wouldn't count. Unfortunately I got far enough along in my move to no longer be registered in california... essentially my move has resulted in a voting ClusterCINECAST

Wow, that sucks Lise.

I didn't realize you were an African-American felon.

neither did I... i'm guessing they thought I was a cartoon character... or a plant... maybe a ficus
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on November 03, 2008, 02:14:03 PM
Wow, that sucks Lise.

I didn't realize you were an African-American felon.

neither did I... i'm guessing they thought I was a cartoon character... or a plant... maybe a ficus

It's shame you're not a goldfish called Princess Nudelman
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 03, 2008, 02:42:26 PM
Who knew McCain had that kind of comedic timing in him?"

Anyone whose seen him on Stewart or Letterman from 2000 thru 2006 ;)
I defer again to Atrios:

Quote from: Atrios (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_11_02_archive.html#1603488526058435126)
Make It Stop

Would someone please tell Senator McCain that the correct "joke" would be "Joe the Senator" and not "Joe the Biden."

Yes I know he's been doing it for awhile.
Neither funniest nor smartest.  Just a pissy, limelight-seeking diva.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 02:45:38 PM

Neither funniest nor smartest.  Just a pissy, limelight-seeking diva.

pixote

I thought that was Froham?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on November 03, 2008, 02:49:07 PM
If you're willing to sojourn to Wisconsin by tomorrow Lise, I'd be more than willing to forge a utility bill for you and act as your personal voucher.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on November 03, 2008, 02:57:13 PM

Neither funniest nor smartest.  Just a pissy, limelight-seeking diva.

pixote

I thought that was Froham?

OUCH!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on November 03, 2008, 02:57:55 PM
OUCH!

We say "BURN!" in these parts.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 03, 2008, 02:58:49 PM
OUCH!

We say "BURN!" in these parts.

in the "so cold that it burns" sense
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on November 03, 2008, 03:11:26 PM
If you're willing to sojourn to Wisconsin by tomorrow Lise, I'd be more than willing to forge a utility bill for you and act as your personal voucher.

oddly that is remarkably tempting ;) I know that in the district my vote would be part of the majority and in the electoral college system it means less than it would in another jurisdiction... but I really am crazy about the idea that we have to use our voice when we can so I vote. The funny thing is I thought about registering at my parents house so that I could elect a voting member to congress (i live 4 blocks from the boarder so having maryland tags would not be odd), and if I had I wouldn't have this problem right now.

..but I was crazy and wanted to register in DC where I live so that when I say I am not fairly represented in the us legislative branch I want to mean it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 03:14:38 PM
OUCH!

We say "BURN!" in these parts.

in the "so cold that it burns" sense

He knows i'm joking...

(right frosty?)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 03:37:36 PM
If you're willing to sojourn to Wisconsin by tomorrow Lise, I'd be more than willing to forge a utility bill for you and act as your personal voucher.

oddly that is remarkably tempting ;) I know that in the district my vote would be part of the majority and in the electoral college system it means less than it would in another jurisdiction... but I really am crazy about the idea that we have to use our voice when we can so I vote. The funny thing is I thought about registering at my parents house so that I could elect a voting member to congress (i live 4 blocks from the boarder so having maryland tags would not be odd), and if I had I wouldn't have this problem right now.

..but I was crazy and wanted to register in DC where I live so that when I say I am not fairly represented in the us legislative branch I want to mean it.

maybe this will make you feel better:

(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081102/capt.fedd6d1d0b054af483e3d7404afb8eff.your_vote_matters_gfx580.jpg?x=320&y=345&q=85&sig=p.IMRrx5ex9R_6CvQMZQyw--)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 03, 2008, 03:38:53 PM
For a split second, I misread Virginia as Vermont.  A comically broad double-take soon followed.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: roujin on November 03, 2008, 03:59:23 PM
This thread...

See ya in four years.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 03, 2008, 04:02:47 PM
CNN is reporting that Senator Obama's grandmother has died from cancer.  Really sad.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 04:03:21 PM
This thread...

See ya in four years.

You kiddin' me?
The next election starts as soon as the polls close on this one. Hell - I would go as far to say that Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was serving as his unofficial opening shot in the 2012 election. The Republican party is going to eat itrself alive after this and it will be interesting to watch how this sorts out...this might be when the libertarian party comes into it's own.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 04:04:54 PM
CNN is reporting that Senator Obama's grandmother has died from cancer.  Really sad.

pixote

This has got to be such a conflicting time for him - my thoughts go out to him and his family.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 04:09:37 PM
CNN is reporting that Senator Obama's grandmother has died from cancer.  Really sad.

pixote

This has got to be such a conflicting time for him - my thoughts go out to him and his family.

Indeed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on November 03, 2008, 04:19:09 PM
Wow she dies today. This is one of the most horrible things I have ever heard. Unreal.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: StarCarly on November 03, 2008, 04:34:53 PM
CNN is reporting that Senator Obama's grandmother has died from cancer.  Really sad.

pixote

How sad. I was crossing my fingers that she would make it to see her grandson make history.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 03, 2008, 05:19:23 PM
This thread...

See ya in four years.

You kiddin' me?
The next election starts as soon as the polls close on this one. Hell - I would go as far to say that Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was serving as his unofficial opening shot in the 2012 election. The Republican party is going to eat itrself alive after this and it will be interesting to watch how this sorts out...this might be when the libertarian party comes into it's own.

Powell will be 75 in 2012.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 05:40:58 PM
True (I forgot how old he was) and he has said he would never want that office - all I'm saying is that the next election starts as soon as this is over.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 03, 2008, 05:44:13 PM
True (I forgot how old he was) and he has said he would never want that office - all I'm saying is that the next election starts as soon as this is over.

For Palin it started in September... for Romney it started on Super Tuesday
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 03, 2008, 06:13:30 PM
Is it over for Jeb yet?

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 03, 2008, 06:46:56 PM
Is it over for Jeb yet?

pixote

I still don't understand why that Chaney fellow didn't run this year. He seems like a nice enough man.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 06:48:40 PM
Like someone's grandpa...a grandpa who supports torture and domestic spying...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on November 03, 2008, 07:01:45 PM
Lets have some predictions people....


346 Obama
191 McCain

52.4% Obama
46.8% McCain

57 seats for Dems


Book it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on November 03, 2008, 07:47:22 PM
This is pretty funny...

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086 (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 03, 2008, 08:28:22 PM
I haven't watched this yet, so I don't yet know if it'll make me cry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEFgHskgOFQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEFgHskgOFQ)

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on November 03, 2008, 09:01:00 PM
I know you're all pretty interested in how this whole election thing turns out, but I also know about the void you'll be left with on wednesday morning when the campaigning is over, the ballots are in, and the winner is announced (hopefully). I'm here to help you fill that void, so head on over to the Filmspots page (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=4089.0) and get your vote on.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 09:02:33 PM
The political game never ends - that's the beauty of it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on November 03, 2008, 09:03:41 PM
The political game never ends - that's the beauty of it.

So true... Che for president!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 03, 2008, 09:07:06 PM
Commie, unamerican, leftie, pinko...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Clovis8 on November 03, 2008, 09:17:35 PM
Commie, unamerican, leftie, pinko...

Hey that's my Christian name. How'd you know?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 03, 2008, 11:10:37 PM
The political game never ends - that's the beauty of it.

So true... Che for president!

Stop promoting Che so hard. It's not a good movie. The Dark Knight is better. Face facts.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Ronan on November 04, 2008, 06:52:37 AM
Good luck with voting tonight Americans
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wilson on November 04, 2008, 07:22:25 AM
Hope you wonderful people do the right thing!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 04, 2008, 07:44:16 AM
Erase the past eight yrs and act as though they never happened?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wilson on November 04, 2008, 07:49:25 AM
Well, as close as possible.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 04, 2008, 07:53:45 AM
I am up early - polls just opened - I am gonna go vote Obama into office. My vote may not count since I live in Arizona but just the fact that I am a part of this election today makes me proud.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on November 04, 2008, 08:12:45 AM
My wife voted Obama. I am voting FS, since that's the only place I am allowed to vote.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 04, 2008, 09:53:02 AM
My wife voted Obama. I am voting FS, since that's the only place I am allowed to vote.

What does "FS" mean?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 10:10:25 AM

My wife voted Obama. I am voting FS, since that's the only place I am allowed to vote.

What does "FS" mean?

judging from thor's avatar it stands for Felon, Sexual.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on November 04, 2008, 10:29:54 AM
Good luck with the whole democracy thing Americans. I hope nobody's votes are suppressed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 04, 2008, 10:35:53 AM
Good luck with the whole democracy thing Americans. I hope nobody's votes are suppressed.
Your hopes will be dashed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 04, 2008, 10:39:27 AM
At least you guys will be voting in such high numbers. Meanwhile Canada had its lowest voter turnout in history.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on November 04, 2008, 10:55:16 AM
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f186/chesterfilms1980/Printelect---I-Voted-Today.gif)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 04, 2008, 10:57:15 AM
At least you guys will be voting in such high numbers. Meanwhile Canada had its lowest voter turnout in history.
Yeah, but that may still lead to our percentage being lower than yours.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 04, 2008, 11:02:05 AM
Good luck with the whole democracy thing Americans. I hope nobody's votes are suppressed.
Your hopes will be dashed.

I always assumed that the supression and voting corpses cancelled each other out?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 04, 2008, 11:07:08 AM
Good luck with the whole democracy thing Americans. I hope nobody's votes are suppressed.
Your hopes will be dashed.

I always assumed that the supression and voting corpses cancelled each other out?
Not when the corpses are suppressed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 04, 2008, 11:09:00 AM
Good luck with the whole democracy thing Americans. I hope nobody's votes are suppressed.
Your hopes will be dashed.

I always assumed that the supression and voting corpses cancelled each other out?
Not when the corpses are suppressed.
When will people learn, corpses were people to!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on November 04, 2008, 11:10:18 AM
My wife voted Obama. I am voting FS, since that's the only place I am allowed to vote.

What does "FS" mean?

Erm, Filmspotting.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 11:12:26 AM
At least you guys will be voting in such high numbers. Meanwhile Canada had its lowest voter turnout in history.

The line at my polling place was twice as long as it usually is (at least according to my dad) but it's hard to say if that means more people or just more people voting early because they were expecting a lot of people later in the day.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 04, 2008, 11:16:59 AM
Good luck with the whole democracy thing Americans. I hope nobody's votes are suppressed.
Your hopes will be dashed.

I always assumed that the supression and voting corpses cancelled each other out?
Not when the corpses are suppressed.
When will people learn, corpses were people to!

I'm also a supporter of the voting rights of dead pets!



At least you guys will be voting in such high numbers. Meanwhile Canada had its lowest voter turnout in history.

The line at my polling place was twice as long as it usually is (at least according to my dad) but it's hard to say if that means more people or just more people voting early because they were expecting a lot of people later in the day.

Don't forget how long the lines for early voting have been. It will be a historic turnout.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 04, 2008, 11:22:16 AM
even though i didn't vote for obama, i am so emotional thinking about him winning.  can't wait to chill with the crowd tonight in chicago (anyone else checking it out?)

my voting place had no line when i went in an hour ago.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 04, 2008, 11:24:06 AM
even though i didn't vote for obama, i am so emotional thinking about him winning.  can't wait to chill with the crowd tonight in chicago (anyone else checking it out?)

my voting place had no line when i went in an hour ago.
For which third party candidate did you throw your vote away?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Thor on November 04, 2008, 11:25:56 AM
I'm also a supporter of the voting rights of dead pets!


"Mr. Bananas, Humphrey Boagart. Oh, Snowball 1, my poor dead kitty, not you too!"
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 11:34:05 AM
can't wait to chill with the crowd tonight in chicago (anyone else checking it out?)


Some of my co-workers are going but I declined.  That's just way too many people in one place for my liking.  Especially if McCain wins, I want to be far, far away.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 04, 2008, 12:05:21 PM
I am going to have post-election depression.
After 4 yrs of whining, bitching and waiting for this day - if the stakes weren't so high - I wouldn't want it to end.
I see what they (the founders...?) were on to about dissent - you need that watchdog mentality (on either side) to ferret out what is going wrong. Now (if we win) the biggest problem will be complacency and exclusion of the other side. I know what I wrote the other day but I really do believe it's important to get some sort of buy in from the opposition on as many issues as possible...I should never legislate while angry. :D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 04, 2008, 12:06:19 PM
meet on chat later today anyone for a blow by blow?
At least for the comedy central's election day coverage...?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 04, 2008, 12:17:50 PM
even though i didn't vote for obama, i am so emotional thinking about him winning.  can't wait to chill with the crowd tonight in chicago (anyone else checking it out?)

my voting place had no line when i went in an hour ago.
For which third party candidate did you throw your vote away?

all votes are equally "thrown away".  i voted for McKinney/Clemente!!! :)


I am going to have post-election depression.
After 4 yrs of whining, bitching and waiting for this day - if the stakes weren't so high - I wouldn't want it to end.
I see what they (the founders...?) were on to about dissent - you need that watchdog mentality (on either side) to ferret out what is going wrong. Now (if we win) the biggest problem will be complacency and exclusion of the other side. I know what I wrote the other day but I really do believe it's important to get some sort of buy in from the opposition on as many issues as possible...I should never legislate while angry. :D

marty, i - unfortunately - don't think you have to worry about obama, he has been completely middle-of-the-road, getting too much buy-in from the opposition.  it might even be wrong-headed to think that obama considers "them" "the opposition", which is actually a nice way to think of it :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 04, 2008, 01:06:05 PM
Has anyone seen the size of the bulletproof glass on Obama's stand for the gathering tonight?

even though i didn't vote for obama, i am so emotional thinking about him winning.  can't wait to chill with the crowd tonight in chicago (anyone else checking it out?)

my voting place had no line when i went in an hour ago.
For which third party candidate did you throw your vote away?

all votes are equally "thrown away".  i voted for McKinney/Clemente!!! :)
Another day, I have no time to discuss this today.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 01:09:48 PM
Has anyone seen the size of the bulletproof glass on Obama's stand for the gathering tonight?

They really should get an Obama stand-in.  Like that crappy Dennis Quaid move that came out this year.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 04, 2008, 01:11:48 PM
Has anyone seen the size of the bulletproof glass on Obama's stand for the gathering tonight?

They really should get an Obama stand-in.  Like that crappy Dennis Quaid move that came out this year.
I wish I could find a picture. Maybe it's just me, but I was amazed.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 04, 2008, 01:23:26 PM
Has anyone seen the size of the bulletproof glass on Obama's stand for the gathering tonight?

even though i didn't vote for obama, i am so emotional thinking about him winning.  can't wait to chill with the crowd tonight in chicago (anyone else checking it out?)

my voting place had no line when i went in an hour ago.
For which third party candidate did you throw your vote away?

all votes are equally "thrown away".  i voted for McKinney/Clemente!!! :)
Another day, I have no time to discuss this today.

looking forward to it :)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 02:09:57 PM
Has anyone seen the size of the bulletproof glass on Obama's stand for the gathering tonight?

They really should get an Obama stand-in.  Like that crappy Dennis Quaid move that came out this year.
I wish I could find a picture. Maybe it's just me, but I was amazed.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/11/04/barack_obama_election_night_speech_to_be_behind_bullet_proof_glass (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/11/04/barack_obama_election_night_speech_to_be_behind_bullet_proof_glass)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 04, 2008, 02:35:46 PM
Quote
marty, i - unfortunately - don't think you have to worry about obama, he has been completely middle-of-the-road, getting too much buy-in from the opposition.  it might even be wrong-headed to think that obama considers "them" "the opposition", which is actually a nice way to think of it

Wow pretty cynical of you Jon - but do you have an alternative?
Or is it just complaining?
I doubt any self-respecting conservative from the Republican party considers Obama middle of the road or centrist. While I appreciate a lot of your politics it's foolish to think that anyone who even remotely has your views is a viable candidate. Now - granted - I am only taking a gauge on where you stand based on what I have read in other forums and in this thread. But considering the last (almost) 3 decades of politics (the Clintons were moderates at best) - this is the most exciting candidate to come along in a while. Instead of immediately dismissing him - keep an open mind and remember that real change always comes in small increments (excluding violent revolution of course :D)...

My point is that to keep the country going in towards the left (and it will only go so far) - you will need to create buy in from the other side. Both sides need to take the time out to humanize the other side...it's the only way.

Sorry - I was ranting again.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on November 04, 2008, 03:16:07 PM
all votes are equally "thrown away".  i voted for McKinney/Clemente!!! :)

Was the Tupac murder a ballot issue for you?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 04, 2008, 04:21:25 PM
Quote
marty, i - unfortunately - don't think you have to worry about obama, he has been completely middle-of-the-road, getting too much buy-in from the opposition.  it might even be wrong-headed to think that obama considers "them" "the opposition", which is actually a nice way to think of it

Wow pretty cynical of you Jon - but do you have an alternative?
Or is it just complaining?
I doubt any self-respecting conservative from the Republican party considers Obama middle of the road or centrist. While I appreciate a lot of your politics it's foolish to think that anyone who even remotely has your views is a viable candidate. Now - granted - I am only taking a gauge on where you stand based on what I have read in other forums and in this thread. But considering the last (almost) 3 decades of politics (the Clintons were moderates at best) - this is the most exciting candidate to come along in a while. Instead of immediately dismissing him - keep an open mind and remember that real change always comes in small increments (excluding violent revolution of course :D)...

My point is that to keep the country going in towards the left (and it will only go so far) - you will need to create buy in from the other side. Both sides need to take the time out to humanize the other side...it's the only way.

Sorry - I was ranting again.

i don't follow.  you think it is cynical of me to call obama middle-of-the-road?  he has defined himself this way. 

do i have an alternative to what?  to obama?  that's why i voted McKinney.  to middle-of-the-road politics?  sure, pull hard to the left as bush & co. did moving things to the right.  the population has so little will that we tend to accept whatever the powers-that-be dictate.

i didn't vote for McKinney because i thought she was "viable", i voted for her because i believe in what she stands for.  i happen not to agree with many obama positions.  further, i have been a bit disheartened witnessing obama's relaxing positions for what i imagine is political expediency.  i'm not dismissing obama, but i am being realistic about what he has stated to support, as well as how some of his positions have changed a bit over the last year.  there are also things i like about obama, and, as i wrote earlier, i am super-excited and emotional about the actuality of him becoming president.

as far as your "only way" gunk, i don't buy it :)

Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 04:38:20 PM

i didn't vote for McKinney because i thought she was "viable", i voted for her because i believe in what she stands for.  i happen not to agree with many obama positions. 

I see nothing wrong with voting for a candidate you believe in and you really shouldn't have to defend yourself for doing so.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: saltine on November 04, 2008, 05:28:48 PM
According to Brain Schaffner of Pollster.com, the race to watch is Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. If he goes down early, it's a blowout for Dems and Obama.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on November 04, 2008, 06:21:45 PM
CNN is doing some weird ob-wan hologram sh*t.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on November 04, 2008, 06:28:40 PM
The spanish channels are the best places to watch because they have the same numbers but they have a much more fun style of speech. I can pick out certain words and it's fun to hear really clear state names in all the garble.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 04, 2008, 06:47:59 PM
I'll be disappointed when the Philly Suburbs are no longer the center of the political universe :-\
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ses on November 04, 2008, 07:17:22 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't like that they call states when there is only about 3% of the votes in?  Also, different networks are calling states at different times.  Ugh.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on November 04, 2008, 07:21:12 PM
i'm still giddy over having managed to vote today... if only i felt better (i'm a bit under the weather). I only had to wait in line for an hour.

... I don't love early results either, but it's better than when they would make projections based only on exit polls.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on November 04, 2008, 07:26:25 PM
 The Obama Party in Bryant Park looks like New Year's Eve in NY. The McCain event looks like a middle school holiday concert.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 04, 2008, 07:29:16 PM
NBC called PA for O - this looks to be a very early night for the holiday concert ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 07:30:30 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't like that they call states when there is only about 3% of the votes in?  Also, different networks are calling states at different times.  Ugh.

This is why I won't be paying any attention until at least 9pm.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on November 04, 2008, 07:56:16 PM
CNN is doing some weird ob-wan hologram sh*t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 04, 2008, 08:13:00 PM
CNN is doing some weird ob-wan hologram sh*t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg)


Seriously, the possibilities for this are endless.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Tequila on November 04, 2008, 10:12:07 PM
So..I guess Congratulations are in order.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on November 04, 2008, 10:12:34 PM
we made history
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on November 04, 2008, 10:14:48 PM
I believe this calls for a Woo!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on November 04, 2008, 10:15:16 PM
Holla!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Kevin Shields on November 04, 2008, 10:25:27 PM
Ok... History is made.

AND HE BETTER NOT CINECAST! THIS UP!!!! 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: tjwells on November 04, 2008, 10:52:31 PM
tears and beer and jack. loving this night.

wish i had gone downtown, though...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 04, 2008, 11:11:18 PM
w00t.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: mañana on November 04, 2008, 11:35:36 PM
Well done America!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on November 05, 2008, 12:10:06 AM
i wish i'd gone downtown too... but i figured since i was sick today that would be a bad idea! But inauguration day look out!!!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 12:54:44 AM
chilling in grant park was pretty interesting, but i did miss the inundation of information i would have had at home, so glad i went though :)  californicators, what is going on with prop 8?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on November 05, 2008, 12:59:37 AM
californicators, what is going on with prop 8?

Not looking good, buddy. 53% in favor at last count. Less than half of the votes are in though.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:16:10 AM
californicators, what is going on with prop 8?

Not looking good, buddy. 53% in favor at last count. Less than half of the votes are in though.
Basil, Chester, any updates on Props 4, 6, and 8?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on November 05, 2008, 01:20:33 AM
Yes/no:

Prop 4 is at 48/52 with 37% reporting.
Prop 6 is a confirmed No at 30/70.
Prop 8 is still at 52/48 with 39% reporting.

Source (http://elections.cbslocal.com/cbs/kcbs/20081104/race108.shtml)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: chesterfilms on November 05, 2008, 01:21:10 AM
i have not heard anything yet. happy about Barack, but so sad about the way 8 looks. :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 01:22:25 AM
According to msnbc.com, Prop 8 is 52-48 For with 41% in.  The other way around for Prop 4.

Florida and Arizona passed gay marriage bans.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:22:57 AM
I assumed 6 would die quick. Nice to see things projecting well for 4, but hopefully 8 will come around. Any idea what regions are reporting more heavily.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 01:25:53 AM
Al Franken's down less than 5,000 votes with 93% reporting.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 01:27:49 AM
Here's a cool map (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25361655/) you can see what % of precincts are reporting.  Looks like some big blue ones in CA have a lot left to count.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 01:30:01 AM
Indiana's gone for Obama, only three states left be called (NC, MT and MO).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 01:30:50 AM
how sweet it would be to get franken in, for some reason i suspect a recount would help him more than coleman - any truth to this?

on cali, so wrong about the overwhelming support for farm animals, but not gay marriage - not sure if prop 8 is lost at this point, it seems that a lot of the bay area has yet to report
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 01:32:39 AM
Ted Stevens is up 3% with 45% reporting.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on November 05, 2008, 01:33:39 AM
on cali, so wrong about the overwhelming support for farm animals, but not gay marriage - not sure if prop 8 is lost at this point, it seems that a lot of the bay area has yet to report

It's definitely not over yet, especially because of the bay area, like you said. I really hope things turn around. The farm animals proposition is so ridiculous, especially since it will actually result in less humane treatment. The larger cages will most likely be used to contain multiple chickens, which causes them to become cannibalistic.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 01:33:50 AM
how sweet it would be to get franken in, for some reason i suspect a recount would help him more than coleman - any truth to this?

Generally speaking, the more people vote, the better a Democrat does.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:35:00 AM
Cmon Cali, don't blow it!

I must say, I won't be surprised if Stevens pulls it out. Very saddened, but not surprised.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 01:37:55 AM
showing franken down by 78 votes now with 94% reporting!  (only 90% of liberal hennepin county :) )
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 01:40:14 AM
too close to watch, coleman back up to +1,500ish, still at 94% :(
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:45:24 AM
too close to watch, coleman back up to +1,500ish, still at 94% :(
Supposedly the margin is too slim and there will be a recount regardless of the final call. So, we'll know about this one Friday.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:49:59 AM
Good thing it's 2:45 on the east coast, cause Michele Norris was on the verge of tears.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 01:55:51 AM
Down to a 3,000 vote lead for Stevens with 66% in.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 01:57:28 AM
i'm toast.  night all.  hope i wake up to some more nice surprises :)  what a fine night!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:57:46 AM
Down to a 3,000 vote lead for Stevens with 66% in.
Should've never been this close.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 01:58:51 AM
It's Palin country.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:59:22 AM
And not surprisingly, they've vandalized Obama's wikipedia page. In a way you may not be expecting.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 02:01:00 AM
And it's been defeated.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 02:04:42 AM
What did they do?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 02:08:24 AM
They scripted over the top of the page (that is, similar to the way flash ads block your view), in big bold red and blue letters, the phrase "n**gersh*t" and something about "b*tches and hoes" not "meaning sh*t".

(censorship mine)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 05, 2008, 02:15:32 AM
Chambliss (GA) might fall below 50% after all (98% reporting).

Montana went for McCain.

Also, generally speaking, w00t!

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 02:17:38 AM
Chambliss (GA) might fall below 50% after all (98% reporting).

Montana went for McCain.

Also, generally speaking, w00t!

pixote
Someone said they'll be contesting that race for the rest of the month.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 05, 2008, 02:19:50 AM
Anyone heard an explanation why they haven't called the Presidential race in NC despite 100% of precincts having finished reporting hours ago?  The margin seems to big for a recount provision to be in play, but that's the only explanation I can think of.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 02:21:09 AM
Someone call Jon, Franken just pulled ahead!

Anyone heard an explanation why they haven't called the Presidential race in NC despite 100% of precincts having finished reporting hours ago?  The margin seems to big for a recount provision to be in play, but that's the only explanation I can think of.

pixote
The margin is only .29%. I think that's more than enough for a recount.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 02:23:42 AM
Someone call Jon, Franken just pulled ahead!

he was ahead by 2k at the start of 96% then fell to 1500 the to 1000 now he leads by 945... still at 96%.  Min will be challenged.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 02:24:45 AM
Absentee ballots?  There's a lot of overseas military based in NC.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 02:26:48 AM
Chambliss (GA) might fall below 50% after all (98% reporting).

Montana went for McCain.

Also, generally speaking, w00t!

pixote
Someone said they'll be contesting that race for the rest of the month.
Mizzou's margin is similarly small.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 02:30:48 AM
looks like prop 8 will go yes - there are similar amounts on precints left to report in the bay as there are in the latino inland empire and orange.

Franken's now up by a mere 350.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 02:32:34 AM
looks like prop 8 will go yes - there are similar amounts on precints left to report in the bay as there are in the latino inland empire and orange.

Franken's now up by a mere 350.
They may all go recount. Of course, only people that actively seek news will ever know what happens.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 02:33:39 AM
heh, franken back down by 1400
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 02:38:02 AM
heh, franken back down by 1400
Tennis might be easier to follow.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 05, 2008, 02:39:03 AM
Quote from: Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/242945.php)
I don't know if irony is the word for this. But if this bears out, I'm sure this will be grist for a lot of discussion. According to the AP's analysis (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10903813) of the exit polls in California: "Blacks turning out in droves to support Obama also threw their support strongly behind Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Opposition to the ban held a slight edge among whites, while Lations and Asians were split."
:/

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 02:41:30 AM
Quote from: Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/242945.php)
I don't know if irony is the word for this. But if this bears out, I'm sure this will be grist for a lot of discussion. According to the AP's analysis (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10903813) of the exit polls in California: "Blacks turning out in droves to support Obama also threw their support strongly behind Proposition 8, which would overturn the state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Opposition to the ban held a slight edge among whites, while Lations and Asians were split."
:/

pixote
That's what I was told to expect.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 02:53:31 AM
heh, franken back down by 1400
Tennis might be easier to follow.

franken up by 2000 (have i mentioned i go up to flushing every august?)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 05, 2008, 02:55:37 AM
Damn, only a 6% lead for Obama in the popular vote.  That's on the low end of what I was hoping for (but about what I expected).

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 02:59:01 AM
Damn, only a 6% lead for Obama in the popular vote.  That's on the low end of what I was hoping for (but about what I expected).

pixote

it is still a center right country.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 05, 2008, 03:04:23 AM
Um, whoops? (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/242949.php)

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: sdedalus on November 05, 2008, 03:12:49 AM
A win in Georgia would be really sweet.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 03:15:00 AM
A win in Georgia would be really sweet.
Vegan populations vote often and vote left. Let's go recount!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: lise on November 05, 2008, 06:53:14 AM
that is the fear with early voting.... unintentional disenfranchisement.... why aren't we hearing about this on the national scale?!?! 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on November 05, 2008, 07:32:48 AM
*Pulls out shotgun*

And you guys just though I was joking.

Watch out for the racist midget Osama.  :P

Okay, I'm breaking the facade. I'm cool with it. Hey if we survived Bush and Clinton's screw-ups Obama should be fine.  ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wilson on November 05, 2008, 07:34:09 AM
What a great day to be alive.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Emiliana on November 05, 2008, 07:43:05 AM
I guess Congratulations are in order.

QFL
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 08:52:34 AM
Damn, only a 6% lead for Obama in the popular vote.  That's on the low end of what I was hoping for (but about what I expected).

pixote

it is still a center right country.

if by that you mean the media pushes (center-)right ideas thus establishing those ideas and candidates as the only viable options, then sure
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 09:39:05 AM
Damn, only a 6% lead for Obama in the popular vote.  That's on the low end of what I was hoping for (but about what I expected).

pixote

it is still a center right country.

if by that you mean the media pushes (center-)right ideas thus establishing those ideas and candidates as the only viable options, then sure

 ::)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 05, 2008, 10:13:44 AM
Yglesias: (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/thought_of_the_day_10.php) "Brokaw on Morning Joe cited as evidence for the center-right thesis the idea that a majority of land area in the United States, if you measure it on the county level, voted for McCain."

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 10:23:46 AM
Yglesias: (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/thought_of_the_day_10.php) "Brokaw on Morning Joe cited as evidence for the center-right thesis the idea that a majority of land area in the United States, if you measure it on the county level, voted for McCain."

pixote


pix, do you enjoy perpetuating nonsense?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 10:28:37 AM
This will never be a far left country.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: roujin on November 05, 2008, 10:34:15 AM
http://isbushpresident.com/ (http://isbushpresident.com/)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 10:36:40 AM
marty, don't be so hopeless.  isn't that what this election has been all about?  hope!?

with the wealthiest .1% running the country aided and abetted by the top 1%, the snow job has to collapse at some point.  part of that collapse has to be about people believing it is possible.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Marbe on November 05, 2008, 10:38:00 AM
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3b7b3e0f22/you-can-vote-however-you-like-from-that-happened (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3b7b3e0f22/you-can-vote-however-you-like-from-that-happened)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 10:42:44 AM
marty, don't be so hopeless.  isn't that what this election has been all about?  hope!?

with the wealthiest .1% running the country aided and abetted by the top 1%, the snow job has to collapse at some point.  part of that collapse has to be about people believing it is possible.

Meow.

Money walks and talks - so don't count on it too soon. I am happy we got this far.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 05, 2008, 10:44:36 AM
pix, do you enjoy perpetuating nonsense?

No, I enjoy highlighting the unintentional self-mockery of figures like Brokaw.  Thanks for asking.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 10:50:13 AM
pix, do you enjoy perpetuating nonsense?

No, I enjoy highlighting the unintentional self-mockery of figures like Brokaw.  Thanks for asking.

pixote

i get that.  my point is that folks like you - and me - probably need to better contextualize those kinds of statements because the truth is folks will take it at face value and think that it actually means something :( , :) , and :p
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 10:56:04 AM
marty, don't be so hopeless.  isn't that what this election has been all about?  hope!?

with the wealthiest .1% running the country aided and abetted by the top 1%, the snow job has to collapse at some point.  part of that collapse has to be about people believing it is possible.

Meow.

Money walks and talks - so don't count on it too soon. I am happy we got this far.

part of this also has to be about holding polticos accountable.  one of the things i really like about obama is that he says that people need to hold him accountable.  what if folks actually start pressing for meaningful change?  would an obama administration listen?  i hope so.  one of the things that i really hated about being in grant park last night (that i've noticed also popping up on front pages of papers) were the occasional chants of "yes we did" as if they are ready to go back to their teevees as if they have no other political position than just casting a vote.  on a similar note, there were tons of folks selling tee-shirts around the park, one of them had printed on the back "i was there when change happen" - wrong on so many levels, i was really tempted to buy one
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on November 05, 2008, 11:00:47 AM
Don't you think that the "Yes we did" chants had any kind of merit? Did we not accomplish something yesterday that was an important step towards bettering the country? I understand that in no way are we finished but can't we feel some kind of sense of accomplishment for taking the first step?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 11:01:46 AM
Yglesias: (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/thought_of_the_day_10.php) "Brokaw on Morning Joe cited as evidence for the center-right thesis the idea that a majority of land area in the United States, if you measure it on the county level, voted for McCain."

pixote


pix, do you enjoy perpetuating nonsense?


i think that would be obvious by now ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 11:02:19 AM
skjerva this all bring up the new big question: how long will the Obama honeymoon last?

Everyone can admit that he's stepping into some pretty messy situations and it's not terribly reasonable for things to change overnight.  How long will he be given to turn things around?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 11:08:10 AM
skjerva this all bring up the new big question: how long will the Obama honeymoon last?

Everyone can admit that he's stepping into some pretty messy situations and it's not terribly reasonable for things to change overnight.  How long will he be given to turn things around?

didn;t you listen to the speech last night?  it might not happen in a year or even a single term in office.  the speech went a long way toward deflating some of those outrageous expectations that are layed on him (both of and not of his own making).  Of course word on the financial situation yesterday afternoon was that the people on the ground are starting to see cash flowing in again so maybe that won't even be an issue come January (I don;t believe that but it makes for good speculation).
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: pixote on November 05, 2008, 11:10:11 AM
I'm bored.

Bye.

pixote
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 11:12:40 AM
skjerva this all bring up the new big question: how long will the Obama honeymoon last?

Everyone can admit that he's stepping into some pretty messy situations and it's not terribly reasonable for things to change overnight.  How long will he be given to turn things around?

didn;t you listen to the speech last night?  it might not happen in a year or even a single term in office.  the speech went a long way toward deflating some of those outrageous expectations that are layed on him (both of and not of his own making).  Of course word on the financial situation yesterday afternoon was that the people on the ground are starting to see cash flowing in again so maybe that won't even be an issue come January (I don;t believe that but it makes for good speculation).

Oh I know what he said, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of the public will feel the same way.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 11:14:04 AM
Don't you think that the "Yes we did" chants had any kind of merit? Did we not accomplish something yesterday that was an important step towards bettering the country? I understand that in no way are we finished but can't we feel some kind of sense of accomplishment for taking the first step?

for sure they had merit, and i get what that is about, but i think it is worth stating that electing Person X should not mean one's dreams have been answered or that should complete one's civic engagement for another 4 years.  

skjerva this all bring up the new big question: how long will the Obama honeymoon last?

Everyone can admit that he's stepping into some pretty messy situations and it's not terribly reasonable for things to change overnight.  How long will he be given to turn things around?

a friend of mine, much more dem-friendly than me, said that he'll be happy for the next three months and then the four years of criticism will begin.

and yeah, a fear of mine is that the McCain/Palin ticket was a concession of this cycle for the dems to take the hit for all the shi*, test out how far the folksy schtick that bush perfected would go if it was paired with an attractive woman.  

Yglesias: (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/thought_of_the_day_10.php) "Brokaw on Morning Joe cited as evidence for the center-right thesis the idea that a majority of land area in the United States, if you measure it on the county level, voted for McCain."

pixote


pix, do you enjoy perpetuating nonsense?


i think that would be obvious by now ;D

true :)

I'm bored.

Bye.

pixote

are you going to take you ball?   :D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on November 05, 2008, 11:18:14 AM
I hid the ball from pix so _e wouldn't take it.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 11:27:20 AM
Quote
a friend of mine, much more dem-friendly than me, said that he'll be happy for the next three months and then the four years of criticism will begin.

And that's how it should be - we should always be on the watch against the abuse of power or the absence of accountability. We (I) supported him now it's time to hold him accountable.

This is not me being negative or pessimistic - it's what needs to be done. I do truly think that Obama has every intention of being a great President - he has a very good grasp of history and a sense of purpose. The problems we are facing as a country are huge but for some reason - this feels different. It will take an amazing force of will to steer this country in another direction and even if people are clamoring for the change you speak of Jon - there will be just as many clamoring to keep it the same...change is hard, it's painful and it rarely comes smoothly.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 11:28:47 AM
Quote
a friend of mine, much more dem-friendly than me, said that he'll be happy for the next three months and then the four years of criticism will begin.

And that's how it should be - we should always be on the watch against the abuse of power or the absence of accountability. We (I) supported him now it's time to hold him accountable.

This is not me being negative or pessimistic - it's what needs to be done. I do truly think that Obama has every intention of being a great President - he has a very good grasp of history and a sense of purpose. The problems we are facing as a country are huge but for some reason - this feels different. It will take an amazing force of will to steer this country in another direction and even if people are clamoring for the change you speak of Jon - there will be just as many clamoring to keep it the same...change is hard, it's painful and it rarely comes smoothly.

agree
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 11:30:27 AM
Quote
a friend of mine, much more dem-friendly than me, said that he'll be happy for the next three months and then the four years of criticism will begin.

And that's how it should be - we should always be on the watch against the abuse of power or the absence of accountability. We (I) supported him now it's time to hold him accountable.

This is not me being negative or pessimistic - it's what needs to be done. I do truly think that Obama has every intention of being a great President - he has a very good grasp of history and a sense of purpose. The problems we are facing as a country are huge but for some reason - this feels different. It will take an amazing force of will to steer this country in another direction and even if people are clamoring for the change you speak of Jon - there will be just as many clamoring to keep it the same...change is hard, it's painful and it rarely comes smoothly.

bald man speaks truth
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Wowser on November 05, 2008, 12:51:11 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Basil on November 05, 2008, 12:51:43 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Same. I thought both speeches last night were pretty awesome in their very different ways.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: alexarch on November 05, 2008, 12:52:28 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.
True, true.  I thought McCain's speech was better than Obama's.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on November 05, 2008, 12:58:54 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 05, 2008, 01:17:37 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 01:28:40 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:33:03 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 01:39:25 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.

you mean able to be mavericky?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 05, 2008, 01:40:25 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.

I wonder if Obama will be so gracious as to offer him a position in the new administration.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 01:42:12 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.

I wonder if Obama will be so gracious as to offer him a position in the new administration.

True on all points - I was touched by his speech and I think he was sincere in his declaration that he planned to work with the Obama administration. I hope they do work together.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 01:43:16 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.

I wonder if Obama will be so gracious as to offer him a position in the new administration.

True on all points - I was touched by his speech and I think he was sincere in his declaration that he planned to work with the Obama administration. I hope they do work together.

I just hope Palin does not take Steven's seat.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 05, 2008, 01:45:30 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.

I wonder if Obama will be so gracious as to offer him a position in the new administration.

True on all points - I was touched by his speech and I think he was sincere in his declaration that he planned to work with the Obama administration. I hope they do work together.

I just hope Palin does not take Steven's seat.

I just don't understand how Stevens won.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 01:46:15 PM
Uncle Ted is tricky - he hasn't survived that long in the Senate w/o learning a few things.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 01:46:34 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.

I wonder if Obama will be so gracious as to offer him a position in the new administration.

True on all points - I was touched by his speech and I think he was sincere in his declaration that he planned to work with the Obama administration. I hope they do work together.

I just hope Palin does not take Steven's seat.

I just don't understand how Stevens won.
It's really not surprising if you look into the politics of the state and the opinions around him. Quite a few have found ways to invalidate the crime in their own minds.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 01:53:59 PM
One of the things I hope plays a more prominent role in the Obama administration is the situation in Darfur/Sudan - we stood by and let Rwanda happened - we owe it to Africa (and the world) to take a stand in real human rights situations and be the force for good that we see ourselves as.

BTW Emanuelle is going to take the Chief of Staff position...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 01:57:03 PM

BTW Emanuelle is going to take the Chief of Staff position...

Am I the only one concerned that he chose a 70s softcore film for such a prominent cabinet position?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 05, 2008, 01:59:41 PM

BTW Emanuelle is going to take the Chief of Staff position...

Am I the only one concerned that he chose a 70s softcore film for such a prominent cabinet position?

I don't see any reason to be concerned about that.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 02:00:28 PM

BTW Emanuelle is going to take the Chief of Staff position...

Am I the only one concerned that he chose a 70s softcore film for such a prominent cabinet position?

I don't see any reason to be concerned about that.

About what I'd expect from a Canadian...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 02:45:30 PM
Johnny Wad should have been Chief Of Staff...
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 02:54:50 PM
Johnny Wad should have been Chief Of Staff...

I believe that is Wadd with 2 d's.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 03:18:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo)

I understand what Nader is saying but I've gotta side with Fox News on this one.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 03:27:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo)

I understand what Nader is saying but I've gotta side with Fox News on this one.

interesting - in that freezeframe the stars behind the O in Obama combine to look like Devil horns... we will soon be LEFT BEHIND!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: alexarch on November 05, 2008, 03:35:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo)

I understand what Nader is saying but I've gotta side with Fox News on this one.
What's the name of that anchor interviewing Nader?  His skin looks like it is made of a durable plastic of extraterrestrial origin.  I can't trust someone with alien technology in his face.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 03:54:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo)

I understand what Nader is saying but I've gotta side with Fox News on this one.
What's the name of that anchor interviewing Nader?  His skin looks like it is made of a durable plastic of extraterrestrial origin.  I can't trust someone with alien technology in his face.

Shephard Smith.  I know way more about Fox News than is healthy.

And yes, I can't wait to see what Hannity and O'Reilly have to say about the election tonight.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: alexarch on November 05, 2008, 03:58:25 PM
Shephard Smith.  I know way more about Fox News than is healthy.
Shephard Smith is an alien.
(http://www.banterist.com/archivefiles/images/plastic_surgery_amok.jpg)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: gateway on November 05, 2008, 04:05:42 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.

I wonder if Obama will be so gracious as to offer him a position in the new administration.

If that happens, the similarities between this election and the final season of West Wing will become eerie. Aaron Sorkin might just be able to predict the future.

My congratulations to the Obama campaign on a job well done. I may not have supported the Obama-Biden campaign but I can confidently say that I can live with the outcome, which is considerably better than some recent elections I've witnessed. All I ask is that Obama prove the cynic in me wrong at least a couple times over the next four years.

So, other than that... who's ready for Obama v. Jindal 2012?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on November 05, 2008, 04:40:26 PM
This will never be a far left country.
lets hope it's never a far anything country. Extremes are bad.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 04:48:07 PM
Johnny Wad should have been Chief Of Staff...

I believe that is Wadd with 2 d's.

I shoot my wad not my wadd...duh. ;)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Tequila on November 05, 2008, 05:07:42 PM
I understand what Nader is saying but I've gotta side with Fox News on this one.
What's there to side with? It's not like they've brought up an argument other than "you're not important but I'm still gonna repeat what you've said for the rest of the day".
That anchor makes me want to puke.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 05, 2008, 06:25:29 PM
I understand what Nader is saying but I've gotta side with Fox News on this one.
What's there to side with? It's not like they've brought up an argument other than "you're not important but I'm still gonna repeat what you've said for the rest of the day".
That anchor makes me want to puke.

Just the "really? is uncle tom the choice of words you want to use?" point.  But yes, Shephard is a creep.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 08:58:35 PM
McCain's speech was rather touching. He's a nice guy and I feel sorry for him when he's faced with such a moronic crowd.

Yeah, if he conducted himself that that throughout the campaign (and not picked Palin) I would have been fine with his winning.

I said exactly the same thing! It was the best speech of his campaign.

No to mention the first time he looked comfortable in his own skin since the Primary
Yeah, he seemed relieved to no longer be under the thumb of the electorate.

I wonder if Obama will be so gracious as to offer him a position in the new administration.

you CINECAST!ing kidding?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: skjerva on November 05, 2008, 09:01:49 PM
This will never be a far left country.
lets hope it's never a far anything country. Extremes are bad.

are you CINECAST!ing kidding me?!!  have you been paying attention the past 8 years?!!
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 05, 2008, 09:06:25 PM
This will never be a far left country.
lets hope it's never a far anything country. Extremes are bad.

are you CINECAST!ing kidding me?!!  have you been paying attention the past 8 years?!!

It was so obvious - I just left it alone.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Junior on November 05, 2008, 10:13:16 PM
Bad news for Obama already... (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations)
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Solid Blake on November 05, 2008, 10:29:38 PM
God love The Onion...

Tuesday night was a great night to be in Boston.
In measurement of excitement, it was like the World Series, the Superbowl, and the Stanley Cup combined.  ;D
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 05, 2008, 10:40:45 PM
God love The Onion...

Tuesday night was a great night to be in Boston.
In measurement of excitement, it was like the World Series, the Superbowl, and the Stanley Cup combined.  ;D
Hey, I remember you.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 05, 2008, 11:24:29 PM
south park tonight - heh.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 06, 2008, 12:52:39 AM
south park tonight - heh.

It wasn't all that funny but I enjoyed the idea.  Seriously, it'd be great if it were true.

My only question, where was Biden?
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 06, 2008, 12:58:31 AM
south park tonight - heh.

It wasn't all that funny but I enjoyed the idea.  Seriously, it'd be great if it were true.

My only question, where was Biden?

yeah biden should've had a part
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 06, 2008, 01:02:43 AM
south park tonight - heh.

It wasn't all that funny but I enjoyed the idea.  Seriously, it'd be great if it were true.

My only question, where was Biden?

yeah biden should've had a part

Also, The Daily Show was waaaay better tonight.  Especially the Karl Rove cookie.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 06, 2008, 01:07:11 AM
south park tonight - heh.

It wasn't all that funny but I enjoyed the idea.  Seriously, it'd be great if it were true.

My only question, where was Biden?

Wasn't all that funny? I was laughing the whole way through. Not to mention how amazed I was that they had this episode ready in under 24 hours. Amazing.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 06, 2008, 01:22:12 AM
south park tonight - heh.

It wasn't all that funny but I enjoyed the idea.  Seriously, it'd be great if it were true.

My only question, where was Biden?

Wasn't all that funny? I was laughing the whole way through. Not to mention how amazed I was that they had this episode ready in under 24 hours. Amazing.

It was funny, but more in a chuckling at the premise way than lots of gut busting laughs.  I'm sure that they'd pretty much finished the episode and just added the stuff from last night today.

Although I love it when Randy gets drunk.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FLYmeatwad on November 06, 2008, 08:28:58 AM
south park tonight - heh.

It wasn't all that funny but I enjoyed the idea.  Seriously, it'd be great if it were true.

My only question, where was Biden?

Wasn't all that funny? I was laughing the whole way through. Not to mention how amazed I was that they had this episode ready in under 24 hours. Amazing.

They made two episodes and finished which one was going to air yesterday. I thought it was the best one of the second half so far, plus the concept would have worked either way, since, well it wouldn't have changed the message if the other had won.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: FroHam X on November 06, 2008, 12:25:07 PM
south park tonight - heh.

It wasn't all that funny but I enjoyed the idea.  Seriously, it'd be great if it were true.

My only question, where was Biden?

Wasn't all that funny? I was laughing the whole way through. Not to mention how amazed I was that they had this episode ready in under 24 hours. Amazing.

They made two episodes and finished which one was going to air yesterday. I thought it was the best one of the second half so far, plus the concept would have worked either way, since, well it wouldn't have changed the message if the other had won.

Did they say they made two versions? Because that's pretty amazing. I'd like to see them finish the other version and put it online or on the dvd.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 06, 2008, 01:05:28 PM
south park tonight - heh.

It wasn't all that funny but I enjoyed the idea.  Seriously, it'd be great if it were true.

My only question, where was Biden?

Wasn't all that funny? I was laughing the whole way through. Not to mention how amazed I was that they had this episode ready in under 24 hours. Amazing.

They made two episodes and finished which one was going to air yesterday. I thought it was the best one of the second half so far, plus the concept would have worked either way, since, well it wouldn't have changed the message if the other had won.

Did they say they made two versions? Because that's pretty amazing. I'd like to see them finish the other version and put it online or on the dvd.

I would assume that if there are two versions the story is the same except with Obama supporters killing themselves and the McCain people having a big party.  The winner of the election only really mattered to that part of the story.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: Kevin Shields on November 06, 2008, 01:09:13 PM
South Park CINECAST!in ruled last night.

Anything that involves Randy Marsh in the plot of the episode is gold.

Him getting shit-faced drunk yelling "OBAMA!!!" and Ike pulling a little suicide stunt.  That's gold.

I also loved the Ocean's 11 storyline and McCain in a football uniform and Palin with a British accent.  Oh, that was just hilarious. 
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: jbissell on November 06, 2008, 02:02:57 PM
Ebert's take on the election coverage. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/okay_okay_already_i_wont_watch.html#more)

Quote
And interviewing a hologram? How cool was that? As the great Canadian director Guy Maddin just e-mailed me: "Even Will.I.Am appeared confused tonight when Anderson told him he was a hologram. It's only going to get better with future elections -- the best reason reason to live to 106!"

I really love the fact that Guy Maddin and Ebert were discussing the holograms over e-mail.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: ¡Keith! on November 06, 2008, 02:17:49 PM
Palin with a British accent.  Oh, that was just hilarious. 

yeah, I loved that.
Title: Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
Post by: facedad on November 06, 2008, 02:20:55 PM
Ebert's take on the election coverage. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/okay_okay_already_i_wont_watch.html#more)

Quote
And interviewing a hologram? How cool was that? As the great Canadian director Guy Maddin just e-mailed