United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Strangelove
As we are less than 100 days until Election Day, November 4th, I thought it prudent to have an official discussion thread and poll for the Presidential election. This thread can be used for all discussion of policy and politics between the nominees of the two major parties and the several third parties.

Uh, have at it.

Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm not a huge fan of the republican party...but I would vote McCain...there's something about Obama that makes me thinks he's a lying little torag who would sell his grandmother for votes...(possibly the fact that he stood for public office)

Strangelove
If the fact that he's held public office makes him seem like someone who would sell his grandmother upriver, how do you not think the same thing about McCain?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Strangelove
If the fact that he's held public office makes him seem like someone who would sell his grandmother upriver, how do you not think the same thing about McCain?

I don't think he's got a grandmother to sell. laughing

However, seriously there is something about Obama's message that makes me think "I've heard this before..." (and it wasnt from JFK)

chillmeistergen
I probably wouldn't vote.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I don't think he's got a grandmother to sell. laughing

However, seriously there is something about Obama's message that makes me think "I've heard this before..." (and it wasnt from JFK) Gary Hart?

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I probably wouldn't vote.

Would that be the same in a British election?

BackFire
Voting for Obama.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Would that be the same in a British election?

No.

Strangelove
I'm voting for Obama as well.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No.

Brown, Cameron or Clegg?

Or one of...the others!

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Brown, Cameron or Clegg?

Or one of...the others!

Probably Clegg.

Although, even though I've lost an awful lot of faith in Labour, I'd still vote for Brown over Cameron. Who's your choice?

Blinky
I'm taking myself out of this equation for failure... I am choosing to vote for neither of them.

Strangelove
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Probably Clegg.

Although, even though I've lost an awful lot of faith in Labour, I'd still vote for Brown over Cameron. Who's your choice? what are the virtues of voting Liberal Democrat? I mean, coming from a two-party system like I do, I don't understand how it helps.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Probably Clegg.

Although, even though I've lost an awful lot of faith in Labour, I'd still vote for Brown over Cameron. Who's your choice?

I am unsure as of yet...if I was in the consituency I am in just now, I would vote for the local MP (a Lib Dem) as hes a nice man. However, if i moved I would likely vote Labour...or maybe even SNP...I really am undecided on that issue...

Ofcourse, I think its fitting considering how Cameron really would like to be seen as the Obama of Britain...although, where Obama is concerned about having a running mate who is already an established political force (Hilary) for fear of ruining his change message, Cameron doesn't seem to think his Cabinet of which half went to the same public school and whos families have been in politics for generations will tarnish his at all.

Originally posted by Strangelove
what are the virtues of voting Liberal Democrat? I mean, coming from a two-party system like I do, I don't understand how it helps.
Nader-2000

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Strangelove
what are the virtues of voting Liberal Democrat? I mean, coming from a two-party system like I do, I don't understand how it helps.

I suppose just under the hope that people will eventually come round to the way of thinking. The Lib Dems votes are on the rise though, it could be a very real possibility that they'll get more votes than Labour.

Other than that, it's usually a lot more worth while to vote for them in the locals and one of the other two in the general, I suppose. Though, I haven't even had a chance to vote yet.

Strangelove
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I suppose just under the hope that people will eventually come round to the way of thinking. The Lib Dems votes are on the rise though, it could be a very real possibility that they'll get more votes than Labour.

Other than that, it's usually a lot more worth while to vote for them in the locals and one of the other two in the general, I suppose. Though, I haven't even had a chance to vote yet. I hear a lot about how Labour is in trouble for the next election, but I don't really understand how - it has 157 seats more than the Conservatives, how are they in danger?

EDIT: Although upon further reading I guess the functional governing majority is only 59 seats, with coalitions.

vinz07
I'll go for Barack Obama..I think he is capable of that position. If ever, he is the first black american president. but VOTE wisely!!!wink

lord xyz
I wouldn't vote for either. I know, I prefer Obama, but he's not as good as some of the others who ran. To be honest, what differences do Obama and McCain have from Kerry and Bush? I'd've voted for Kerry because he didn't have as much chance of winning as Obama does. Kerry was the rich massachusettes liberal, and Obama's the cool black guy.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Probably Clegg.

Although, even though I've lost an awful lot of faith in Labour, I'd still vote for Brown over Cameron. Who's your choice? I'd vote for Clegg too, as for Brown over Cameron, I don't know, both are authoritarian idiots.

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Strangelove
I hear a lot about how Labour is in trouble for the next election, but I don't really understand how - it has 157 seats more than the Conservatives, how are they in danger?

EDIT: Although upon further reading I guess the functional governing majority is only 59 seats, with coalitions.

It can be very treacherous- especially when many of Labour's seats are swing-seats and very likely to change hands at the next election.

KidRock
Unfortunately voting for McCain.

They are both shit..Obama just smells a little worse.

Mandos
I wouldn't vote for any. But then, again, what would that do, one on them would eventually attain power.

Who believes a political restructuration, concerning values and goals, are in order?

Bardock42
Activist Ralph Nader? Is that his official title? How would I go about becoming an Activist?

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Activist Ralph Nader? Is that his official title? How would I go about becoming an Activist?

Spend the beginning of your career destroying the Corvair.

Symmetric Chaos
I'm going to throw my vote away by voting third party in hopes it will make a statement that a small group of like minded people will appreciate and then complain when McCain or Obama wins.

lord xyz
It's possible Bob Barr is going to be McCain's Nader. Oh the Republicans would love it that, even if it has very little in common with the events of 2000, they'll still mention it.

TRH
Obama is the man

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by lord xyz
It's possible Bob Barr is going to be McCain's Nader. Oh the Republicans would love it that, even if it has very little in common with the events of 2000, they'll still mention it.
McCain will have his own issue with the Evangelicals, not to mention a lot of Republicans are going Libertarian because they hate McCain. It'll be equal in how much each side will lose to third parties.

lord xyz
Evangelicals are hardly going to vote for Obama though.

RocasAtoll
So far it seems like a lot will just protest. The Far Right despises McCain.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Bardock42
Activist Ralph Nader? Is that his official title? How would I go about becoming an Activist? It's not a title, it's just what he is. A consumer advocate and activist.

Robtard
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
So far it seems like a lot will just protest. The Far Right despises McCain.

Correct, they despise Obama more though. So?

One thing I've heard, those far-righters might just vote for Obama or not vote at all. The theory, they think the next 4 years will send America down the toilet if either Obama or McCain wins, so why not let it go down the toilet while a Democrat is at the helm and the Dems can take the blame*.

*This is of course them willfully ignoring that whomever wins will spend a large part of those 4 years cleaning up the ****ups of the last eight.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
So far it seems like a lot will just protest. The Far Right despises McCain.

But they'll consolodate around him to keep Obama from winning. They just won't like it.

As I've said time and again, he'd do well to have Mike Huckabee as his VP, thus securing the evangelical and standard Republican vote, while hopefully hanging on to the moderates and independents that McCain has gathered from his less conservative positions on global warming, immigration, etc... and general willingness to buck the trend with Republican party line policy if he personally disagrees with it.

If those voters wouldn't be turned off by Huckabee (or a strong conservative that is like him), then he'd defeat Obama who gets most of his support from very liberal, well educated and/or black voters.



I'm voting McCain, though I'm not happy about it.

RocasAtoll
From what I heard, it doesn't matter. They think McCain is a turncoat and Obama is the Anti-Christ. They hate both enough to sit this one out.

Heard that too. Ann Coulter was calling for it when it seemed like Hillary was going to be the Democratic nominee.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
From what I heard, it doesn't matter. They think McCain is a turncoat and Obama is the Anti-Christ. They hate both enough to sit this one out.

Heard that too. Ann Coulter was calling for it when it seemed like Hillary was going to be the Democratic nominee.

Yeah but I don't care what you heard, those same voters (if it's specifically the evangelical vote you're talking about) will do what they feel is their "moral duty" and vote for McCain if only to make a vote against Obama come November.

Robtard
"Moral Duty"? You mean, do what their religious heads tell them too.

lord xyz
What state do you live in Sithsaber?

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yeah but I don't care what you heard, those same voters (if it's specifically the evangelical vote you're talking about) will do what they feel is their "moral duty" and vote for McCain if only to make a vote against Obama come November.
We'll see. Honestly, it's not that big of a deal for me if I'm right or wrong. If McCain wins, it'll be more Iraq. If Obama wins, it'll be Darfur, another Iraq/Vietnam shitstorm.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Strangelove
It's not a title, it's just what he is. A consumer advocate and activist.

Yeah, it's just weird you'd put it up.

Strangelove
Ah well.

BackFire
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But they'll consolodate around him to keep Obama from winning. They just won't like it.

As I've said time and again, he'd do well to have Mike Huckabee as his VP, thus securing the evangelical and standard Republican vote, while hopefully hanging on to the moderates and independents that McCain has gathered from his less conservative positions on global warming, immigration, etc... and general willingness to buck the trend with Republican party line policy if he personally disagrees with it.

If those voters wouldn't be turned off by Huckabee (or a strong conservative that is like him), then he'd defeat Obama who gets most of his support from very liberal, well educated and/or black voters.



I'm voting McCain, though I'm not happy about it.

Your last sentence probably sums up the feelings of most of the evangelicals that you mentioned. Most will probably vote for McCain regardless of who he picks for VP, simply because they'd see him as the lesser of two evils.

An unenthusiastic vote is still a vote. A protest vote is still a vote, counts the same as an enthusiastic vote. So in the end it won't matter, they'll vote for him either way.

That said, I don't understand why Huckabee doesn't get mentioned more when it comes to McCain's VP. I think he'd be a good choice. He's likeable, funny, and popular amongst conservatives. And it seems McCain gets along with him well (which can't be said about Romney, who McCain seems to despise).

Strangelove
Originally posted by BackFire
That said, I don't understand why Huckabee doesn't get mentioned more when it comes to McCain's VP. Picking a Baptist minister will hurt him among independents. It serves the base, not the greater electorate.

lord xyz
He's going to pick Pawlenty or Romney. Romney will help with liberal conservatives like those in New Hampshire and Mormons like in Michigan, but apart from that, but I still don't think he'll win.

I projected a map with Obama/Bayh vs McCain/Romney

(I was being harsh to Obama)

sithsaber408
Originally posted by lord xyz
What state do you live in Sithsaber?

California. coolOriginally posted by BackFire
Your last sentence probably sums up the feelings of most of the evangelicals that you mentioned. Most will probably vote for McCain regardless of who he picks for VP, simply because they'd see him as the lesser of two evils.

An unenthusiastic vote is still a vote. A protest vote is still a vote, counts the same as an enthusiastic vote. So in the end it won't matter, they'll vote for him either way.

That said, I don't understand why Huckabee doesn't get mentioned more when it comes to McCain's VP. I think he'd be a good choice. He's likeable, funny, and popular amongst conservatives. And it seems McCain gets along with him well (which can't be said about Romney, who McCain seems to despise).

Exactly what I've been saying. He built up a rather large grass-roots following of people that took him through several states in the primary, even to the point of getting votes against McCain when he wasn't in the race anymore!Originally posted by Strangelove
Picking a Baptist minister will hurt him among independents. It serves the base, not the greater electorate. That's true, but to what extent?

Will those same independents side with a liberal democrat? Possibly. Depending on their personal views.

But if they are more conservative minded individuals (or "middle-of-the-road" people) who are independent because the Dems are too liberal and Repubs too conservative, I think they'd find McCain as the closer blend of ideals.

Obama is an out-and-out liberal, with one of the most consistently far left voting records.

So my opinion is that mid-line independents would want McCain, and although Huckabee might loose him a few, he'd still keep a few and he'd totally energize the base.

(evangelicals gave bush the 2004 election despite media outrage, michael moore's film, eminem's music video, Barbara Striesand/Susan Surandon/Ben Affleck/etc.. protesting and everybody knows it. He wouldn't have won without them)

To me it's a far greater advantage to McCain's campaign than a disadvantage to have Huckabee as VP.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by lord xyz
He's going to pick Pawlenty or Romney. Romney will help with liberal conservatives like those in New Hampshire and Mormons like in Michigan, but apart from that, but I still don't think he'll win.

I projected a map with Obama/Bayh vs McCain/Romney

(I was being harsh to Obama)

You're assuming that Obama will win both Virginia and New Mexico.

Based on your map, if Obama lost Virigina, he'd lose the election.

Virginia went Repulican for Bush the last 2 elections and New Mexico voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004. (though in New Mexico it was a 48% tie for the Bush/Gore election in 2000, with a slight edge to Gore)

Obama has big work to do if he wants to turn that state. Current polls show him in tie with McCain, leading by about 2% or even. Note: that in many polls 10% of voters haven't decided yet. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/virginia_electoral_college_a/

KidRock
Who votes the least in America?

Young people and minorities?

Where does Obama's biggest support come from..just wondering?

Doom and Gloom
It depends on who McCain picks as his running mate. At 72 who it is is very important. I hope it's Romney. If he picks Huckabee I'll be forced to vote for Obama.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
It depends on who McCain picks as his running mate. At 72 who it is is very important. I hope it's Romney. If he picks Huckabee I'll be forced to vote for Obama.

I'm curious as to why.

Romney and Huckabee take the EXACT same stance on every major issue. Romney is just as religious (believing in Mormonism) and conservative as Huckabee.

So what's the difference?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm curious as to why.

Romney and Huckabee take the EXACT same stance on every major issue. Romney is just as religious (believing in Mormonism) and conservative as Huckabee.

So what's the difference?

It might simply be the Mormonism, which would drive away some of the religious right as well.

Doom and Gloom
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm curious as to why.

Romney is just as religious (believing in Mormonism) and conservative as Huckabee.

So what's the difference?

Not true. Romney is far more moderate. Huckabee has publicly stated he wants to rewrite the constitution based on the bible. My reason is I believe Romney will respect the seperation of church and state while Huckabee won't.

sithsaber408
You need to check youtube and see where Romney talks about believing that the bible (in it's entirety, including Jonah and the whale) is the Word of God and he believes it.

His positions on abortion, gay marriage, etc... are all THE SAME as Huckabee.

If you like him better that's fine, but he's no more moderate than Huckabee.


In other news:

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s23/Burgman_007/Motivational/obamamotivational.jpg

That made me lol.

sithsaber408
Another good one:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g42/macichitte/Pork.jpg

Wonder if there's any truth to that age old myth that Dems will raise taxes?

sithsaber408
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k267/kathrynlk/Liberals3.jpg

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll279/Mishlee25/Liberals.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll82/kaydee1944/Politics/Democrats/LIBERALSEAL.gif

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n168/bigmark318/Liberals/1150991958_l.jpg

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You need to check youtube and see where Romney talks about believing that the bible (in it's entirety, including Jonah and the whale) is the Word of God and he believes it.

His positions on abortion, gay marriage, etc... are all THE SAME as Huckabee.

If you like him better that's fine, but he's no more moderate than Huckabee.



Are you really that willing to put a person who believes in such unbelievable stories in a position of power, simply because you share the same stance of a few issues like abortion and gay-marriage?

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by sithsaber408


Why do you keep posting these silly pictures? I believe the thread's intended for discussion.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Robtard
Are you really that willing to put a person who believes in such unbelievable stories in a position of power, simply because you share the same stance of a few issues like abortion and gay-marriage?

I agree with the "unbelievable stories" too.

So, yeah.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w161/jenswack2006/thedifference.jpg

inimalist
well, the world really is a simple place, eh sithsaber?

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I agree with the "unbelievable stories" too.

So, yeah.


Fair enough.

What if Obama came out and said he believes in unicorns, dragons and leprechauns as being factual. Would you think having that stance would disqualify him as being President?

sithsaber408
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h54/harvestwidow/politicalcartoondi8.png

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough.

What if Obama came out and said he believes in unicorns, dragons and leprechauns as being factual. Would you think having that stance would disqualify him as being President?

Yeah, because that's loony.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, the world really is a simple place, eh sithsaber?

I wish. sad

But some things are pretty cut and dried, like what's right and wrong.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough.

What if Obama came out and said he believes in unicorns, dragons and leprechauns as being factual. Would you think having that stance would disqualify him as being President?


But isn't Obama a Christian? Last I heard, Christians believe that the bible is the word of god. What's the difference? A person of a different religion, or an atheist will never be elected as president in my life time.

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yeah, because that's loony.


But men being swallowed by a giant fish and God plucking them out isn't?

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But isn't Obama a Christian? Last I heard, Christians believe that the bible is the word of god. What's the difference? A person of a different religion, or an atheist will never be elected as president in my life time.

You don't have to take every Bible story in a literal sense to be a Christian.

Common sense should be a requirement for being a Christian/religious, imo.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
You don't have to take every Bible story in a literal sense to be a Christian.

But if you use the stories, in the bible, as a guide in your life, then what's the difference? You don't have to believe that something is literally true, to believe that it is fundamentally true. Just ask Obama if Jesus is still alive.

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I wish. sad

But some things are pretty cut and dried, like what's right and wrong.

of course

one should almost be proud of sticking their fingers in their ears, as bumper stickers represent a pinnicle of political diatribe

dadudemon
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I agree with the "unbelievable stories" too.

So, yeah.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w161/jenswack2006/thedifference.jpg


McCain's version is obviously wrong. He'd say to the homeless man, "I'll write checks to the largest companies in your city, and then their prosperity will decrease the costs of goods and services, and someone else will come along and give you a twenty."


Everything else can stay. big grin

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But if you use the stories, in the bible, as a guide in your life, then what's the difference? You don't have to believe that something is literally true, to believe that it is fundamentally true. Just ask Obama if Jesus is still alive.

What's the difference? One is applying common sense and using that story as just a guide, the other is actually believing it happened. The latter being delusional and borderline insane.

Which was my point, you don't have to literally believe every story to be a Christian, you can apply common logic and just take the meaning to heart.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
McCain's version is obviously wrong. He'd say to the homeless man, "I'll write checks to the largest companies in your city, and then their prosperity will decrease the costs of goods and services, and someone else will come along and give you a twenty."


Not bad, but it would be "the twenty will trickle down to you".

Blax_Hydralisk
I do. smile

Unfortunantnly, that doesn't fly too well in meh Church. Eh.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
What's the difference? One is applying common sense and using that story as just a guide, the other is actually believing it happened. The latter being delusional and borderline insane.

Which was my point, you don't have to literally believe every story to be a Christian, you can apply common logic and just take the meaning to heart.

I would consider both to be delusional. Degrees of delusion only matter a little.

I am really not disagreeing with you, and I do see your point, but even you believe in fairy tails. wink

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But if you use the stories, in the bible, as a guide in your life, then what's the difference? You don't have to believe that something is literally true, to believe that it is fundamentally true. Just ask Obama if Jesus is still alive.

So? You think Buddahs keep coming back and that when we cast off our negative influences we'll transcend into a mystical state of pure joy called Nirvana. Everyone believes something.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So? You think Buddahs keep coming back and that when we cast off our negative influences we'll transcend into a mystical state of pure joy called Nirvana. Everyone believes something.

That is my point. big grin

However, I believe that those things are mythology and have a deeper reason then being fact or not.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is my point. big grin

However, I believe that those things are mythology and have a deeper reason then being fact or not.

Thank you for proving my point. It's possible to be an intelligent thinking Christian who takes the Bible in essentially the way you describe or a fundamentalist who thinks it's the literal truth. You don't have a different "degree of delusion" from the first group in any way.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thank you for proving my point. It's possible to be an intelligent thinking Christian who takes the Bible in essentially the way you describe or a fundamentalist who thinks it's the literal truth. You don't have a different "degree of delusion" from the first group in any way.

...but you missed my point... I think it's funny when one type of Christian calls another type of Christian delusional. laughing ...and yes, I do believe that Christianity is delusional while Buddhism is not. Is that a delusion? Maybe, but I don't think so. wink

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...but you missed my point... I think it's funny when one type of Christian calls another type of Christian delusional. laughing

srug Whatever floats your boat.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...and yes, I do believe that Christianity is delusional while Buddhism is not. Is that a delusion?

Yes. That is inarguably a delusion.

However, we're getting off topic.

lord xyz
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You're assuming that Obama will win both Virginia and New Mexico.

Based on your map, if Obama lost Virigina, he'd lose the election.

Virginia went Repulican for Bush the last 2 elections and New Mexico voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004. (though in New Mexico it was a 48% tie for the Bush/Gore election in 2000, with a slight edge to Gore)

Obama has big work to do if he wants to turn that state. Current polls show him in tie with McCain, leading by about 2% or even. Note: that in many polls 10% of voters haven't decided yet. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/virginia_electoral_college_a/ I also have McCain win Michigan, but Obama loves Virginia, and it would be very close. Also Bayh is pretty popular in Virginia, and I miscounted.

Here is a correct count without Virginia. Keep in mind, McCain would have to really campaign hard just to get this result, Michigan is being very generous, the current projection is Obama having CO, NH, MI, VA, still Kerry was projected to have Colorado, and McCain is liberal in terms of immigration.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I agree with the "unbelievable stories" too.

So, yeah.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w161/jenswack2006/thedifference.jpg That actually was pretty funny.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yeah, because that's loony.



I wish. sad

But some things are pretty cut and dried, like what's right and wrong. But walking on water isn't loony at all.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
That actually was pretty funny.

Meh, it's an old, old joke.

If it actually was the case I'd love Obama.

Strangelove
Originally posted by sithsaber408
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h54/harvestwidow/politicalcartoondi8.png I'm going to have to ask you to stop that. It does nothing to advance the discussion in any way.Originally posted by lord xyz
He's going to pick Pawlenty or Romney. Romney will help with liberal conservatives like those in New Hampshire and Mormons like in Michigan, but apart from that, but I still don't think he'll win.

I projected a map with Obama/Bayh vs McCain/Romney

(I was being harsh to Obama) My map for Obama/Bayh vs. McCain/Romney looks like this:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l145/42Strangelove/electionmap.jpg

I don't think Romney helps McCain in any significant way in NH or MI. And the "reverse coattail" effect is what I'm going to attribute to Obama wins in Colorado and Virginia. Both states have very strong Democratic candidates for Senate, and that might help Obama close the gap in those two states.

Of all of those, Nevada is the state that I think is most likely to switch on my map.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, it's an old, old joke.

If it actually was the case I'd love Obama. Strangely, I've never heard it before.

Yeah, Obama is the best out of all of them.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm going to have to ask you to stop that. It does nothing to advance the discussion in any way. My map for Obama/Bayh vs. McCain/Romney looks like this:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l145/42Strangelove/electionmap.jpg

I don't think Romney helps McCain in any significant way in NH or MI. And the "reverse coattail" effect is what I'm going to attribute to Obama wins in Colorado and Virginia. Both states have very strong Democratic candidates for Senate, and that might help Obama close the gap in those two states.

Of all of those, Nevada is the state that I think is most likely to switch on my map. So that's 312 for Obama? Colorado is a true toss-up state, so being harsh would be for him to lose Colorado. I hope he wins CO, Kerry should've.

By the way, what website did you get that?

(Another map, being less harsh to Obama)

Strangelove
322, actually. I think Obama has a greater edge in Colorado than most pundits think. He has a greater average lead in polls in CO than he does in Virginia.

and I use 270towin.com

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Strangely, I've never heard it before.

Yeah, Obama is the best out of all of them.


Yeah, that's not what I said, is it?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Strangelove
322, actually. I think Obama has a greater edge in Colorado than most pundits think. He has a greater average lead in polls in CO than he does in Virginia.

and I use 270towin.com I'm shit at counting. no expression

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, that's not what I said, is it? No, you're right. My mistake.

lord xyz
Now this is really stupid, states needed to win: 11

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by lord xyz
Now this is really stupid, states needed to win: 11

its about size of the population, not landmass...

lord xyz
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
its about size of the population, not landmass... yeah, but theoretically, all those states could be won 2 votes vs 1 for Obama, making Obama having 22 votes and McCain having millions. Realistically, those states could be close and the others could be heavily leaned McCain, yet Obama would still win, like McCain have a clear majority in the popular vote, yet Obama still wins.

Strangelove
well, that's one of the arguments against the Electoral College.

But something like that has never happened and is not likely to happen.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by Strangelove
well, that's one of the arguments against the Electoral College.

But something like that has never happened and is not likely to happen.
Doesn't change the fact it's broken. If the threat is their for a misrepresentation based on a faulty system, the system should be purged.

Strangelove
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Doesn't change the fact it's broken. If the threat is their for a misrepresentation based on a faulty system, the system should be purged. Well I wasn't arguing for the system, just commenting on the likeliness of a candidate winning New York, California, Georgia and Texas all in one election.

In this current environment anyhow.

sithsaber408
is that map supposing that Obama will win texas and florida? traditionally conservative states?

Obama is good and he may win the presidency but c'mon...he's not going to win overwhelming majority in those states. certainly not in texas.

Heat_Vision
If McCain doesn't win Texas then America deserves Obama. /insurt emoticon here for humor

Deja~vu
Democrat over Republican any day, unless it would be a third party and kick this whole shit out.

BackFire
Originally posted by sithsaber408
is that map supposing that Obama will win texas and florida? traditionally conservative states?

Obama is good and he may win the presidency but c'mon...he's not going to win overwhelming majority in those states. certainly not in texas.

His point wasn't to show a likely scenario, merely to show that a person can theoretically win the election by winning only 11 states.

lord xyz
Originally posted by BackFire
His point wasn't to show a likely scenario, merely to show that a person can theoretically win the election by winning only 11 states. Thankyou.

Schecter
...

Robtard
Oh look, Dubya managed to dig a hole almost as big as his daddy and the Gipper combined and he did it in 3/4th the time, now that's a marketable skill.

sithsaber408
Bill Clinton did zilch to stimulate the economy. Internet start-up companies like Google were all the rage in 92-98, Starbucks broke out big time, and all kinds of other businesses were doing well.

Clinton inherited the seed work of Reganomics, which started to pay off right around when he became president.

Bush Jr. walked into a recession caused by the "bursting of the bubble" of american prosperity in the 90's because the .com craze had faded, China was beginning to pull farther ahead in technology advances and....well he did approve 2 expensive wars so I'll give you that. But alot what happened on his terms were situational things outside of his control. Things in the climate/culture.

Hasn't there been more people to own their own home in the last 8 years than ever before? Isn't the unemployment rate down? Maybe not this year, but I'm sure that I read in 2006/2007 things were actually getting to be good for some people again.

Schecter
yes it was all just cooincidence. it was all clintons fault. there is no recession. everything is fine now. the deficit is an illusion.

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Clinton inherited the seed work of Reganomics, which started to pay off right around when he became president.

why don't you explain, in detail, how trickle down economics payed off?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Schecter
yes it was all just cooincidence. it was all clintons fault. there is no recession. everything is fine now. the deficit is an illusion.

I'm not saying that it's fine now or that Clinton "caused" it. Rather that things are sometimes in play in society that are outside of any given presidents control. These things can effect the economy more than policy, at times.

Take 9/11. Those guys were in Florida training at flight schools during the Clinton administration. Is it his personal fault that what they prepared for during his presidency is something Bush had to deal with in his? No.

Not taking Bin Laden out when recommended to by the CIA after an Al-queda attack on a U.S. navy ship, our embassy in Kenya, and the first WTC bombing....maybe. But even then, you can see where events that were started in one administration bleed over into the next.Originally posted by inimalist
why don't you explain, in detail, how trickle down economics payed off? Simple. Small independent businesses became large independent corporations and we prospered as the economy grew. Fairly simple, isn't it?

inimalist
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Simple. Small independent businesses became large independent corporations and we prospered as the economy grew. Fairly simple, isn't it?

thats hardly a detailed explanation, wouldn't you agree?

I mean, explain it in a way that I couldn't write on the back of my car wink

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
thats hardly a detailed explanation, wouldn't you agree?

I mean, explain it in a way that I couldn't write on the back of my car wink

Do you mean bumper sticker? confused

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you mean bumper sticker? confused

that would be one way of accomplishing that I guess...

I was thinking nail polish though...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
that would be one way of accomplishing that I guess...

I was thinking nail polish though...

Do you believe that if you cannot put it into a sound bite, its not worth learning? confused

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you believe that if you cannot put it into a sound bite, its not worth learning? confused

much the opposite, in fact...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
much the opposite, in fact...

Ohhhhhhh that was sarcasm. laughing out loud Sorry for taking you literally. wink

inimalist
lol, I never say what I mean

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I never say what I mean

laughing out loud That explains a lot.

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I never say what I mean

But if you never say what you mean then you don't mean what you just said which is that you never say what you mean, which means that you in fact mean what you say at least sometimes which you might do now then, though that would make this whole argument absurd.

inimalist
The next sentence is false.

The first sentence is true.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
But if you never say what you mean then you don't mean what you just said which is that you never say what you mean, which means that you in fact mean what you say at least sometimes which you might do now then, though that would make this whole argument absurd.

Or he sometimes does mean what he says but is not saying what he means in that post, thus neatly resolving the problem.

inimalist
i said never though

you can't take never and say that I mean only sometimes

NEVER do I say what I mean

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
i said never though

you can't take never and say that I mean only sometimes

NEVER do I say what I mean

Which is itself a lie. A paradox would only form if the only other option was for you to only speak the truth. Because there's no reason to believe that you must lie only some of the time.

inimalist
lol, the lie is the paradox. The sentence cannot be true because that would make it false. Whatever you want to extrapolate from there does not make it any less paradoxical.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
The sentence cannot be true because that would make it false.

True, but the sentence can be false which would not be a paradox. The possiblities of "I never speak the truth" being false are that you always speak the truth (proven untrue by the statement itself) or that you sometimes speak the truth (the logical answer).

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True, but the sentence can be false which would not be a paradox.

true, but wouldn't that be the case with all paradoxes? (paradoxi?)

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
true, but wouldn't that be the case with all paradoxes? (paradoxi?)

No. In the case of the paradox "The following is false. The previous is true." the paradox holds because there are absolutes created by the paradox itself. In the case of the truth teller and the liar, when both claim to be the liar you have a paradox that cannot be resolved for the same reason (unless you assume that the basis of the paradox is a lie and neither person must tell only truth or only lies).

Essentially any paradox that allows anything other than absolutes as an answer can be foiled by pointing that out. A true paradox has to have some sort of inherent contradiction (in the technical sense) built in so that it must always be false.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or he sometimes does mean what he says but is not saying what he means in that post, thus neatly resolving the problem.

There wasn't a problem, it just shot a hole in my reasoning.

inimalist
ok, that makes more sense

Schecter
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'Simple. Small independent businesses became large independent corporations and we prospered as the economy grew. Fairly simple, isn't it?

good. so you have no idea wtf trickle down economics means.

just post a wikipedia link and run.

chithappens
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Simple. Small independent businesses became large independent corporations and we prospered as the economy grew. Fairly simple, isn't it?

An incredible oversimplification: I'm a wimp and I lift weights to become strong - makes me look like a dick to say anything that way.

It's almost as if you are suggesting that the conservative stance has promoted small business when we all know full well it has not.

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Simple. Small independent businesses became large independent corporations and we prospered as the economy grew. Fairly simple, isn't it?

No. In layman's terms, you give large corporations and the rich massive tax cuts/breaks, they in turn spend and spend and it's believed that those benefits of them spending will stimulate the economy and it will "trickle" down to us lower scum in the forms of jobs and whatnot.

Schecter
well more specifically its tax breaks for the upper class since they are the biggest investors in the stock market. this is supposed to help publicly traded businesses grow, in turn creating more jobs, etc. in other words it has NOTHING to do directly with small business.

edit: also, clinton never employed the supply-side economic theory and in fact reversed the tax policies of reagan-bush. ahhh good ol' sithsaber shooting fresh chunks of excrement out his ass again

inimalist
However, the philosophies that Reagan et al. focus on do promote small businesses (I mean like Friedman and the like, unless I just read what I want into them, lol). Unfortunatly reality never works that way.

it is understandable that someone might get that confused

lord xyz
Originally posted by Schecter
well more specifically its tax breaks for the upper class since they are the biggest investors in the stock market. this is supposed to help publicly traded businesses grow, in turn creating more jobs, etc. in other words it has NOTHING to do directly with small business.

edit: also, clinton never employed the supply-side economic theory and in fact reversed the tax policies of reagan-bush. ahhh good ol' sithsaber shooting fresh chunks of excrement out his ass again You'd think after Clinton got it right he'd continue the policy, but no, typical stubborn conservatives.

BruceSkywalker
It doesn't really matter who wins, although I'm pulling for Barry "Barack" Obama because he will just lie, cheat and steal like all the rest.

lord xyz
McCain launched an ad saying that Obama is a celebrity and therefore not electable...because the republicans have never elected celebrities before.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/01/21/arnold-schwarzenegger--286.jpg
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/reagan.jpg

Strangelove
Don't forget Sonny Bono

Here's an article from The New Republic about John McCain's radical position on abortion, despite is perceived "moderate" status.

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3483eb20-9228-4700-9557-57a47a676e0b

lord xyz
Originally posted by Strangelove
Don't forget Sonny Bono

Here's an article from The New Republic about John McCain's radical position on abortion, despite is perceived "moderate" status.

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3483eb20-9228-4700-9557-57a47a676e0b I didn't know of him, but yeah. Other celebrities like Kelesy Grammar and Sylvester Stallone support the Republican party, but that's only because they have money.

Strangelove
Originally posted by lord xyz
I didn't know of him, but yeah. Other celebrities like Kelesy Grammar and Sylvester Stallone support the Republican party, but that's only because they have money. He was an entertainer (of Sonny & Cher), went on to be a GOP Congressman from California.

Bruce Willis is conservative-leaning too, but he's not an avowed Republican.

lord xyz
Guess if you want to be a Republican leader in California, you have to be a celebrity. Much like you want to be a Democrat president, you need to be from Dixieland.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Strangelove
Don't forget Sonny Bono

Here's an article from The New Republic about John McCain's radical position on abortion, despite is perceived "moderate" status.

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3483eb20-9228-4700-9557-57a47a676e0b

How is pro-life suddenly radical?

Bardock42
Originally posted by sithsaber408
How is pro-life suddenly radical?

Kinda how slaughtering masses of Indians was suddenly radical a few years back, I guess.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Kinda how slaughtering masses of Indians was suddenly radical a few years back, I guess. a few years?

Strangelove
Originally posted by sithsaber408
How is pro-life suddenly radical? On a resolution condemning the vigilante murder of a doctor who performed abortions, McCain was one of only 8 Senators who voted against it. Even current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted for the resolution.

But the point of the article is that McCain is an uncompromising anti-choice flagbearer, despite the appearance of moderation.

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Strangelove
On a resolution condemning the vigilante murder of a doctor who performed abortions, McCain was one of only 8 Senators who voted against it. Even current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted for the resolution.

But the point of the article is that McCain is an uncompromising anti-choice flagbearer, despite the appearance of moderation.

Geez, I didn't know that one. Murdering an abortion doctor does nothing to prevent abortions and McCain should've supported that resolution.

That said, McCain's voting record pretty much establishes his position. People's perception of him as moderate on the issue is just that...their perceptions. (his comments about not overturning Roe in the near future notwithstanding, his voting record speaks for itself)

lord xyz
"Murdering an abortion doctor does nothing to prevent abortions" don't conservatives usually think, killing people who disagree is the only way they'll learn? I must say sithsaber, that really shocked me.

Strangelove
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Geez, I didn't know that one. Murdering an abortion doctor does nothing to prevent abortions and McCain should've supported that resolution.Well then you obviously didn't even read the article, that anecdote is clearly in there. He doesn't have to say it outright, his comments that he would nominate judges to the Supreme Court "in the line of Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito" says it all: he seeks to overturn Roe

sithsaber408
Originally posted by lord xyz
"Murdering an abortion doctor does nothing to prevent abortions" don't conservatives usually think, killing people who disagree is the only way they'll learn? I must say sithsaber, that really shocked me.

Actually no, conservatives only want to kill terrorists on the battlefield or mass murders/child rapists convicted in a court of law.

But thanks son, that was sweet of you.

Strangelove
Also in the article: There were 130 reproductive health-related votes in the Senate that McCain has participated in: McCain voted with the anti-choice crowd in 125 of them.

Moderate my ass.

lord xyz
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Actually no, conservatives only want to kill terrorists on the battlefield or mass murders/child rapists convicted in a court of law.

But thanks son, that was sweet of you. yeah, kill those who murder/hurt young people. Wouldn't abortion fit in that category?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Strangelove
Also in the article: There were 130 reproductive health-related votes in the Senate that McCain has participated in: McCain voted with the anti-choice crowd in 125 of them.

Moderate my ass.

As I said, all an intelligent person has to do is look at his voting record and they know where he stands.

And he's never said that he was pro-choice. So the "moderate" label isn't his direct doing. (though I'm sure he doesn't mind people thinking he is, if he gets more votes)Originally posted by lord xyz
yeah, kill those who murder/hurt young people. Wouldn't abortion fit in that category? No, because I said "mass murderers/child rapists convicted in a court of law."

Abortion isn't illegal, so killing an abortion doctor is wrong. Even if it were, they would have to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to be killed.

lord xyz
"Abortion isn't illegal, so killing an abortion doctor is wrong." Ah, that's more like it.

sithsaber408
Kid, go away.

I already said that the killing of abortion doctors was wrong. Even IF abortion was illegal, it's still wrong. It's killing.

Stop trying to find fault everywhere.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Strangelove
As we are less than 100 days until Election Day, November 4th, I thought it prudent to have an official discussion thread and poll for the Presidential election. This thread can be used for all discussion of policy and politics between the nominees of the two major parties and the several third parties.

Uh, have at it.

I remain neutral until the final days. I will not be sway nor be push by either the Obama or Mc Cain voters. To me both sides are no better than the other when they label the other side as "ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, etc..."

I will not be a promoter, I will not be a supporter, I will NOT be intimidated by the choice of others over mine.

FU if you (not you Strangelove...I'm going general) try to knock on my door and pretend you care about me and about the nation.

Obaman or Mc Cain supporter...to me you're a pathetic FANBOY in the most political sense of the word.

18 years of living with a conservative values and 10 years of living among liberals....I know your bloody stupid games too well. You can't teach this old dog new tricks.

FU I say again. Try to show concern and care for me.

All Obama and Mc Cain supporters are fanboys in my book. That's all I got for you.

I don't bother you....you don't bother me. Plain and simple....I'm talking in black or white...no shades of grey.

That's all I have to say.

(oh, I might give my vote to the Libertarian or Independent party....if they sound cool)




....


blah!

lord xyz
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Kid, go away.

I already said that the killing of abortion doctors was wrong. Even IF abortion was illegal, it's still wrong. It's killing.

Stop trying to find fault everywhere. Oh, so now killing is wrong?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Actually no, conservatives only want to kill terrorists on the battlefield or mass murders/child rapists convicted in a court of law.

But thanks son, that was sweet of you. Conservatives must have it backwards.

sithsaber408
1eye

Bardock42
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I remain neutral until the final days. I will not be sway nor be push by either the Obama or Mc Cain voters. To me both sides are no better than the other when they label the other side as "ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, etc..."

I will not be a promoter, I will not be a supporter, I will NOT be intimidated by the choice of others over mine.



Also, vote libertarian.

FU if you (not you Strangelove...I'm going general) try to knock on my door and pretend you care about me and about the nation.

Obaman or Mc Cain supporter...to me you're a pathetic FANBOY in the most political sense of the word.

18 years of living with a conservative values and 10 years of living among liberals....I know your bloody stupid games too well. You can't teach this old dog new tricks.

FU I say again. Try to show concern and care for me.

All Obama and Mc Cain supporters are fanboys in my book. That's all I got for you.

I don't bother you....you don't bother me. Plain and simple....I'm talking in black or white...no shades of grey.

That's all I have to say.

(oh, I might give my vote to the Libertarian or Independent party....if they sound cool)




....


blah!

Sounds whiny and immature...but to each their own.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sounds whiny and immature...

Don't quote me like that again. Don't play cute with me.

I did not say "vote libertarian"

I clearly said

"oh, I might give my vote to the Libertarian or Independent party"

Practice what you preach.

Strangelove
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I remain neutral until the final days. I will not be sway nor be push by either the Obama or Mc Cain voters. To me both sides are no better than the other when they label the other side as "ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, etc..."

I will not be a promoter, I will not be a supporter, I will NOT be intimidated by the choice of others over mine.

FU if you (not you Strangelove...I'm going general) try to knock on my door and pretend you care about me and about the nation.

Obaman or Mc Cain supporter...to me you're a pathetic FANBOY in the most political sense of the word.

18 years of living with a conservative values and 10 years of living among liberals....I know your bloody stupid games too well. You can't teach this old dog new tricks.

FU I say again. Try to show concern and care for me.

All Obama and Mc Cain supporters are fanboys in my book. That's all I got for you.

I don't bother you....you don't bother me. Plain and simple....I'm talking in black or white...no shades of grey.

That's all I have to say.

(oh, I might give my vote to the Libertarian or Independent party....if they sound cool)




....


blah! that seems rather pointless; don't you know where you stand on issues? If you know where you stand on the issues, isn't it in your interest to know who you're going to vote for before the final days?

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>