US election, McCain vs Obama et al, Take 1. [Archive] - Page 5

Liuzzo

18-06-2008, 18:55

except that mccain totally just stepped in it - he now favors off-shore drilling as a "short term solution" to oil prices. not only is his definition of 'short term' laughable, but floridians have always been like violently opposed to the idea. he is gambling that the gas prices are high enough that people have changed their minds, but given that it's a stupid idea anyway there is a ton of space for obama to just rip into him on it and play off of the feelings already in place in florida.

You're right on many accounts. Drilling right now will not make any impact for a minimum of 5-10 years. While I do believe we should explore as many resources as we can in our own back yard, I'm not foolish enough to think gas will go back to pre-Bush levels next month. I think it would be best for us to explore these reserves, all the while using technology to drive forward hybrid and other alternatives. My opinion is that we will be using oil to power our way of life for about the next 20 years. Exploring alternative sources of energy will take time and money. If we can bring gas prices under control, we can increase the tax on gasoline. This additional tax can be used to directly fund research for alternative energy options. (hypothetical option coming) So, in 5 years we can lower gas prices back to the 2$ range (hopefully less) and increse the tax by let's say .75. 2.75 would be more than a dollar less then we are seeing now, and you would know that the extra tax would be going towards making your life and the environment better.

Tmutarakhan

18-06-2008, 18:59

Obama/McCain:
It seems we would rather speak
Of anything else.

Liuzzo

18-06-2008, 19:06

Bush mistakes Brazillian
For a bajillion soldiers dead
Sadly biting humor

Fresh from Yahoo news.

Obama beats McCain in three swing states: poll

WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time, White House hopeful Barack Obama leads his Republican rival John McCain in three of the biggest battlegrounds of November's election, according to a new poll Wednesday.

The surveys by Quinnipiac University also found independent voters are opposed to defeated primary contender Hillary Clinton running as Obama's running mate on the Democratic ticket.

Another poll out Wednesday by Zogby had Obama leading McCain by 47 percent to 42 nationally, with a 22-point lead among all-important independents.

The Quinnipiac polls had Obama besting McCain 52-40 percent in Pennsylvania, 48-42 percent in Ohio, and 47-43 in Florida. All three states are crucial building blocks to an election triumph for either candidate in November.

In all three states, Obama leads McCain among female voters by 10 to 23 percentage points, but among men the two contenders are "too close to call," Quinnipiac University Polling Institute assistant director Peter Brown said.

"Finally getting Senator Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Senator Barack Obama," he said.

Clinton beat Obama in the three states' Democratic primaries, although neither campaigned in Florida because of a scheduling row. Obama lagged particularly among working-class voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"Senator Obama is certainly not out of the woods, but these results are a good indication that he enters the summer slightly ahead in the race to be the next president," Brown said.

The Quinnipiac surveys found that while most Democrats back Clinton to join Obama's ticket, clear pluralities of independent voters in all three states were against seeing the former first lady run as his vice president.

"If Senator Obama seriously is thinking about picking Senator Clinton as his running mate, these numbers might cause him to reconsider," Brown said.

"The people who really matter come November -- independent voters -- turn thumbs down on the idea. And, many say they are less likely to vote for him if he puts her on the ticket," he said.

The Quinnipiac polls also suggested that one in five voters see McCain's age as a reason to vote against him. At 72 in January, the Republican would be the oldest president sworn in to a first term.

"But overwhelmingly they don't see Obama's race as a factor at all -- indicating that Americans are either much less concerned with race, or just don't want to tell callers what they really think on the subject," Brown said. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080618/pl_afp/usvotepoll_080618153230)

This is excellent news. It also goes against Hillary Clinton being the Veep. It's a sad day for CH and Shal.

CanuckHeaven

18-06-2008, 19:08

If you're talking about previous polling data that is over a month old on the site than I have to ask what you are hoping we'll take from outdated information?
Over a month old? Perhaps you need new glasses too? The oldest one is not even a month old.

It is historical data that demonstrates that from Feb./Mar. to May/June that Obama's favourability had dropped and his unfavourable numbers had risen. The numbers also demonstrate that the gap between favourable and unfavourable was closing.

If you are truly talking about historical data then you need to check out the link I gave you earlier that you said you'd look at later. I'll repost it for you again.

Now this is historical (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11090.html)
It may be historical, but as others have pointed out to me, that we are charting new waters with Obama being the first black American to win the nomination of either of America's major political parties. Whole new ball game?

CanuckHeaven

18-06-2008, 19:29

Fresh from Yahoo news.
[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080618/pl_afp/usvotepoll_080618153230"]Obama beats McCain in three swing states: poll

This is excellent news. It also goes against Hillary Clinton being the Veep. It's a sad day for CH and Shal.
Meh. Just one set of polls from one pollster.

Cannot think of a name

18-06-2008, 19:29

It may be historical, but as others have pointed out to me, that we are charting new waters with Obama being the first black American to win the nomination of either of America's major political parties. Whole new ball game?
There is a qualitative difference between 'baseball statistics' trends such as "no Democrat has won without West Virginia since whenever" (which more properly suggests that WV is the popular trend's bitch than it does "as goes WV...") and the historical distinction of public mood, well being, status, and party change. One takes into account causality, the other fills space between pitches. While neither is a 100% accurate crystal ball, only one is of any use.

Heikoku 2

18-06-2008, 19:31

Meh. Just one set of polls from one pollster.

Feel free to provide counter-evidence and tell me how many polls will it take for you to shut up.

Daistallia 2104

18-06-2008, 19:33

Fresh from Yahoo news.
This is excellent news. It also goes against Hillary Clinton being the Veep. It's a sad day for CH and Shal.

Does a poetic
Reply to your tsunami mean
I'm a geek?

Oh well, I
Accept reallity unlike some people
I know here

Late night boozing
Makes for very bad poetry
Please accept apologies

Corneliu 2

18-06-2008, 19:42

Meh. Just one set of polls from one pollster.

HAHA!! This is funny coming from you who defended Survey USA like it was the crown jewels or something.

Liuzzo

18-06-2008, 19:52

Meh. Just one set of polls from one pollster.

Actually if you read the article you see they include more than 1 set of polling data. It's the first polls to measure the desire for Clinton as a VP among people other than self-identified Democrats. Even then only 63% of Dems (your poll you cited) want her. One set of polls from one pollster has never stopped you before.

Liuzzo

18-06-2008, 20:04

Over a month old? Perhaps you need new glasses too? The oldest one is not even a month old.

It is historical data that demonstrates that from Feb./Mar. to May/June that Obama's favourability had dropped and his unfavourable numbers had risen. The numbers also demonstrate that the gap between favourable and unfavourable was closing.

It may be historical, but as others have pointed out to me, that we are charting new waters with Obama being the first black American to win the nomination of either of America's major political parties. Whole new ball game?

Perhaps I need to refer you back to my reply. You know, the one where I bolded the dates for you? http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13774585&postcount=316
Also, looking at his negative numbers compared to her and... The latest polls that you have are still from before he wrapped up the Democratic nod. You know, when he was taking heavy fire from her and was involved in an intense primary season. This is what people here complain about regarding you. You do not analyze and take into account the context of the information.

Just to recap
1. I highlighted and bolded the polls. They are insignificant for the reasons I stated.

2. You need to analyze the data more carefully

3. You still are not very good at statistics

4. These are the first numbers to come out guaging how Independents feel about Hillary as a VP. We saw what Democrats want, and even then it's not that great. Point me to some other polls that measure the same thing and we can debate that.

5. Obama's performance in these three states, without Clinton, pretty much negates the notion you have presented that he cannot win without her. If you have information to the contrary then please post it.

Edit: I will be back later tonight. I have a client meeting I must get to.

Liuzzo

18-06-2008, 20:05

There is a qualitative difference between 'baseball statistics' trends such as "no Democrat has won without West Virginia since whenever" (which more properly suggests that WV is the popular trend's bitch than it does "as goes WV...") and the historical distinction of public mood, well being, status, and party change. One takes into account causality, the other fills space between pitches. While neither is a 100% accurate crystal ball, only one is of any use.

Really? You don't say?

CanuckHeaven

18-06-2008, 20:29

Do English be your first language?
I don't know...do it be yours too? :p

Mistaking is and are does not indicate a type. It indicates poor grammar.
Lez see how gud u r wid grammer?

Oh NO, he lost 3 points and still have a rating of 58.
Hmmmmm

Otherwise I've now show your numbers to be pretty insignificant and now very relevant to current trends.
More hmmmm

It's a major improvement from most recent previous Ohio poll,
So ya wannabe a teacher huh? :eek:

Free Soviets

18-06-2008, 23:23

Maineiacs

19-06-2008, 02:39

By the way, folks, how does a haiku festival sound?

A haiku tourney?
I think I could deal with that.
How do you like this?

Sumamba Buwhan

19-06-2008, 03:17

haha

yeah so um, sorry about that tag stuff - I didn't know it would show up on the thread title in general.

1st NSG tagger betch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCF3ywukQYA&feature=related)!

Heikoku 2

19-06-2008, 03:29

A haiku tourney?
I think I could deal with that.
How do you like this?

So be it! :D

Hillary is done.
Canuck Heaven has no point.
Obama wins all.

Liuzzo

19-06-2008, 04:09

I don't know...do it be yours too? :p

Lez see how gud u r wid grammer?

Hmmmmm

More hmmmm

So ya wannabe a teacher huh? :eek:

I'm not a teacher, I'm the boss :p

Yes, I'd like to point out that the difference between "show" and "shown: is a typo, not a mistake in grammar. You see, substituting "is" and "are" reveals an inability to conjugate your verbs. Also, "most recent previous" was simply typing too fast and forgetting to use "and." "Most recent and previous" sounds about right doesn't it?

Now that we are done pointing out the differences here, I'd like you to respond to the most current posts I have made. Your numbers are from before the Democratic nomination was won. Any idea of how he is fairing at the current time will require updated polling. The most current polling, that I have provided for you, shows him doing very well. Once we get newer numbers on his favorability (after he entered the general) we can make a determination on that front. Please answer those points.

Holy Socks

19-06-2008, 04:30

I'm voting McCain. I don't like the government taking my hard earned money and giving it to the scum of society. Sorry.

By the way, I'm pretty sure this is my first post since 2004ish. dayum.

CanuckHeaven

19-06-2008, 04:32

The latest polls that you have are still from before he wrapped up the Democratic nod.
Hillary is such a great salesperson that she can affect Obama's favourability ratings? Sign her up.

You know, when he was taking heavy fire from her and was involved in an intense primary season.
So, she was winning the war towards the end? She did win 10 of the last 16 primaries and a huge share of the vote. Sign her up.

This is what people here complain about regarding you. You do not analyze and take into account the context of the information.
Well that is just a load of manure.

Just to recap
1. I highlighted and bolded the polls. They are insignificant for the reasons I stated.
They are insignificant to you, but others can extrapolate data that makes a statement....a snapshot if you will.

2. You need to analyze the data more carefully
I notice recently that you are off on a cherry picking assignment. Trashing a poll one month and embracing it the next. Yup, I need more critical thinking. Not buying it pal.

3. You still are not very good at statistics
And you are not a gud English teacher. :p

4. These are the first numbers to come out guaging how Independents feel about Hillary as a VP.
Ummm they are?

We saw what Democrats want, and even then it's not that great. Point me to some other polls that measure the same thing and we can debate that.
It appears that Democrats are always changing their minds on certain issues. Sometimes daily.

5. Obama's performance in these three states, without Clinton, pretty much negates the notion you have presented that he cannot win without her.
One set of polls by Quinnipac is the ultimate divining rod? Wow. And you say that I need to "analyze the data more carefully".

If you have information to the contrary then please post it.
As long as it is available, I will post it:

'Danger Signs' as Clinton Supporters Resist Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=5183218&page=1)

The poll indicates that Obama did not get the traditional "bounce" in the public's opinion by finally defeating Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and getting her endorsement as the Democratic presidential candidate.

Women, particularly married white women, however, may be a problem for Obama, according to the Washington Post/ABC poll.

It showed that McCain has a 20 point advantage over Obama among married white women, a group that George Bush also won in the last two presidential elections.

Stephanopoulos told GMA that the figure was a "danger sign" for Obama. "This is a huge gap that Obama has to close if he's going to do well."

While Obama runs well among younger voters, they are not always reliable when it comes to showing up at the polls. Meanwhile, he is 12 points behind McCain among the more reliable older voters.

In addition, nearly a quarter of Clinton's voters are holding back on their support, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll.

"If that number stays that high, it will be difficult for Barack Obama to win," Stephanopoulos said.
Sign her up!!

Cannot think of a name

19-06-2008, 04:42

I was wondering how long it would take CH to get around to the ABC thing, they ran three different stories on it that said more or less the same thing.

It's a great way to fill a page. Set an expectation, inflate the expectation, take a poll, make a great deal of hay out of not meeting the expectation.

Clinton set a 4 alarm fire in her last bid to win the primary. It's going to take a while to put it out, and work from both camps. We've pointed out from different sources how Obama is clearing some of those demographic hurdles and bringing the party back together, as well as the pitfalls that are ignored by the 'magic wand' that is the proposed 'dream ticket.' Even with a freshly shed albatross he's got a head start. Clinton and Obama still have work to do. It is not convincing that this work can be done with a net gain by simply giving Obama a 'co-president.'

CanuckHeaven

19-06-2008, 04:57

I'm not a teacher, I'm the boss :p
Only in your dreams pal. :)

Yes, I'd like to point out that the difference between "show" and "shown: is a typo, not a mistake in grammar. You see, substituting "is" and "are" reveals an inability to conjugate your verbs. Also, "most recent previous" was simply typing too fast and forgetting to use "and." "Most recent and previous" sounds about right doesn't it?
After you catching me on 1 mistake and after me pointing out 3 mistakes of your own in your rebuttal, I find it laughable that you persist in your folly.

Quit while you are behind. :)

Now that we are done pointing out the differences here,
Now we are done? Please don't make the same mistake again.

Your numbers are from before the Democratic nomination was won.
What exactly is your point there?

Any idea of how he is fairing at the current time will require updated polling.
Yeah, it certainly seems implausible to rely too heavily on one set of polls like you appear to be doing.

The most current polling, that I have provided for you, shows him doing very well.
Yes and no.

Close Race: McCain Stays in Range Amid Challenges for Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=5177916&page=1)

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll underscores the conundrum of the 2008 presidential election: If everything is so good for Barack Obama, why isn't everything so good for Barack Obama?
Read the rest.

Daistallia 2104

19-06-2008, 05:01

Clinton Bundler on Obama's Doyle Pick: The Biggest 'Fuck You' Ever
by Jason Horowitz | June 16, 2008

A former bundler to Hillary Clinton just called in to tell me that Barack Obama's selection of Patti Solis Doyle as chief of staff to the campaign's eventual vice presidential nominee is the "biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics."

The donor, speaking on background, said that everyone in Clinton circles knows the two have hard feelings towards one another and haven't spoken since Clinton removed Solis Doyle as campaign manager, and that Clinton loyalists view her with deep suspicion and believe that she is shopping around a book deal and acted as a background source for an extremely harsh Vanity Fair piece about Bill Clinton.

"Either one of two things happen," said the bundler. "Hillary is selected as vice president and they fire Patti, or Hillary is not going to be the vice president."

The bundler said that Clinton loyalists were livid over the pick.

"You don't hire Patti Solis Doyle for her operational expertise," said the bundler. "You don't do that. This is someone who failed dramatically at her job. You only bring her on to fuck someone else."

UPDATE: Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee e-mails with a different take: “Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama. As Senator Clinton has said, we’re all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama as the next President of the United States.”

In other words she ain't gonna get it, no way, no how.

Team Obama's smarter than that.

The Clintonistas need to accept that she lost, she lost in spite of her foul campaign, and get on with electing Obama. If, and that's a very big if, Clinton's attempt to forment a civil war in the party prevents that from happening, the repercussions for her and her supporters will be severe...

Heikoku 2

19-06-2008, 05:03

On a side note to a lively but pointless debate about Hillary getting on the ticket (ain't gonna happen and Obama will win more easily because of it), how many points will Obama peel off McCain after their first debate, especially as issues such as abortion (people don't know McCain is like James fucking Dobson on it) appear and McCain ends up sounding angry and out of control?

Daistallia 2104

19-06-2008, 05:10

And a very interesting scenario: What happens if McCain drops out due to health reasons? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/when-mccain-drops-out_b_107236.html)

Free Soviets

19-06-2008, 05:28

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo

Cannot think of a name

19-06-2008, 05:28

In other words she ain't gonna get it, no way, no how.

Team Obama's smarter than that.

The Clintonistas need to accept that she lost, she lost in spite of her foul campaign, and get on with electing Obama. If, and that's a very big if, Clinton's attempt to forment a civil war in the party prevents that from happening, the repercussions for her and her supporters will be severe...
Honestly, that doesn't seem like a good decision on so many levels.

On a side note to a lively but pointless debate about Hillary getting on the ticket (ain't gonna happen and Obama will win more easily because of it), how many points will Obama peel off McCain after their first debate, especially as issues such as abortion (people don't know McCain is like James fucking Dobson on it) appear and McCain ends up sounding angry and out of control?
He'll make it up on security issues, but not by enough. Especially seeing as how that whole 'Sept. 10th Mentality' accusation worked in 2006.

CanuckHeaven

19-06-2008, 05:32

Honestly, that doesn't seem like a good decision on so many levels.
We agree on something for a change!!

Heikoku 2

19-06-2008, 05:33

He'll make it up on security issues, but not by enough. Especially seeing as how that whole 'Sept. 10th Mentality' accusation worked in 2006.

And that assumes he does at all... He does support a stupid war that, by all accounts, made America LESS safe. So, each debate drains from Lt. Senile how much, a point or two? Maybe some more in the first time?

Heikoku 2

19-06-2008, 05:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo

To which I would reply "at least I won't spend one of the last years of my life being humiliated by another candidate as I lose control and become more and more confused, you cancerous, senile, decadent, psychotic old motherf*cker".

But, then, I'm not Cindy. :p

Cannot think of a name

19-06-2008, 05:40

We agree on something for a change!!
That happens when you're not dogmatically married to one side to the point where you don't see reason. Just sayin'...
And that assumes he does at all... He does support a stupid war that, by all accounts, made America LESS safe. So, each debate drains from Lt. Senile how much, a point or two? Maybe some more in the first time?
Right now it's about the only group of 'concerns' where he's leading, and it's not by a little bit. And that's with his clear support for the war, and you have to have your head buried pretty deep in the sand if you don't know Obama's position at this point.

Never underestimated the power of "Boogetyboogetyboogety" on the electorate.

Sumamba Buwhan

19-06-2008, 05:42

Cannot think of a name

19-06-2008, 05:46

And a very interesting scenario: What happens if McCain drops out due to health reasons? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/when-mccain-drops-out_b_107236.html)
Granted, it was a while ago, but McCain was the only one polling within even field goal distance of Obama or any Democratic challenger during the primaries. This seems more melodrama than real possibility. I do agree that they'll be in it to win it, but in all honesty, McCain is their best shot and they're going to have to take it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo
These kind of things are a drag.

Heikoku 2

19-06-2008, 05:49

Right now it's about the only group of 'concerns' where he's leading, and it's not by a little bit. And that's with his clear support for the war, and you have to have your head buried pretty deep in the sand if you don't know Obama's position at this point.

Never underestimated the power of "Boogetyboogetyboogety" on the electorate.

Still, the debates should hurt McCain way more...

Cannot think of a name

19-06-2008, 05:53

Still, the debates should hurt McCain way more...

Depends on the format. That's why there is so much tuffle over 'town halls' vs. Lincoln/Douglas style debates. If it were the latter, McCain would get slaughtered. He does better in the former. They have to play up the notion that Obama is not good 'off prompter.' How true that is remains up for discussion.

Heikoku 2

19-06-2008, 06:03

Depends on the format. That's why there is so much tuffle over 'town halls' vs. Lincoln/Douglas style debates. If it were the latter, McCain would get slaughtered. He does better in the former. They have to play up the notion that Obama is not good 'off prompter.' How true that is remains up for discussion.

I'm aware, I'm aware. However, one fact seems lost on McCain: His town hall debates have been, so far, only with people who AGREE with him asking the questions.

Gauthier

19-06-2008, 07:27

I'm aware, I'm aware. However, one fact seems lost on McCain: His town hall debates have been, so far, only with people who AGREE with him asking the questions.

Hey, McCain learned the art of batting softball questions from his new masters Dubya and Cheney after all. Anyone remember Jim "Jeff Gannon" Guckert?

Corneliu 2

19-06-2008, 13:48

I'm aware, I'm aware. However, one fact seems lost on McCain: His town hall debates have been, so far, only with people who AGREE with him asking the questions.

You forget, the Democratic debates were with people who agreed with eachother as well.

Heikoku 2

19-06-2008, 14:57

You forget, the Democratic debates were with people who agreed with eachother as well.

True enough, but, all in all, McCain seems to me to be quite a bit less able...

Fleckenstein

19-06-2008, 15:43

You forget, the Democratic debates were with people who agreed with eachother as well.

I think he means when McCain planned to invite only people on his lists to a town hall with Obama. He had a story on that from somewhere, where McCain was trying to stack all the questioners as Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Heikoku 2

19-06-2008, 15:58

I think he means when McCain planned to invite only people on his lists to a town hall with Obama. He had a story on that from somewhere, where McCain was trying to stack all the questioners as Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Strangely enough I didn't mean that, but it fits perfectly in what I had suspicions about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3yAubSZ9E

McCain is a son of a bitch, and that this debate trick didn't make more news just continues to perplex.

Liuzzo

19-06-2008, 16:35

Hillary is such a great salesperson that she can affect Obama's favourability ratings? Sign her up.

Wow, I thought I was going to have a tough time responding before I read this. Yes, Hillary and her surrogates were still on the attack at that point. The media was also very "critical" of him. Bringing back the Wright, Rezko, and other crap was something the media and the Clinton campaign kept on the sruface.

So, she was winning the war towards the end? She did win 10 of the last 16 primaries and a huge share of the vote. Sign her up.

Ah, a huge share of the vote you say. Well, perhaps you should have taken a look at the popular vote percent change during that time. How much, percentage-wise did she increase her market-share by?

Well that is just a load of manure.

Really? No one but me has made these claims?

They are insignificant to you, but others can extrapolate data that makes a statement....a snapshot if you will.

Right, other may do so. Your analysis of the data is weak because of the data itself. As I said, once we get post nomination numbers we can make a realistic determination about his numbers.

I notice recently that you are off on a cherry picking assignment. Trashing a poll one month and embracing it the next. Yup, I need more critical thinking. Not buying it pal.

Cherrypicking!? If I was I'd have to ask you how you like your own strategies used against you? I have provided multiple polls, RCP averages, 538.com is a brilliant statistical analysis. You're right, I'm definately only taking one piece of information and using it.

And you are not a gud English teacher. :p

I believe I explained this to you in adequate detail. Further, lack of statistical analysis is far more consequential to this debate. Your inability to interpret multiple data sources and put them in context is a major liability to you.

Ummm they are?

If you have other numbers on post nomination VP choices by independents please post them. Just asking the question does not get you off the hook.

It appears that Democrats are always changing their minds on certain issues. Sometimes daily.

Right, but Democrats and Republicans on their own do not decide elections. The undecideds, mostly independents, are who determine the winner.

One set of polls by Quinnipac is the ultimate divining rod? Wow. And you say that I need to "analyze the data more carefully".

Right, so I showed Quinnipiac, PPP, RCP, 538.com, and the article regarding the historical evidence that McCain is up against. You're right, I'm relying on one poll and only analyzing that.

As long as it is available, I will post it:

'Danger Signs' as Clinton Supporters Resist Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=5183218&page=1)

Democrats do not win the election for you. If Clinton supporters wish to vote against their own best interest out of spite, they will do far more to divide the party than anyone else.

Sign her up!!

Mark my words here. It will not happen and that's a guarantee.

Liuzzo

19-06-2008, 16:43

Only in your dreams pal. :)

Wow, I'll have to tell all the people that I oversee that I am not the boss anymore. "Some guy on NSG told me I'm not the boss, who wants my job?"

After you catching me on 1 mistake and after me pointing out 3 mistakes of your own in your rebuttal, I find it laughable that you persist in your folly.

Quit while you are behind. :)

Now we are done? Please don't make the same mistake again.

You still don't see the difference? Too bad for you then.

What exactly is your point there?

Really?

Yeah, it certainly seems implausible to rely too heavily on one set of polls like you appear to be doing.

Turnabout?

Yes and no.

Close Race: McCain Stays in Range Amid Challenges for Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=5177916&page=1)

Read the rest.

Of course he'll remain "in range" as it's June. What real value does this have?
I'm not going to repeat them same answers over and over again. Catch up on the post.

Aurill

19-06-2008, 19:20

I have to say I am voting for McCain.

There are a several for reasons for this.

1) He is experienced – McCain has been in Washington for a long time. He knows the system, and he knows the people that can make things happen. At a time a volatile as things are now we need someone with experience running the show.
2) He is a change minded moderate – McCain has a long history of crossing the aisle to make change in Washington. While most of the bills generated aren’t perfect they are far better than either party can put together and pass alone. He has worked on Campaign Finance Reform, Global Warming Bill, Immigration Reform just to name a few of the most recent ones.
3) Iraq – McCain was an outspoken critic of how the initial invasion of Iraq was handled, and has maintained he belief that Bush has completely mishandled the war. Like me, he believes we should have invaded Iraq, but that we just went about the wrong way. He always argued that we should have invaded Iraq with more troops, and provided them with better equipment. Something that would have saved thousands of lives, both civilian, and otherwise.
4) Health Care – He supports opening the market allowing greater competition in the healthcare market instead of limiting Healthcare providers to practicing regionally, which is how it is today. He recommends offering tax credits to help people purchase insurance on their own. He doesn’t go far enough on the issue as I believe the government healthcare program should be opened to allow all citizens to purchase insurance through it, but at least he is offering incentives to encourage everyone to get medical coverage instead of making a mandate that insurance must be available to everyone as Obama’s plan does.
5) Social Security – Let face it, we all know it is broken. Anyone under the age of 40 probably won’t see any money from Social Security by the time we retire unless there are major changes. McCain understands the cause of the problem is raiding Social Security to pay for other government programs. Privatization in some form is the only solution that will guarantee that those of us under 40 will actually receive Social Security. And any candidate that denies this simply won’t have me vote, unless of course they support repealing social security completely.
6) Alternative Minimum Tax – McCain supports eliminating this. At the time of its inception it was a brilliant way to eliminate the ability of wealthy individuals to circumvent paying taxes. Unfortunately, as the Middle class has expanded more and more of us are faced with paying AMT. Quite frankly, being a middle class American making enough money to support my family, and paying plenty in taxes it sucks big time to do my taxes, find out I am getting a set about back then be forced to calculate them again and discover that since the AMT is higher I have to pay instead. Any American forced into this situation would have to agree that it should be eliminated.

Liuzzo

19-06-2008, 21:37

I just want to recap for the one poll and single data source I've been using.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/06/17/ppp_poll_obama_up_big_in_ohio.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815194,00.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-women16-2008jun16,0,6187010.story

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionModel618.htm

http://3bluedudes.com/?p=130

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I'll extrapolate on all of these sites later. I'd just like to call BS on the accusation I've only used one source, while my antagonist has not provided numbers to prove otherwise. This is in the interest of showing there's a volume of data available to support this position.

Jocabia

19-06-2008, 22:46

Sumamba Buwhan

19-06-2008, 22:46

Who disagrees with Obama going back on his word about using public financing if his opponent does?

Dempublicents1

19-06-2008, 23:18

Who disagrees with Obama going back on his word about using public financing if his opponent does?

I'm iffy on it.

He's not going against the basic reason for public financing - getting politics out of the hands of big money donors. He's not taking money lobbyist money and most of his money is coming from small individual donations. I kind of like the fact that only those people who actually want to will donate to Obama's campaign, rather than having it paid for by the public as a whole.

At the same time, he did initially say he would go with public financing. The jaded-with-politics part of me can't help but see this as a move of political expediency.

Dempublicents1

19-06-2008, 23:22

Depends on the format. That's why there is so much tuffle over 'town halls' vs. Lincoln/Douglas style debates. If it were the latter, McCain would get slaughtered. He does better in the former. They have to play up the notion that Obama is not good 'off prompter.' How true that is remains up for discussion.

I've heard townhall style meetings with Obama on the radio. Other than the fact that he tends to talk a little longer than is strictly necessary when answering a question, I thought he did well.

Sumamba Buwhan

19-06-2008, 23:26

I'm iffy on it.

He's not going against the basic reason for public financing - getting politics out of the hands of big money donors. He's not taking money lobbyist money and most of his money is coming from small individual donations. I kind of like the fact that only those people who actually want to will donate to Obama's campaign, rather than having it paid for by the public as a whole.

At the same time, he did initially say he would go with public financing. The jaded-with-politics part of me can't help but see this as a move of political expediency.

same here

the reason I dislike it is that he went back on his word

the reason I support it is that he has to battle the RNC money machine since the DNC doesn't compare when it comes to fund raising.

Gravlen

19-06-2008, 23:27

Who disagrees with Obama going back on his word about using public financing if his opponent does?

*Raises hand*

I like for people to stand by their word. That was a negative point to Obama.

However, McCain has just ruled himself out as a candidate for me after claiming the latest ruling by SCOTUS on the Guantanamo detainees was one of the worst rulings in the history of the United States, and stating that he will kill Bin Laden without ever contemplating granting him a trial.

From here on out I am supporting Obama completely. I cannot support someone with such a disregard for the rule of law.

Sumamba Buwhan

19-06-2008, 23:29

*Raises hand*

I like for people to stand by their word. That was a negative point to Obama.

Yup - and we can expect to hear about this crap from DK and such for the next 8 years at least.

It's understandable why Obama chose not to take public financing but I wish he hadn't promised to use it in teh first place.

Since he is battling the RNC money machine, can't he just fund raise for the DNC?

Dempublicents1

19-06-2008, 23:34

same here

the reason I dislike it is that he went back on his word

the reason I support it is that he has to battle the RNC money machine since the DNC doesn't compare when it comes to fund raising.

Indeed, there's also the fact that he's doing this in a whole new way. No one has ever raised these types of funds with small individual donations before. If the option were between lobbyist/insider money and public funds, I'd want to see a candidate take the public funds.

But between these types of individual donations and public money? I'd rather see the former.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't realize how well he'd be able to do with small donations. It doesn't completely excuse it, and it still rubs me the wrong way, but it's something I can deal with.

Dempublicents1

19-06-2008, 23:43

Although....I can't seem to find anywhere that he specifically promised to take public funding. Anyone have a link?

Sumamba Buwhan

19-06-2008, 23:54

Although....I can't seem to find anywhere that he specifically promised to take public funding. Anyone have a link?

hmm, neither can I

Sumamba Buwhan

19-06-2008, 23:58

Well this is what they claim in a blog:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

Obama wrote: "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Not so "aggressively," according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

The Obama campaign disputes this. Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer met with McCain campaign counsel Trevor Potter and, according to Obama spox Bill Burton, Potter "immediately made it clear there was no basis for further discussion," that they weren't interested in any sort of agreement. "McCain and the RNC had spent months raising and spending money for the general election, and their basic attitude was 'You'll catch up,'" Burton says, suggesting that the Republicans were also turning a blind eye to the activities of 527s.

Free Soviets

20-06-2008, 00:07

Who disagrees with Obama going back on his word about using public financing if his opponent does?

since his opponent is a lying scumbag who is currently in flagrant violation of his own campaign finance law, i don't think there is any going back on any word involved.

Sumamba Buwhan

20-06-2008, 00:13

since his opponent is a lying scumbag who is currently in flagrant violation of his own campaign finance law, i don't think there is any going back on any word involved.

I'm very confused on this whole McCain finance thing. He keeps changing his mind or something right? He applied for public financing for the primary and then after applying said he didn't want it?

Fleckenstein

20-06-2008, 00:33

*Raises hand*

I like for people to stand by their word. That was a negative point to Obama.

However, McCain has just ruled himself out as a candidate for me after claiming the latest ruling by SCOTUS on the Guantanamo detainees was one of the worst rulings in the history of the United States, and stating that he will kill Bin Laden without ever contemplating granting him a trial.

From here on out I am supporting Obama completely. I cannot support someone with such a disregard for the rule of law.

As wrong as Obama is, I'll take promise breaking over law breaking any day.

Free Soviets

20-06-2008, 00:40

I'm very confused on this whole McCain finance thing. He keeps changing his mind or something right? He applied for public financing for the primary and then after applying said he didn't want it?

worse - he took out a loan back in december or something on the condition that even if he was in dead last he would stay in the race until he got his public financing money to pay the bank back. so he not only officially opted in to the system, but took out a loan on the basis of it - effectively saying he would hang around to take the american public's money just for the fucking hell of it, even if mitt romney or someone had the nomination locked.

after he had the nomination effectively wrapped up, he then claimed that he decided not to be part of it after all, to which the FEC told him "too bad" and that he can't just opt in and out on a whim - he needed to wait for the committee to approve his opting out. but the committee currently doesn't have enough members to do business, so he is just ignoring that, and has exceeded the primary spending limits he is allowed by millions and has been doing so for months. the legal battle over this is in a holding pattern that looks unlikely to break before the election.

there is zero reason to believe that mccain would stick to any agreement about public financing, let alone a further agreement about what to do with external groups that are under some amount of sway. basically, fuck that asshole, there is no reason for obama to tie both hands behind his back and get blindfolded during this fight.

Fleckenstein

20-06-2008, 00:41

worse - he took out a loan back in december or something on the condition that even if he was in dead last he would stay in the race until he got his public financing money to pay the bank back. so he not only officially opted in to the system, but took out a loan on the basis of it - effectively saying he would hang around to take the american public's money just for the fucking hell of it, even if mitt romney or someone had the nomination locked.

after he had the nomination effectively wrapped up, he then claimed that he decided not to be part of it after all, to which the FEC told him "too bad" and that he can't just opt in and out on a whim - he needed to wait for the committee to approve his opting out. but the committee currently doesn't have enough members to do business, so he is just ignoring that, and has exceeded the primary spending limits he is allowed by millions and has been doing so for months. the legal battle over this is in a holding pattern that looks unlikely to break before the election.

there is zero reason to believe that mccain would stick to any agreement about public financing, let alone a further agreement about what to do with external groups that are under some amount of sway. basically, fuck that asshole, there is no reason for obama to tie both hands behind his back and get blindfolded during this fight.

The best part is McCain orchestrated the campaign finance reform he is currently abusing.

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 00:56

Can someone please explain this to me? What exactly is Obama saying here (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815194,00.html):

"I'm probably the only candidate who, having won the nomination, can actually redraw the political map," Obama replied to a question about his strategy from a Concord, N.H., woman at a house party last August. Pacing around the old Victorian home, the wooden floor creaking, Obama went on: "I'll give you one specific example: Mississippi is 40% African American, but it votes 25% African American. If we just got the African Americans in Mississippi to vote their percentage, Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state. And Georgia may be a Democratic state. Even South Carolina starts being in play. And I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30% around the country, minimum."

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 01:00

I'll extrapolate on all of these sites later. I'd just like to call BS on the accusation I've only used one source, while my antagonist has not provided numbers to prove otherwise. This is in the interest of showing there's a volume of data available to support this position.
You want to teach me English, yet you can't understand what I wrote?

I did not say that you have "only used one source".

Free Soviets

20-06-2008, 01:06

Can someone please explain this to me? What exactly is Obama saying here (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815194,00.html):

he is saying that he can increase african american voter registration and participation in a way that the democrats haven't been able to do before, and that doing so can throw even a few deeply red states into possible play. you know, like how he looks set to win motherfucking virginia already.

Liuzzo

20-06-2008, 04:08

You want to teach me English, yet you can't understand what I wrote?

I did not say that you have "only used one source".

You said
Yeah, it certainly seems implausible to rely too heavily on one set of polls like you appear to be doing.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13779278&postcount=362

If you have data to contradict mine made available to you please do so.

Liuzzo

20-06-2008, 04:21

he is saying that he can increase african american voter registration and participation in a way that the democrats haven't been able to do before, and that doing so can throw even a few deeply red states into possible play. you know, like how he looks set to win motherfucking virginia already.

The number is Virginia have been positive for a while. Grab Kaine, or even Webb and it will be a virtual lock. I think others may bring more to the table in other areas, so it is till Obama's move. He needs someone to compliment him and who shares his vision for America.

Liuzzo

20-06-2008, 04:23

Also, if anyone watched Colbert skewer McCain on his agreements with Bush on 11/18. If it wasn't so pointed it would still be funny. I don't condemn McCain for these things, but it does make you laugh out loud. The show as a whole was pretty good last night. I get bored from time to time, but last night was a worthwhile 20 minutes (DVR) spent.

Heikoku 2

20-06-2008, 04:36

He needs someone to compliment him and who shares his vision for America.

Looking SHARP in that suit, Barack!

(YES! I'M V.P.!!!) :D

Liuzzo

20-06-2008, 04:45

Looking SHARP in that suit, Barack!

(YES! I'M V.P.!!!) :D

I sense some sarcasm here. It'd be hard for a Brazilian VP to pass through our constitution. Contrary to recent events, we actually do still adhere to this document. I think the most recent Supreme Court ruling might show we are coming to our senses.

Heikoku 2

20-06-2008, 04:56

I sense some sarcasm here. It'd be hard for a Brazilian VP to pass through our constitution. Contrary to recent events, we actually do still adhere to this document. I think the most recent Supreme Court ruling might show we are coming to our senses.

Er... Compliment/Complement joke. ;)

Liuzzo

20-06-2008, 05:08

Er... Compliment/Complement joke. ;)

Indeed, my eyes are blurry and it must mean time for bed. Until morning light.

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 05:30

The number is Virginia have been positive for a while.
Having a bit of trouble conjugating verbs now huh? :p

Tmutarakhan

20-06-2008, 05:39

snip
I addressed a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558986) to you, responding on the 2000 debacle; at first I assumed you just weren't interested enough in that to keep debating it (if so, fine) but then noticed you hadn't been around for a while and maybe just didn't see it (the other possibility is that you found everything I said totally irrefutable, but I don't count on that).

Delator

20-06-2008, 06:03

However, McCain has just ruled himself out as a candidate for me after claiming the latest ruling by SCOTUS on the Guantanamo detainees was one of the worst rulings in the history of the United States, and stating that he will kill Bin Laden without ever contemplating granting him a trial.

Gonna kill him yourself John?? :rolleyes:

McCain keeps hyping up his experience, and Obama's supposed lack thereof...but this kind of thing strikes me as downright immature, and certainly NOT "experienced".

Cannot think of a name

20-06-2008, 07:39

Having a bit of trouble conjugating verbs now huh? :p

Worst side show yet, and that's saying something.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 12:58

All excellent reasons, actually. Are you willing to discuss them and more things about McCain?

Most definately, that was the whole reason for explaining myself.

Liuzzo

20-06-2008, 13:26

Having a bit of trouble conjugating verbs now huh? :p

Wow, for the love of God. is=in. So read the sentence...The numbers in Virginia have been positive. That is correct grammar. You still don't get typos vs. grammar. Anyhow, you said you never implied I was relying on one source or set of numbers. I then quoted you saying exactly that. Three strikes and you are out. Now answer my posts with MULTIPLE sources.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 14:02

Although....I can't seem to find anywhere that he specifically promised to take public funding. Anyone have a link?

I found a questionairre (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf) he submitted for the Midwest Demopcracy Network. Question 2 is If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system? In his answer is highlighted yes and elaborated.

He responded:
I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the roposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

The link can be found here (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf).

Well we now have an Obama/McCain show down and McCain still says he will take the Public Funds. Obama has decided not to agree with his comments in this questionairre. You know we will hear about this in the general election. The McCain camp will hammer it as an example of what kind of a man and President Obama will be. He will be labeled as a man that cannot keep his word. And they will ask if this is really the type of person we want in the White House.

If they are smart they will compare him to President Bush and we will see ads where President Bush didn't keep his word, then they will say and now we have Obama starting the whole process over again by not keeping his word about public financing. They they will ask the question who do you think is really more like President Bush? Someone that keeps his word or someone who doesn't? McCain or Obama?

And it will throw a major kink in Obama's argument that a McCain Presidency is a Bush third term.

Liuzzo

20-06-2008, 14:09

Worst side show yet, and that's saying something.

Yes, especially since I have asked him to debate the points I made for four pages now. Can you see the difference between a typo of is and in? Getting back on topic now...Obama is looking very good right now, and the independents do not want Hillary.

Here are some other numbers from after the nom. These are the only two I can find as of yet.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 6-9, 2008. N=1,000 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. RV = registered voters

.

"Now I'm going to read you the names of several public figures, and I'd like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don't know the name, please just say so. Barack Obama."

.

Very
Positive

Somewhat
Positive

Neutral

Somewhat
Negative

Very
Negative

Don't
Know
Name/
Not Sure

%

%

%

%

%

%

6/6-9/08 RV
25 23 17 11 22 2

http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm

Aurill

20-06-2008, 14:15

On March 1, 2007, the New York Times ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html) on the subject.

Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party’s presidential nomination. The promises by Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, are an effort to resuscitate part of the ailing public financing system for presidential campaigns.

The promises by Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, are an effort to resuscitate part of the ailing public financing system for presidential campaigns.

Basically around March 2007, both the Obama and McCain campaigns agreed that they would take public funding if the other side agrees. So, we now have a Obama-McCain general election. Both sides were obviously willing to take public financing in March 2007. McCain says he is still willing to accept public financing, and yet Obama has decided that he values the private funds over the public funds. He has broken his word on the subject.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 14:25

Here (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20070301meeting.html) is the link to the FEC ruling on Obama's letter requesting permission to recieve public funding for the general election.

Basically, Obama asked the FEC if he kept money raised for a general election in a separate account, and limited access to it could he refund the money of contributors and still recieve public funds. The commissioners agreed.

Now he has decided that he doesn't want public funding, even though his competitor agreed with his plan and agreed to do just as he recommended.

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 14:28

Worst side show yet, and that's saying something.
Hey....I am having a bit of fun for a change. :D

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 14:45

Yes, especially since I have asked him to debate the points I made for four pages now. Can you see the difference between a typo of is and in? Getting back on topic now...Obama is looking very good right now, and the independents do not want Hillary.

Here are some other numbers from after the nom. These are the only two I can find as of yet.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 6-9, 2008. N=1,000 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. RV = registered voters

"Now I'm going to read you the names of several public figures, and I'd like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don't know the name, please just say so. Barack Obama."

Very Positive Somewhat Positive Neutral Somewhat Negative Very Negative

Don't Know Name/ Not Sure %

6/6-9/08 RV
25 23 17 11 22 2

http://www.pollingreport.com/o.htm
This demonstrates why one should not rely on one set of numbers. The first poll you quoted, indicated a +30 for Obama in the favourability poll, and this one indicates a +15 (48 vs. 33). The polls are only 6 days apart.

Free Soviets

20-06-2008, 14:49

Now he has decided that he doesn't want public funding, even though his competitor agreed with his plan and agreed to do just as he recommended.

the say-so of someone who is currently flagrantly violating his own law ain't worth shit. plus, they did not, in fact, come to an agreement on the terms of the 'truce'.

and, of course, obama's fund raising is precisely the sort of thing to allow under any rational system that doesn't completely cut off all spending by either candidates or other groups beyond some sort of public financing.

the problem isn't money itself. the problem has always been influence buying and corporate control of the political system.

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 14:53

Also, if anyone watched Colbert skewer McCain on his agreements with Bush on 11/18.
Incomplete thought/sentence.

Okay, okay.....perhaps I am going overboard, but I think you got the message? /end teach.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 15:03

the say-so of someone who is currently flagrantly violating his own law ain't worth shit. plus, they did not, in fact, come to an agreement on the terms of the 'truce'.

and, of course, obama's fund raising is precisely the sort of thing to allow under any rational system that doesn't completely cut off all spending by either candidates or other groups beyond some sort of public financing.

the problem isn't money itself. the problem has always been influence buying and corporate control of the political system.

I never said that they came to an agreement on a truce. I pointed out that Obama submitted a letter to the FEC, even provided a link to the FEC ruling. I also said that McCain agreed with Obama's letter, and the FEC ruling. Additionally, in a previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13782268&postcount=418), I provided a link to a questionairre where Obama answered a question specifically on this issue. He noted in his answer that McCain was the only candidate to accept his terms.

In my book, acknowledging that someone has accepted your terms is establishing an agreement with them, and in effect establishes a truce.

Besides the point is, Obama said that he would be willing to establish a 'truce' if he was chosen as the Democratic nominee, which he now is, and if his opponent agreed to accept public funding, which McCain did back in March 2007. Now Obama has decided that he doesn't want a truce, because it isn't in his best interest. Hence he has broken his word, by refusing to discuss a truce with McCain.

EDIT: Let me also note, that per post 418, I noted that Obama stated:
If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

I guess "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee" means that if I am earning more funds than the Republican nominee, I will absolutely refuse to consider working on an agreement with them, even when they are more than willing to cooperate on the matter.

Free Soviets

20-06-2008, 15:22

Aurill

20-06-2008, 15:32

I never said that they came to an agreement on a truce.
...
In my book, acknowledging that someone has accepted your terms is establishing an agreement with them, and in effect establishes a truce.
is that so?

Ok, I hadn't said it at the time of post 421, but did say it specifically and clearly in 426. I also provided proof where he said it, and how the agreement was established.

What exactly have you done to prove me wrong???

Free Soviets

20-06-2008, 15:46

What exactly have you done to prove me wrong???

i showed that mccain is currently violating campaign finance law. if a guy can't be trusted to follow a law with his own name on it, there ain't no agreement to be had. there is no truce on the table - while it is ok to talk to your enemies, it is not ok to make agreements with them when you have no justified expectation that they will actually live up to either the spirit or the letter of the agreement.

Cannot think of a name

20-06-2008, 15:54

I've been staying out of the financing argument because I've been working and tired, but also because while I kind of see his point and if he hadn't said anything prior I would have no problem at all with his decision, he did say he would take public financing and regardless of the situation, it does harm his narrative that he is going against that. I do think it will cost him votes, but he'll more than likely be able to buy more back now. That's not a win I feel as good about, and that's unfortunate.

Not to mention that, apparently, the landscape isn't as scary (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html) as maybe we would have thought-
The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.
...
Multiple Republican sources say that Karl Rove has been in contact with donors such as Adelson and Pickens about helping to create an independent effort but that to date nothing has come of it. Rove didn’t respond to an email.

Of course, even Republicans think there will be one, but they face hurdles in their own candidate, despite what Obama has said-
In a web video emailed to supporters Thursday, Barack Obama explained that he was opting out of the public financing system because John McCain is “not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”
McCain's opposition to them has actually curtailed them-
“Both donors and operatives know how much [McCain] abhors these groups,” said John Weaver, the Arizona senator’s former chief strategist, referring to the independent groups that have thrived following passage of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. “If he is ultimately successful and any of these groups played a significant effort in electing him, many believe, probably rightfully, that they would be ostracized.”

Another GOP strategist said that McCain’s denunciation of a 501(c)(4) which aired an ad in South Carolina last November touting McCain when his resources were severely limited sent a chilling message to potential independent expenditure groups.

McCain issued a public statement at the time calling on the group, spearheaded by GOP adman Rick Reed, to “cease and desist.”

"Anyone who believes they could assist my campaign by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws is doing me and our country a disservice,” McCain said then.

He used even stronger language after that, saying at a Texas town hall meeting in late February that 527s “are distorting the entire political process and they need to be outlawed.”

Aping the voice of an imaginary donor, one Republican strategist posited: “I’m supposed to put millions of dollars up to be called a lawbreaker? That doesn’t make one feel very good.”

It's uncomfortable to think that in this regard, McCain has taken the high road. I do recognize some of the shell game being played with the fund raising right now in the McCain camp, but if that's the issue, make it the issue. Swift scaring isn't really helping.

Of course, and we've been saying this, that landscape might change if the 527s are thrown a bone by a certain potential VP pick-
Aside from fears about antagonizing McCain, there is palpable disappointment over the failure of Hillary Clinton to claim the Democratic nomination. Many in the GOP were gearing up for, and were energized by, the prospect of a run against Clinton.

Several Republicans, including the Vice-President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, talked about creating an independent group at the end of last year but the group fizzled out during the course of the long Democratic primary, sources say.

They weren’t alone.

Richard Collins, a wealthy Dallas-based entrepreneur, bankrolled “StopHerNow," an entity set up to defeat the former First Lady.

“For six months, it’s been do we stop her, stop him or stop somebody else?” he notes.

“We spent 18 months and millions of dollars making 'Hillary The Movie,'" laments David Bossie, head of Citizens United and a longtime Clinton tormentor. “We’re incredibly proud, but the problem is the film has no relevance anymore.”

Bossie is now rushing out an Obama movie for later this summer that he promises will include Wright and other controversial figures from the Democrat’s past. But while promising that they’ll also do TV spots, Bossie’s outfit faces the same challenges as other third-party groups hoping to engage in the race – a lack of money.

I guess if he wanted to fulfill his profecy of doom, he could select her as VP. Then that dude's $18 mil wouldn't be wasted...

Aurill

20-06-2008, 16:03

i showed that mccain is currently violating campaign finance law. if a guy can't be trusted to follow a law with his own name on it, there ain't no agreement to be had. there is no truce on the table - while it is ok to talk to your enemies, it is not ok to make agreements with them when you have no justified expectation that they will actually live up to either the spirit or the letter of the agreement.

And exactly where is your proof of this?? You posted this:

the say-so of someone who is currently flagrantly violating his own law ain't worth shit. plus, they did not, in fact, come to an agreement on the terms of the 'truce'.

But you have no supporting links or anything, other than your own words.

McCain was told by the FEC as reported by the Washington Post here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141.html?hpid=topnews)on Feb 22, 2008. He asked the FEC if he could withdraw from public funding because he appeared to be facing a competitor that would have him drastically out financed if he is limited to the $85 million limt of public finacing. He was given a clear no by the FEC.

Obviously, since he thought that Obama was interested in "preserv[ing] the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election", McCain must have applied for public financing. McCain assumed that if he were the Rebulican nominee and Obama were the Democratic nominee there was agreement to use public funds. In Feb, the Democratic nomination appeared to have a slight slant toward Hillary, whom was refusing public funding, so McCain apparently felt the need to see if he could withdraw from public funding. Obviously the FEC disagreed.

Again, I'd like to see proof that McCain is violating McCain-Feingold.

Corneliu 2

20-06-2008, 16:25

Can someone please explain this to me? What exactly is Obama saying here (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815194,00.html):

If you truly need this to be explained to you then you really have no clue as to what is being discussed. Its called going to the voter base. He's smart in that regard.

Anymore stupid questions?

Aurill

20-06-2008, 16:41

If you truly need this to be explained to you then you really have no clue as to what is being discussed. Its called going to the voter base. He's smart in that regard.

Anymore stupid questions?

I have to agree. What he is saying is pretty obvious.

Although, I find it ironic. As much as he avoided playing the race card that is really what it was all about. And sadly, his prediction will probably come true. I just hope it isn't enough......well I have already stated my opinion and reasons for it on my choice for President and Obama still hasn't done anything to alter that opinion. In fact, his recent announcement, which I did get in email from the Obama campaign, only made me more certain of my decision.

I have to note, that I have signed up with the Obama campaign, and get all of their propaganda. I have listened to him read his writing and book, and I am trying to make an informed decision influenced by my stance on the issues.

Corneliu 2

20-06-2008, 16:52

I have to note, that I have signed up with the Obama campaign, and get all of their propaganda. I have listened to him read his writing and book, and I am trying to make an informed decision influenced by my stance on the issues.

Just to clarify, I to get both sets of propaganda and make decisions. I just trust Obama a bit more than McCain.

Now I'm waiting to see who the VP of both people is going to be.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 17:01

Just to clarify, I to get both sets of propaganda and make decisions. I just trust Obama a bit more than McCain.

I do too. I am just the opposite of you though. I keep finding reasons I trust McCain more than Obama. And the video decision just took the cake. Besides, I agree more with McCain stance on the issues.

Now I'm waiting to see who the VP of both people is going to be.

Me too. I think McCain should choose Condeleeza Rice. First black woman vice president. She's intellegent, well spoken, well educated, black and a woman. Beat the Dems at their own game, and weaken Obama's im the black candidate position.

Joking, BTW. I

It will be interesting to see whom they pick as their running mate.

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 17:33

We would like to apologise for the way in which politicians are represented in this forum. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed political time-servers who are concerned more with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that readers should consider them as crabby ulcerous little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive.

We are sorry if this impression has come across.

Gravlen

20-06-2008, 17:51

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 17:54

Gravlen

20-06-2008, 18:38

They're both flip-flopping really hard right now. Since they're both doing it a lot, neither can accuse the other of it.

Appart from the question of campaign financing, what's Obama flip-flopping at these days?

Cameroi

20-06-2008, 18:43

i'm backing obama because he can win and no one else who can comes as close to being worth a dam. close but no cigar for him too, granted.

for example i don't see a damd thing wrong with what reverend wright is supposed to have said, nor most of what nader is saying, or gravelle.

we DO need a system where someone who isn't preselected by corporate economic intrests stands a more then a snowflakes chance. maybe enough people will get up and i don't know how, only i'm certain it CAN be done, so we'll some election have one.

incentives do come from us. corporations and politicians listen not to what we say, but to the incentives we actually create. which is why protests are ignored when we keep at the same time creating incentives which are contrary to them.

its actually not imposible for people to some one of these days figgure this out.

=^^=
.../\...

Aurill

20-06-2008, 18:43

Is McCain taking on the role of John Kerry? As in, is he flip-flopping on too many issues?

The change of heart on the oil drilling issue, the new-found desire to make the tax cuts permanent (After voting against them), the change position on a windfall profits tax, will that hurt him?

You have to look at the constituency they are talking to. McCain made his comments about oil drilling in Houston, where no policitian in his right mind would say anything different. A large portion of the city economy is oil based so the more drilling is encouraged the more the local economy benefits or so the premise goes.

Making the tax cuts permanent sounds good because the economy is floundering. Since it is public knowledge that public spending can help boost the economy it sounds good to tell people you can keep your money and I am the candidate that will push to make it happen.

And on the windfall profits tax, he originally said he would consider it, not that he supports it and believes it is right. It sounds to me like he has considered it, and now believes that it would be more harmful, and make us more dependent of foreign oil, which would only raise oil prices more. I don't know all the details behind it, but it definately sounds like he gave the idea some consideration and decided that it was a bad idea. I would like a bit more information on what made him choose to go against it.

Khadgar

20-06-2008, 18:47

Let's talk about Jerusalem...

His usual pattern is to say something in a speech, get called on it by blogs, and on the same day, release a quiet reversal or explanation.

As an example ___________________________.

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 18:47

Appart from the question of campaign financing, what's Obama flip-flopping at these days?

Let's talk about Jerusalem...

His usual pattern is to say something in a speech, get called on it by blogs, and on the same day, release a quiet reversal or explanation.

Free Soviets

20-06-2008, 18:48

And exactly where is your proof of this??

wait, which part do you need proof for? that he opted in to public financing, that he was told he couldn't unilaterally opt out, that he hasn't been let out by the FEC yet, or that he began exceeding the spending limits all the way back in march, thus committing a felony?

shouldn't this shit be public knowledge in this sort of debate?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/24/mccain_breaks_spending_limits/

Kwangistar

20-06-2008, 18:49

Appart from the question of campaign financing, what's Obama flip-flopping at these days?

His position on NAFTA and free trade is rather moderate compared to what he was talking about during the primaries.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.\

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 18:52

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/17/EDOQ11A1L3.DTL

Undivided Jerusalem, capital of Israel, says Obama

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503510.html?hpid=topnews

Oh wait a second. Didn't mean to say that.

Obama calls this "amending". He and McCain are doing this on a nearly daily basis.

Gravlen

20-06-2008, 18:58

His position on NAFTA and free trade is rather moderate compared to what he was talking about during the primaries.

\

Interesting.

Dempublicents1

20-06-2008, 19:21

I found a questionairre (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf) he submitted for the Midwest Demopcracy Network. Question 2 is If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system? In his answer is highlighted yes and elaborated.

He responded:
I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the roposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

The link can be found here (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf).

The bolded is the reason that, while I am a bit miffed, I'm not all that worried about this move. While many - maybe even including Obama himself - may have thought that the choice was between accepting money from lobbyist groups, etc. and taking public financing, Obama has found a third option. He raises money in small donations from a very large donor pool of individuals. He's taking money only from those who actually support him without being unduly influenced by lobbyist groups, etc. McCain, on the other hand, is planning on having a campaign financed by funds taken from the public at large - both those who agree with him and those who don't - as well as using the loopholes that allow groups other than his direct campaign to raise lots of lobbyist money and advertise for him.

The about face does bother me and I would like to see a more specific explanation - even one in which Obama apologizes. But the end result, in my book, is much better than taking public funds.

If they are smart they will compare him to President Bush and we will see ads where President Bush didn't keep his word, then they will say and now we have Obama starting the whole process over again by not keeping his word about public financing. They they will ask the question who do you think is really more like President Bush? Someone that keeps his word or someone who doesn't? McCain or Obama?

I see this as rather unlikely. While the McCain camp will likely try and distance him from Bush, I doubt they'll make a clean break in which they start using any similarity to Bush as an insult. McCain still needs to pull the Republican base, many of whom still quite like Bush.

And it will throw a major kink in Obama's argument that a McCain Presidency is a Bush third term.

Not really. The argument isn't that McCain is personally similar to Bush so much that his policies are similar to those we've seen from a Bush administration.

Tmutarakhan

20-06-2008, 19:24

Making the tax cuts permanent sounds good because the economy is floundering.
Bankruptcy of the government is one of the main reasons the economy is floundering. Promising to keep going deeper and deeper into debt doesn't sound good, it sounds terrible.
it sounds good to tell people you can keep your money and I am the candidate that will push to make it happen.
Nobody is telling me I can keep any more of my money. McCain is only promising Bill Gates that he can keep more of his, leaving it up to people like me to cover the bills.

Liuzzo

20-06-2008, 19:29

This demonstrates why one should not rely on one set of numbers. The first poll you quoted, indicated a +30 for Obama in the favourability poll, and this one indicates a +15 (48 vs. 33). The polls are only 6 days apart.

Right, and who was relying on one set of polls? I gave you a plethera of information to look over. Did you bother to? You've already said I only use one set of polls, and then you say you never said I rely on one source. Which one is it?

edit: The polls are the only 2 from after the nom was wrapped up. Average the 2 for a post nom trend and u get 55.5 with a lot of neutral. S negatives are low, while neutral and positive votes are high.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 19:29

wait, which part do you need proof for? that he opted in to public financing, that he was told he couldn't unilaterally opt out, that he hasn't been let out by the FEC yet, or that he began exceeding the spending limits all the way back in march, thus committing a felony?

shouldn't this shit be public knowledge in this sort of debate?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/24/mccain_breaks_spending_limits/

There is a point in your link that you completely missed.

"The FEC regulations specifically state that candidates who do not receive public funding payments from the US Treasury are exempt from the primary spending ceiling...."

You see, he has yet to actually receive any money from the US Treasury, therefore he is exempt from the spending cap. He did borrow money from a public bank, but then repaid that money by Mar 21, 2008. He had used the fact that he applied for public funds as collateral to get the loan, but again has never recieved money from the US Treasurey.

Besides, at the time he also had requested to be removed from the public funding, but the FEC has four vacancies and therefore lacked a quorum to consider the matter.

He had been told that he cannot withdraw, but that wasn't a vote by the FEC that was a stement based on the fact that the FEC can't make a decision without a quorum.

You see the issue on whether McCain actually used public funds and whether the spending cap applies is very complicated, and is only complicated even more by the fact that the FEC lacks 4 commissioners.

The fact is he, technically, hasn't broken any FEC regulations, but then again without a quorum the FEC can't even rule on that.

What needs to happen is President Bush needs to appoint new commissioners, and the Senate needs to approve them. Problem with that is President Bush has a history of appointing those loyal to his party. If he soes that the Senate won't approve them, as the Democrats will block it, and then no commissioners get seated. It would leave us exactly where were are today.

Its a sticky mess that I would prefer to keep my feet out of.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 19:34

Bankruptcy of the government is one of the main reasons the economy is floundering. Promising to keep going deeper and deeper into debt doesn't sound good, it sounds terrible.

If you want to get technical, the reason for the floundering economy isn't goverment spending. That actually can help boost the economy, even if the government doesn't, technically, have the money. The main reason for the economic problems today is the housing crisis, caused by the collapse of the subprime market, which as the Feds are finding is caused by many factors including but not limited to malicious and predatory practices. Also another factor is a falling dollar, but that is a whole other issues as well. We can add to that increasing food prices caused in large part by using corn, which is a product in a huge portion of the goods we buy, for ethanol. Truth is, there are many factors for the floundering economy, and the government going deeper into debt isn't one of them. Remember, we have been in debt for years now.

Nobody is telling me I can keep any more of my money. McCain is only promising Bill Gates that he can keep more of his, leaving it up to people like me to cover the bills.

It sounds like you don't know much about the US Tax System. I could go into more details but that would be best discussed in a different thread. The fact is, that if you adjust the federal take rate by 2% yes, it would give the rich a greater tax break than the poor, but still if you give a poor man a 2% tax break he still gets a tax break.

Granted the wealthy guy gets a 2% tax break at each tax bracket but he can't help that. It comes down to the design of the tax code.

P.S. Consequently, the rich guy still pays significantly more in taxes than the poor guy.

Dempublicents1

20-06-2008, 19:35

Not to mention that, apparently, the landscape isn't as scary (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html) as maybe we would have thought-

I do know of at least one, although I don't know off the top of my head if it is actually a 527. There's a group that runs a website and makes anti-Obama commercials called "Expose Obama". I've already been linked to it by more than one person trying to convince me not to vote for him, so they are gaining ground.

I do too. I am just the opposite of you though. I keep finding reasons I trust McCain more than Obama. And the video decision just took the cake. Besides, I agree more with McCain stance on the issues.

8 years ago, I would have gladly voted for McCain. But after his loss in the 2000 primaries, he seemed to turn into a Republican Party patsy. He started going, for the most part, with stances that would make the Republican base happy, even in areas where he had once been a "maverick". That doesn't exactly instill trust with me.

Me too. I think McCain should choose Condeleeza Rice. First black woman vice president. She's intellegent, well spoken, well educated, black and a woman.

I have to disagree here. I don't think Rice would be a good pick. For one thing, she's much too closely tied to the Bush administration. And, within that administration, what she's basically shown is exactly what Bush wanted - her ability to take orders and be a yes-woman. She's toed the party line in a way that Colin Powell would not.

While I'm sure that Rice is a very intelligent woman who could be a leader in her own right, she hasn't really demonstrated that side of herself to voters. And, given concerns over McCain's age, I think he needs to pick a VP who voters will feel confident in should something happen to him.

That said, I don't really care who McCain picks in the end. In my book, I don't think it'll matter at all.

Dempublicents1

20-06-2008, 20:07

You have to look at the constituency they are talking to. McCain made his comments about oil drilling in Houston, where no policitian in his right mind would say anything different. A large portion of the city economy is oil based so the more drilling is encouraged the more the local economy benefits or so the premise goes.

So you're saying that McCain's position should (and does) change based on who he's currently talking to?

Making the tax cuts permanent sounds good because the economy is floundering. Since it is public knowledge that public spending can help boost the economy it sounds good to tell people you can keep your money and I am the candidate that will push to make it happen.

....rich people. The Bush tax cuts didn't do anything for anyone but the richest people in the country. It was this fact that supposedly caused McCain to initially oppose the cuts - the fact that middle class and lower income families were not helped by the cut at all, while the people who didn't really need it were.

P.S. Consequently, the rich guy still pays significantly more in taxes than the poor guy.

In absolute numbers, this is true. But in percentages? Generally not. Warren Buffet, for instance, did the calculations and found that, with all the ways the rich can get out of taxes on much of their income, he was paying a significantly lower percentage of his total income than his secretary. And he doesn't even use the loopholes in the tax code that most in his tax bracket exploit to pay even less in taxes.

Tmutarakhan

20-06-2008, 20:23

If you want to get technical, the reason for the floundering economy isn't goverment spending.
It's government borrowing, which has distorted the markets for credit and investment capital, leading to many of the factors you cite.
Remember, we have been in debt for years now.
Damned straight. It is past time we moved back to surplus.
It sounds like you don't know much about the US Tax System.
Don't be so fucking condescending.
The fact is, that if you adjust the federal take rate by 2% yes, it would give the rich a greater tax break than the poor, but still if you give a poor man a 2% tax break he still gets a tax break.
The fact is, if you adjust THE TOP BRACKET ONLY, as the tax cuts we are talking about did, the poor man (or middle-class) gets a 0% tax break.

Dempublicents1

20-06-2008, 20:26

Damned straight. It is past time we moved back to surplus.

To be fair, the economy was in really good shape when we had one. Bush came in, dumped the surplus into tax cuts for the rich and then got us into a war that has driven us much, much deeper into debt than the US has ever been. And this is where we are at the end of his administration.

Jocabia

20-06-2008, 20:42

I have to agree. What he is saying is pretty obvious.

Although, I find it ironic. As much as he avoided playing the race card that is really what it was all about. And sadly, his prediction will probably come true. I just hope it isn't enough......well I have already stated my opinion and reasons for it on my choice for President and Obama still hasn't done anything to alter that opinion. In fact, his recent announcement, which I did get in email from the Obama campaign, only made me more certain of my decision.

I have to note, that I have signed up with the Obama campaign, and get all of their propaganda. I have listened to him read his writing and book, and I am trying to make an informed decision influenced by my stance on the issues.

So how do you feel about McCain flopping on his position on torture? How do you feel about his position (in support of Bush) that we shouldn't give to good of benefits to veterans because it will hurt retention?

Dempublicents1

20-06-2008, 20:51

I have to agree. What he is saying is pretty obvious.

Although, I find it ironic. As much as he avoided playing the race card that is really what it was all about.

Sort of. I think it's undeniable that Obama's candidacy has energized much of the black community. And I do think racism of a sort does play a role in that. But I also think that much of it is more a demonstration that the color of one's skin doesn't block your influence. Many people in the US are jaded with politics, but I do think that percentage is higher in the black community - people who often feel that their voices are not being heard and that their participation would be essentially useless.

And sadly, his prediction will probably come true.

I don't think it's ever a sad thing when an underrepresented population starts exerting the influence they should have. It's the same reason that I have been happy about the marked increase in young voters in this year's primary - which hopefully foreshadows a similar increase in their general election participation. It's never a bad thing when people participate in the process.

I have to note, that I have signed up with the Obama campaign, and get all of their propaganda. I have listened to him read his writing and book, and I am trying to make an informed decision influenced by my stance on the issues.

Out of curiosity, which book?

Aurill

20-06-2008, 20:52

So you're saying that McCain's position should (and does) change based on who he's currently talking to?

Of course, what politician hasn't. If you want their vote, you tell them what they want to hear. Clinton did it constantly, Obama does it when dealing with NAFTA and Free trade, and let's not forget about the public finacing about face, that you aren't too concerned with. McCain does it too, its politics.

....rich people. The Bush tax cuts didn't do anything for anyone but the richest people in the country. It was this fact that supposedly caused McCain to initially oppose the cuts - the fact that middle class and lower income families were not helped by the cut at all, while the people who didn't really need it were.

Really???? I make far less than 100K a year and I received a significant tax refund, and break when the Bush tax cuts went into place. I am by no means wealthy, have no desire to see the tax rates increase. I imagine anyone making more than 50K a year received a tax break from Bush, and if the rates are increased everyone in the middle class will see a substantial increase in their taxes. It won't just be the rich, it will be the middle middle class affected too.

In absolute numbers, this is true. But in percentages? Generally not. Warren Buffet, for instance, did the calculations and found that, with all the ways the rich can get out of taxes on much of their income, he was paying a significantly lower percentage of his total income than his secretary. And he doesn't even use the loopholes in the tax code that most in his tax bracket exploit to pay even less in taxes.

I don't really believe Warren Buffet when he says he pay less percentage wise than his secretary. Here (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2813) is a link that goes into some details on Warren's complaint about taxes being off.

But to make you happy I'll go into what I was saying.

Lets look at Warren Buffet's assumed income of 360.3 million dollars. And lets assume for a second that he is filling as head of household just for simplicities sake. He pays 10% on the first $11,450.00 Thats $1,145.00. Then he pays 15% on the amount between $11,450.00 and $43,650.00. The difference between those number is $32,200.00, so the tax on that amount is $4830.00. Next he pays 25% on the amount between $43,650.00 and $112,650.00. The difference is $69,000.00 so the tax on that is $17,250.00. Now he pays 28% on the amount between $112,650.00 and $182,400.00. The difference is $69,750.00 so he pays $19,530.00. He has to pay 33% on the amount between $182,400.00 and $357,700.00. The difference on that is $175,300.00 so he pays $57,849.00. Then on the amount over $357,700.00 he has to pay 35%. The difference between his $360,300,000.00 and $357,700.00 is $359,942,300.00 so he would pay $125,979,805.00. The total amount in taxes that he would have to pay is $126,080,409.00. Can anyone other than him say that he paid that much in taxes.
Now according to my math that is actually about 34% of his total income.

Now lets look at his secretary. Lets say she makes 100K per year and is filing jointly with her husband that makes another 100K per year. Collectively, the two of them are marking $200,000.00. They pay $1,605 in the 10% tax braket, $7357.50 in the 15% tax bracket, $16,587.50 in the 25% tax bracket and $19,194.00 in the 28% tax bracket. Her total tax burden is $44,744.00. By my math that is about 22% of her income.

Obviously, I am using an arbitrary income for both parties, but still the point should be obvious. He pays a total of $126,035,665.00 more in taxes than she does. She still pays signigicantly less than he does in taxes. And technically, less in total percentage.

Our graduated tax system supports the ultra-rich. Besides even adjusting the tax rate by 2% benefits everyone, not evenly, but everyone benefits. It just inherently benefits the ultra-rich more. That's the nature of the beast. They only solution is to have tax brackets for every amount going as high as possible and I don't know how well that would work.

Note: I am using the 2008 tax rate schedules which can be found here (http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm). And I am not worrying about any Capital Gains taxes which would alter the math a bit. Waren Buffet's capital gains are 15% for long-term gains which is largely what Warren Buffet invests in. ALso his secretary would pay the same tax rate for capital gains so technically the two are offset, except he has significantly more invested than she does.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 21:11

It's government borrowing, which has distorted the markets for credit and investment capital, leading to many of the factors you cite.

Goverment spending has never hurt the economy. It works the same way as the Fed injecting money into the economy. It boost it..

Damned straight. It is past time we moved back to surplus.

I do agree, but I know enough to know that government spending isn't the problem.

Don't be so fucking condescending.

I wasn't, I was point out that you simply are missing the point when dealing with our tax system.

The fact is, if you adjust THE TOP BRACKET ONLY, as the tax cuts we are talking about did, the poor man (or middle-class) gets a 0% tax break.

OK, I'll now explain the Bush tax cuts (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html). It didn't change "THE TOP BRACKET ONLY". In fact, it replaced the 15, 28, 31, 36, 39.6 tax schedule with a 10, 15, 25, 33 tax schedule. He in effect gave the poor a 5% decrease in their taxes. Add to that doubling of the child tax credit from $500 to $1,00 per child, and the elimination of the marriage penaly to give two-income couples a significant tax break he helped the poor significantly.

Granted he did remove a tax bracket for the rich, and that served as a significant decrease in taxes on the ultra-rich, but still he provided everyone with a tax break.

If the taxes on the lower and middle classes were made permanent while another or two tax bracket we added above 33% it would be a bit more fair, but still the ultra-rich, would benefit far more than the poor.

Dempublicents1

20-06-2008, 21:14

Of course, what politician hasn't. If you want their vote, you tell them what they want to hear. Clinton did it constantly, Obama does it when dealing with NAFTA and Free trade, and let's not forget about the public finacing about face, that you aren't too concerned with. McCain does it too, its politics.

And I criticize it when anyone does it. In truth, I've seen less of it with Obama than most politicians, but he has still done it.

Really???? I make far less than 100K a year and I received a significant tax refund, and break when the Bush tax cuts went into place. I am by no means wealthy, have no desire to see the tax rates increase. I imagine anyone making more than 50K a year received a tax break from Bush, and if the rates are increased everyone in the middle class will see a substantial increase in their taxes. It won't just be the rich, it will be the middle middle class affected too.

Not if there is a concurrent cut in middle class taxes.

I don't really believe Warren Buffet when he says he pay less percentage wise than his secretary.

Well, when you make up your own numbers, you can come up with any result you want. This is especially true when you leave out forms of income that are generally confined to the wealthy, but are taxed at lowered rates. And let's not forget that anyone below the cutoff pays a higher percentage of their total income into social security taxes than someone above it.

In truth, I don't know the tax code in depth and most articles seem to finagle numbers in wacky ways to come up with whatever viewpoint they want to get across. But Buffet's viewpoints actually would put him at less of an advantage rather than more of one, so I have more of a tendency to believe him.

Note: I am using the 2008 tax rate schedules which can be found here (http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm). And I am not worrying about any Capital Gains taxes which would alter the math a bit. Waren Buffet's capital gains are 15% for long-term gains which is largely what Warren Buffet invests in. ALso his secretary would pay the same tax rate for capital gains so technically the two are offset, except he has significantly more invested than she does.

And this would make a rather large difference. She may not even have capital gains, at her income level and, since any such investments she made would be much, much lower than his, it wouldn't affect her total percentage as much.

Add in the fact that she has to pay certain taxes (ie. social security) on all of her income, while Buffet only pays such taxes on a small part of his, and you start getting major differences.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 21:17

So how do you feel about McCain flopping on his position on torture? How do you feel about his position (in support of Bush) that we shouldn't give to good of benefits to veterans because it will hurt retention?

I'll admit that I find it annoying. I hate to see any politician flip-flop on issues, but I have learned that it is part of the business of politics.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 21:28

And I criticize it when anyone does it.

As do I.

Not if there is a concurrent cut in middle class taxes.

Which is exacty what the Bush taxe cuts did.

Well, when you make up your own numbers, you can come up with any result you want. This is especially true when you leave out forms of income that are generally confined to the wealthy, but are taxed at lowered rates. And let's not forget that anyone below the cutoff pays a higher percentage of their total income into social security taxes than someone above it.

The only reason for using arbitrary numbers is that I could not find his or her real income. I just know his net worth is at $40 bln, so I estimated a significant amount. Most-likely I undershot his realy income. and since I have no clue how his income is broken down, I have no way of figuring it completly accurately. I am not his accountant. But again, that only proves my point that the current tax system benefits only the ultra-ish. Prove the point that the ultra-rich really shouldn't be talking about whether they pay too much or too little of their income in taxes

In truth, I don't know the tax code in depth and most articles seem to finagle numbers in wacky ways to come up with whatever viewpoint they want to get across. But Buffet's viewpoints actually would put him at less of an advantage rather than more of one, so I have more of a tendency to believe him.

I do have a reasonable understanding of our tax code, as I recently spent several hours with a financial advisor trying to work out tax and financial details due to an upcoming employer change I will be facing at the end of the month. (Long story and I have no desire to discuss it...rather upsetting). Additionaly, the basic tax schedule can easily be found online, and I found it reasonably easy to understand. After reading it, and listening to Warren's comment, I admire him as a financial strategist, but don't trust his complaints.

And this would make a rather large difference. She may not even have capital gains, at her income level and, since any such investments she made would be much, much lower than his, it wouldn't affect her total percentage as much.

Add in the fact that she has to pay certain taxes (ie. social security) on all of her income, while Buffet only pays such taxes on a small part of his, and you start getting major differences.

I agree with you.. He probalby makes a huge portion of his income from capital gains. That would decrease his tax burden tremendously, so I could see him paying only 17% of his $360.3 million in taxes. That would be $612,510.00 in total. Which would still be significantly more than his secretary would pay. But that is largely because he doesn't work for his income like the rest of us working stiffs. Now, if he actually had a job that paid him $360.3 million annually, it would be far more fair.

But again that only proves that the graduated tax schedule benefits the ultr-rich.

Jocabia

20-06-2008, 21:37

I'll admit that I find it annoying. I hate to see any politician flip-flop on issues, but I have learned that it is part of the business of politics.

I'm not talking about the fact he flip-flopped. I'm talking about whether one can support a President who wants to trap our soldiers in the military and who supports torture methods, the very torture methods used agains our military.

I served 8 years under a President who did not respect our military and I won't condemn any of my brethren to the same.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 21:46

I'm not talking about the fact he flip-flopped. I'm talking about whether one can support a President who wants to trap our soldiers in the military and who supports torture methods, the very torture methods used against our military.

I served 8 years under a President who did not respect our military and I won't condemn any of my brethren to the same.

First off, I have never had the priviledge of serving in our military. There are reasons why I was not accepted by the branches of service I wanted to serve, and I admire you for your service. Thank you for serving to protect our country.

I don't believe that McCain's refusal to support the GI Bill reform was intended to "trap" our service men and women. It was intended to require them to serve their time as the Bill allowed them to apply the time they spent in school toward the military service if they joined the ROTC at their school. With this agree with him on. If you sign up to serve a specified amount of time you should be required to spend that time in the military, not at school.

McCain is a former military man, there is no one running for office right now that has more respect for what you and your brethren have, will, or could go through. He understands the hardships faced by our military because he has been there.

On torture, I haven't paid too much attention. I have become numb to it I suppose, but I will keep it in mind, and do some research.

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 21:52

Jocabia

20-06-2008, 21:55

First off, I have never had the priviledge of serving in our military. There are reasons why I was not accepted by the branches of service I wanted to serve, and I admire you for your service. Thank you for serving to protect our country.

I don't believe that McCain's refusal to support the GI Bill reform was intended to "trap" our service men and women. It was intended to require them to serve their time as the Bill allowed them to apply the time they spent in school toward the military service if they joined the ROTC at their school. With this agree with him on. If you sign up to serve a specified amount of time you should be required to spend that time in the military, not at school.

McCain is a former military man, there is no one running for office right now that has more respect for what you and your brethren have, will, or could go through. He understands the hardships faced by our military because he has been there.

On torture, I haven't paid too much attention. I have become numb to it I suppose, but I will keep it in mind, and do some research.

McCain's reasons were explicit. He and Bush both hold that if the benefits afforded our men and women are too good that it will encourage them to go to college rather than remain in the military. It's not about ROTC service. If that were the issue I could agree with him.

And I used to agree with you about McCain. When he passes I will fly my flag at half in respect for his service and what he did for his men. HOWEVER, that does not buy him a free pass. That he would flop on that issue and that he would back Bush on these two issues demonstrates clearly that he is NOT the McCain of 2000. Anyone, ANYONE, who plays politics with the benefits of our service men and women does not deserve the office he seeks.

The McCain who stood by his men when he was offered release would kick the dogcrap out of this McCain. That man is not this man. I refuse to disrespect that John McCain's memory with what this man is doing.

Dempublicents1

20-06-2008, 21:56

I agree with you.. He probalby makes a huge portion of his income from capital gains. That would decrease his tax burden tremendously, so I could see him paying only 17% of his $360.3 million in taxes. But that is largely because he doesn't work for his income like the rest of us working stiffs. Now, if he actually had a job that paid him $360.3 million annually, it would be far more fair.

But again that only proves that the graduated tax schedule benefits the ultr-rich.

(a) Most of the very rich make the majority of their money in investments, etc.

(b) The fact that the current tax system disproportionately benefits the ultra-rich is precisely the point. And it isn't just the graduated tax system. It is the fact that there are taxes that aren't paid on incomes above a certain level. It is the fact that the capital gains tax is so much lower than regular income tax. And so on....

Our entire system is skewed so that the very rich benefit while a higher burden is carried by middle class workers. Is that a good system? Should we look for solutions that continue to disproportionately help those who aren't in need? Or should we look for solutions that are more targeted?

McCain is a former military man, there is no one running for office right now that has more respect for what you and your brethren have, will, or could go through. He understands the hardships faced by our military because he has been there.

....which, I believe, is why we should expect even more from him. But, from what I can tell, Obama - who never personally served in the military - is trying to do more to help our vets (and current military) than McCain.

Jocabia

20-06-2008, 21:56

Who, Clinton?

I recall many officers who were convinced he hated the military, especially after forbidding the wearing of the uniform in the White House during the first few years of his first term.

They openly spoke of sedition.

Yes, Clinton.

Myrmidonisia

20-06-2008, 22:11

McCain's reasons were explicit. He and Bush both hold that if the benefits afforded our men and women are too good that it will encourage them to go to college rather than remain in the military. It's not about ROTC service. If that were the issue I could agree with him.

And I used to agree with you about McCain. When he passes I will fly my flag at half in respect for his service and what he did for his men. HOWEVER, that does not buy him a free pass. That he would flop on that issue and that he would back Bush on these two issues demonstrates clearly that he is NOT the McCain of 2000. Anyone, ANYONE, who plays politics with the benefits of our service men and women does not deserve the office he seeks.

The McCain who stood by his men when he was offered release would kick the dogcrap out of this McCain. That man is not this man. I refuse to disrespect that John McCain's memory with what this man is doing.
You've only presented half the story. First, McCain backs graduated benefits that increase with years of service. Hardly a trap, it's an incentive to stay longer. There's nothing wrong with incentives.

Second, he supported the veto due to unspecified types of interrogation techniques that were going to be restricted in the bill. He stated at the time that he - and presumably international law - considered waterboarding illegal and that the United States was already prohibited from using it.

None of this is "playing politics". It is called taking a position that supports the best interests of our national defense.

And before you trot out your hearts and flowers stories about your service, I retired from the Corps after serving for 20 years under a number of administrations. McCain would hardly be the worst. Obama could never be the best.

Aurill

20-06-2008, 22:12

(a) Most of the very rich make the majority of their money in investments, etc.

As do the majority of those with any real retirement savings, and a growing portion of the middle class themselves.

(b) The fact that the current tax system disproportionately benefits the ultra-rich is precisely the point. And it isn't just the graduated tax system. It is the fact that there are taxes that aren't paid on incomes above a certain level. It is the fact that the capital gains tax is so much lower than regular income tax. And so on....

On this I do agree, but what politician, that makes more than the highest rate on the tax schedule, is going to increase their own taxes. Keep in mind that Obama, actually invested a huge amount of his income in order to avoid taxes. McCain, technically, has a significanly lower income than Obama, since all he claims to have is his Senate income, but he is married to a woman that is ultra-rich. And a majority of her income is surely in capital gains as well.

Our entire system is skewed so that the very rich benefit while a higher burden is carried by middle class workers. Is that a good system? Should we look for solutions that continue to disproportionately help those who aren't in need? Or should we look for solutions that are more targeted?

Even if the middle class, technically, pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes, the very rich still end up paying more money oerall. Even if all of your ncome is in captical gains,15% of $1,000,000 is still $150,000. While 34% of 100,000 is $34,000. That a $116,000 difference in taxes. No matter how you slice the cake, the very rich still pay more in taxes, it just happens to be a smaller portion of their total income.

Myrmidonisia

20-06-2008, 22:13

(a) Most of the very rich make the majority of their money in investments, etc.

(b) The fact that the current tax system disproportionately benefits the ultra-rich is precisely the point. And it isn't just the graduated tax system. It is the fact that there are taxes that aren't paid on incomes above a certain level. It is the fact that the capital gains tax is so much lower than regular income tax. And so on....

Our entire system is skewed so that the very rich benefit while a higher burden is carried by middle class workers. Is that a good system? Should we look for solutions that continue to disproportionately help those who aren't in need? Or should we look for solutions that are more targeted?

So we should eliminate the Bush tax cuts? Do you have any idea how that will hurt the middle and lower wage earners?

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 22:22

So we should eliminate the Bush tax cuts? Do you have any idea how that will hurt the middle and lower wage earners?

According to the DNC, "rich" is anyone who is making more than the median income. So, tax the "rich".

Kyronea

20-06-2008, 22:24

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 22:30

yes, Clinton.

News Flash

Earthquake Warning

Jocabia Has Something Major In Common With Dk

Myrmidonisia

20-06-2008, 22:30

According to the DNC, "rich" is anyone who is making more than the median income. So, tax the "rich".

Something that these "tax the rich" advocates forget about is that there is a 10% tax bracket that exists, due to Bush's tax plan. There is also an expanded 15% bracket that will shrink. Retirement contributions will be reduced. Education credits will be lost.

This is just what I can remember. But all the partisan hacks can think about is taxing the "rich".

Myrmidonisia

20-06-2008, 22:32

News Flash

Earthquake Warning

Jocabia Has Something Major In Common With Dk

Same here. It's scary. Although, I go back to the good old days with Reagan and Carter before him. So I can say I've served under the worst president of the late 20th century AND the best.

Heikoku 2

20-06-2008, 23:04

Same here. It's scary. Although, I go back to the good old days with Reagan and Carter before him. So I can say I've served under the worst president of the late 20th century AND the best.

Respectively?

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 23:06

Respectively?

Nice try, but I don't think that's what he means.

Heikoku 2

20-06-2008, 23:08

Nice try, but I don't think that's what he means.

You "don't think"? Dude, I KNOW that's not what he means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

Hotwife

20-06-2008, 23:14

You "don't think"? Dude, I KNOW that's not what he means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

ok, ok, what you wanted was

"Oh, Heikoku, you're so funny!"

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 23:23

I have to agree. What he is saying is pretty obvious.

Although, I find it ironic. As much as he avoided playing the race card that is really what it was all about.
Yes, the race card....that was exactly my thoughts on reading that quote of his. It is ironic to say the least.

I guess politicians will be politicians no matter what the consequences.

Heikoku 2

20-06-2008, 23:24

ok, ok, what you wanted was

"Oh, Heikoku, you're so funny!"

I'm so glad we can understand one another.

Zedoc

20-06-2008, 23:26

RON PAUL FTW!

But in all seriousness, Barrack is gonna win.

Jocabia

20-06-2008, 23:29

You've only presented half the story. First, McCain backs graduated benefits that increase with years of service. Hardly a trap, it's an incentive to stay longer. There's nothing wrong with incentives.

What's wrong with it is that he denies it those who don't stay in. When the GI Bill was created it paid for college anywhere in the nation with no contribution from GI's. Now, it doesn't pay for a state school AND requires GI's to pay for it. It should at least make state school free. And don't tell me we can't afford it. In my state, state schools are already free if you simply serve a year. This bill is FAR more strict and McCain rejected it because it treated veteran's so well he worried they would excercise their options.

Second, he supported the veto due to unspecified types of interrogation techniques that were going to be restricted in the bill. He stated at the time that he - and presumably international law - considered waterboarding illegal and that the United States was already prohibited from using it.

None of this is "playing politics". It is called taking a position that supports the best interests of our national defense.

Bwahaha. Bush has harmed our national defense, not helped. McCain now backs his policies wholesale.

McCain has previously stated that torture doesn't work. Now, suddenly, we NEED to be allowed to torture because it's on our best interest? Bullshit.

And before you trot out your hearts and flowers stories about your service, I retired from the Corps after serving for 20 years under a number of administrations. McCain would hardly be the worst. Obama could never be the best.
He is playing politics. His positions have thoroughly changed from pre-2000. And they changed rather obviously to make himself more paletteable to Republicans.

My hearts and flowers stories? I take your argument isn't strong enough on it's own so you have make things up. What hearts and flowers? I merely said that service men and women should serve those that respect their contribution. That's not Bush. That wasn't Clinton. And it's no longer McCain. That you've become jaded enough so as not to expect at least that much is your problem, not mine.

Free Soviets

20-06-2008, 23:32

You see, he has yet to actually receive any money from the US Treasury, therefore he is exempt from the spending cap. He did borrow money from a public bank, but then repaid that money by Mar 21, 2008. He had used the fact that he applied for public funds as collateral to get the loan, but again has never recieved money from the US Treasurey.

using it as collateral is the same as taking it. mccain's claim is that he skirted the letter of the law by saying some CH-esque magic words. the FEC guy doesn't think it worked, and in so far as there is an authority on it, he is it.

Besides, at the time he also had requested to be removed from the public funding, but the FEC has four vacancies and therefore lacked a quorum to consider the matter.

He had been told that he cannot withdraw, but that wasn't a vote by the FEC that was a stement based on the fact that the FEC can't make a decision without a quorum.

getting out apparently requires a vote. he doesn't get to get out through inaction. therefore he is still in, and still already benefited from being in.

The fact is he, technically, hasn't broken any FEC regulations, but then again without a quorum the FEC can't even rule on that.

incorrect. regulations can be broken whether the FEC rules on it or not. this was essentially what the judge said while dismissing the DNC's lawsuit against mccain - that the FEC had 120 days to do something with it before it goes to the courts.

Jocabia

20-06-2008, 23:38

News Flash

Earthquake Warning

Jocabia Has Something Major In Common With Dk

I choose my positions based on the evidence. You were bound to be right eventually. Something about a stopped clock...

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 23:43

Right, and who was relying on one set of polls? I gave you a plethera of information to look over. Did you bother to? You've already said I only use one set of polls, and then you say you never said I rely on one source. Which one is it?
I never said that you "only use one set of polls". I said "this demonstrates why one should not rely on one set of numbers." There is a difference.

edit: The polls are the only 2 from after the nom was wrapped up. Average the 2 for a post nom trend and u get 55.5 with a lot of neutral. S negatives are low, while neutral and positive votes are high.
There you go using that voodoo magic of averaging that RCP uses. There were two polls and one was higher than the other in regards to Obama's favourability. That is pretty simple, straightforward and easier to understand.

Dempublicents1

20-06-2008, 23:44

On this I do agree, but what politician, that makes more than the highest rate on the tax schedule, is going to increase their own taxes.

One with principles? Warren Buffet, after all, is arguing to increase his own taxes. Some people do occasionally argue against their best interest when they think it is right.

Keep in mind that Obama, actually invested a huge amount of his income in order to avoid taxes.

Perhaps. But Obama is also the only high level politician I know of who only recently managed to pay off student loans. Sounds closer to what I'm dealing with than most politicians.

Even if the middle class, technically, pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes, the very rich still end up paying more money oerall. Even if all of your ncome is in captical gains,15% of $1,000,000 is still $150,000. While 34% of 100,000 is $34,000. That a $116,000 difference in taxes. No matter how you slice the cake, the very rich still pay more in taxes, it just happens to be a smaller portion of their total income.

The rich should pay more money overall. They benefit more from the system. And I don't think they should pay a smaller percentage of that benefit.

So we should eliminate the Bush tax cuts? Do you have any idea how that will hurt the middle and lower wage earners?

Not at all if the taxes on those earners are actually lowered in response.

Corneliu 2

20-06-2008, 23:49

Yes, the race card....that was exactly my thoughts on reading that quote of his. It is ironic to say the least.

I guess politicians will be politicians no matter what the consequences.

YOu do realize he's talking about galvanizing the voter base of African Americans don't you?

CanuckHeaven

20-06-2008, 23:56

Just to clarify, I to get both sets of propaganda and make decisions. I just trust Obama a bit more than McCain.

Now I'm waiting to see who the VP of both people is going to be.
So....I was right in stating that you were hedging your bets? :D

Corneliu 2

21-06-2008, 00:03

So....I was right in stating that you were hedging your bets? :D

Just keep thinking that CH. Its obvious that you are going to anyways.

Kyronea

21-06-2008, 01:16

So....I was right in stating that you were hedging your bets? :D

You know, I read posts like this and I picture a little boy about four or so dancing up and down and around about how he was right on something, and how his older brother tells him to shut up and start acting more intelligently.

Tmutarakhan

21-06-2008, 05:14

I make far less than 100K a year and I received a significant tax refund, and break when the Bush tax cuts went into place. I am by no means wealthy, have no desire to see the tax rates increase. I imagine anyone making more than 50K a year received a tax break from Bush
I'm in the low 20's, didn't get any break.
Goverment spending has never hurt the economy. It works the same way as the Fed injecting money into the economy. It boost it..
This does not work in the face of large debt overhang. Whatever amount is "injected", the exact same amount is sucked out of the economy when the Fed auctions extra T-Bills to pay for it-- except that the interest payments force more money to be sucked out in subsequent years; this amount is then re-injected into certain people's pockets, but the net result is just a wealth transfer from the wage-earners to the bond-holders. If the bond-holders could not get a return by buying useless paper, they would be forced to invest in actual productive activity to get a return. Thus, the $9 trillion in Treasury paper that is now outstanding represents nine trillion dollars' worth of industrial plant that *did not get built*, and we miss it.
I do agree, but I know enough to know that government spending isn't the problem.
This is just the broken-window fallacy writ large. Diverting investment into non-productive paper-shuffling is very injurious to the economy.
I wasn't, I was point out that you simply are missing the point when dealing with our tax system.
No, I was not. I was telling you that the Bush tax cuts do nothing for me.

Liuzzo

21-06-2008, 06:00

I never said that you "only use one set of polls". I said "this demonstrates why one should not rely on one set of numbers." There is a difference.

There you go using that voodoo magic of averaging that RCP uses. There were two polls and one was higher than the other in regards to Obama's favourability. That is pretty simple, straightforward and easier to understand.

Right, but his numbers are still good. So what's the point that you are making? If we should only take the latest polls then he's at 63. Would you like to defend against the multiple sources and be done with semantics?

The Obama Bounce (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465/page/1)

A new poll shows Obama up big on McCain nationally. How big %15. Now, I'm going to say that at the current time the poll is an outlier. It's a good poll, but I'm just trying to prove a point. Obama is doing well nationally and in key states. Once Bill finally comes around to give him the hug we should see a bigger pull.

Hotwife

22-06-2008, 01:44

To show "grass roots" authenticity...

http://theunfocused.blogspot.com/2008/02/passing-out-signs-at-obama-rally.html

The video is interesting to watch.

Cannot think of a name

22-06-2008, 02:15

Oh no! Obama passed out signs at a rally! Burn him, he's a witch!!!

Hotwife

22-06-2008, 02:21

Oh no! Obama passed out signs at a rally! Burn him, he's a witch!!!

No, passing out fake homemade signs, as though the "grass roots" was behind the signs.

Lame.

Srbibija

22-06-2008, 02:22

mike huckabee would have pawned this election! :upyours:

Cannot think of a name

22-06-2008, 02:36

No, passing out fake homemade signs, as though the "grass roots" was behind the signs.

Lame.

How horrible. Every candidate must pass out printed identical signs or they are unfit for office!!! Get some wood...

Kyronea

22-06-2008, 03:32

No, passing out fake homemade signs, as though the "grass roots" was behind the signs.

Lame.

Just keep grasping those straws, Kimchiteers. You just might grab one sooner or later.

Fleckenstein

22-06-2008, 06:07

To show "grass roots" authenticity...

http://theunfocused.blogspot.com/2008/02/passing-out-signs-at-obama-rally.html

The video is interesting to watch.

. . .which shows that he's a MUSLIM! Real Americans buy their political signs from China!

That wasn't your next line?

Heikoku 2

22-06-2008, 06:28

No, passing out fake homemade signs, as though the "grass roots" was behind the signs.

Lame.

That's it?

Whew. For a moment there I thought he was a candidate hell-bent on keeping a costly, destructive, unpopular, mismanaged and criminally wrong war going!

Cannot think of a name

22-06-2008, 06:42

Just keep grasping those straws, Kimchiteers. You just might grab one sooner or later.

No, no, this is HUGE! After all, the ENTIRE perception of Obama as a grassroots candidate has not come from his organization, the fact that his record breaking fundraising comes from small dollar first time donors, or his ground up campaign-no, it's come from SIGNS! It's all been signs! That's where the impression of a grassroots campaign has been, someone saw a handmade sign and figured, "Why, this must be a grassroots campaign!!!" And DK has shown us the light!!! Gather wood, people, gather wood!

CanuckHeaven

22-06-2008, 07:36

For a moment there I thought he was a candidate hell-bent on keeping a costly, destructive, unpopular, mismanaged and criminally wrong war going!
He is "hell-bent on keeping a costly, destructive, unpopular, mismanaged and criminally wrong war going". It is call the War on Terror Part Deux.

To manage the deception, he is going to pull troops out of Irack, because everyone is tired of hearing about Irack. Then he is going to slowly insert those troops onto the "battlefield in Pakistan".

Cannot think of a name

22-06-2008, 07:49

Lunatic Goofballs

22-06-2008, 08:14

Oh sweet jesus, are we here again? At this point evolution debates seem fresher...

That's because they rub lemon juice on em. :)

Heikoku 2

22-06-2008, 08:20

He is "hell-bent on keeping a costly, destructive, unpopular, mismanaged and criminally wrong war going". It is call the War on Terror Part Deux.

To manage the deception, he is going to pull troops out of Irack, because everyone is tired of hearing about Irack. Then he is going to slowly insert those troops onto the "battlefield in Pakistan".

So, let me get this straight.

You're so angry over the candidate of your choice that might withdraw the troops from Iraq and might attack Iran (and she said so more forcefully than Obama ever said anything about Pakistan) losing that you're now hoping McCain, the ACTUAL warmonger, wins and are tossing just about ANYTHING you can find at Obama, in the hopes of achieving... what? Revenge over us being right? Did you have a fling with Hillary and she said she loved you? Did you have one with Obama and he broke your heart? Did you have one with McCain and he had a heart attack from exhaustion in the middle of the sex? Because that's just about the ONLY thing that would explain your current behavior. You cherry-pick the polls that don't favor Obama, ignore any that DOES, and ignore the fact that he's STILL beating McCain without a need to "drive Miss Clinton" even in any poll that YOU use. You flame us and then refuse to answer to posts for being "too biased", "hateful", or whatever it is you use as code-word for "I can't retort this post because I have no argument against it". You act as if praising Obama and being against Clinton getting the VP spot are equal to denying the Holocaust. You make up stuff about the candidate closest to the one you claimed to want in the White House, without one line against the farthest one, John McCain. I don't know why Obama getting the nomination hurts your little heart so much, and at this point I don't give a damn, but you're coming off as more and more detached from reality by a hatred of Obama only Republicans would ever have.

By the way, CH, I can bet with anyone that you will NOT respond to this post. Not because it's "biased", not because it's "hateful", not because of ANYTHING but the fact that I disagree with you and you don't want a discussion, you want to use this forum to cover your ears and go "lalala I can't hear you" all the while condemning us as biased or hateful because we dare not to stand up and applaud you for doing it.

Here's the insider story: Reality won't cater to your beliefs or expectations. Get. The hell. OVER. IT.

Daistallia 2104

22-06-2008, 09:06

Let's see...

Pakistan:
created the Taliban and al Qaida who directly attacked the US on multiple occassions
is currently hiding and possibly even supporting the Taliban and al Qaida
has WMDs

Iraq:
was not connected with al Qaida before 2003
did not have WMDs

Iran:
was not and is not connected to al Qaida or the Taliban
has suspended it's nuclear weapons program according to the US

(to the tune of the old "Sesame Street" song...)
One of these countries is not like the others,
One of these countries just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which countries is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which country was not like the others?
Did you guess which country just doesn't belong?
If you guessed Pakistan is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!

Daistallia 2104

22-06-2008, 09:12

That's because they rub lemon juice on em. :)

:::Holds CH down and rubs w/ lemons:::

Oh, and I meant to post this a while back...

Note to the next president: Watch Pakistan (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/trudy_rubin/20080611_Worldview__Note_to_the_next_president__Watch_Pakistan.html)

Oh, and CH, the next time you decide to tease Lizzuo for typos, I hope he smacks you with this post...

He is "hell-bent on keeping a costly, destructive, unpopular, mismanaged and criminally wrong war going". It is call the War on Terror Part Deux.

To manage the deception, he is going to pull troops out of Irack, because everyone is tired of hearing about Irack. Then he is going to slowly insert those troops onto the "battlefield in Pakistan".

Cannot think of a name

22-06-2008, 09:42

Oh, and CH, the next time you decide to tease Lizzuo for typos, I hope he smacks you with this post...
I'm pretty sure the 'Irack" thing is intentional. And for gods sake, don't start up the fucking lame 'typo "debate"' again.

Daistallia 2104

22-06-2008, 12:19

And for gods sake, don't start up the fucking lame 'typo "debate"' again.

Twas actually a sincere hope that Lizzuo rubs CH's nose in that, should CH try and jump on that BS again...

Anywho, here's an interesting bit on something that people have dismissed out of hand before - Obama's play for the Xian social cons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062002477.html)...

It's a move that's caught some conservative evangelicals off guard. They say they are surprised and dismayed to see a liberal-minded politician attempting to conscript their troops. At the same time, they say that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has done little to court their affections.

"I've never seen anything quite like it before," said evangelical author Stephen Mansfield, who wrote "The Faith of George W. Bush" and has a forthcoming book about Obama.

"To be running against a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and to be reaching into the Christian community as wisely and knowledgeably as (Obama) is -- understanding their terms and their values -- is just remarkable."

Strang wrote in a blog, Obama "won over the loyalties of many."

"He came across as thoughtful and much more of a 'centrist' than I would have expected," Strang wrote, adding that he hopes McCain will host a similar gathering.

Mansfield said he sees similar political acumen in the Joshua Generation program. Often used as a "mobilizing phrase" among evangelical church youth groups, the name refers to the biblical story of Joshua, who did what Moses could not: lead his people into the Promised Land.
ad_icon

"The impressive thing about Obama is that he knows this," Mansfield said. "This is language you expect to hear at a youth rally, not from the presidential campaign of the most liberal member of the Senate."

Gravlen

22-06-2008, 12:21

To show "grass roots" authenticity...

http://theunfocused.blogspot.com/2008/02/passing-out-signs-at-obama-rally.html

The video is interesting to watch.

*sigh*

Tmutarakhan

22-06-2008, 20:36

I meant to comment on this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-8g-0SMVRbSScyiKVhLBMgyYVAQD91DM64G0), which got some new play in the New York Times today. Obama is said to be considering Sam Nunn for running mate, the only choice he could make which would force me to withhold my vote from him. Of course, the source is my congressman, Carolyn Kilpatrick (better known as "Kwame's Mommy" around here: her spoiled boy is our mayor, under multiple indictments), who I wouldn't trust as a source for much of anything, and the Times points out how often names are "floated" that are never under any serious consideration. Still, the thought of Nunn anywhere NEAR the White House gives the emigration urge.

CanuckHeaven

22-06-2008, 21:47

Twas actually a sincere hope that Lizzuo rubs CH's nose in that, should CH try and jump on that BS again...
If anyone's nose should be rubbed in it, it should be Lizzuo's nose for starting that game in the first place. Lizzuo already lost that game....let's move forward.

Cannot think of a name

22-06-2008, 22:07

If anyone's nose should be rubbed in it, it should be Lizzuo's nose for starting that game in the first place. Lizzuo already lost that game....let's move forward.

All participants in that 'game' were losers. And anyone who had to scroll through it in the vain hopes of finding actual debate...

Cannot think of a name

22-06-2008, 23:20

So, in the hopes of getting things on (back? where they ever?) track-

I kind of view VP choices a bit like staging in drag racing, it's a bit of psyche out game where you want to do it on your own time but still force the other cat to do it first. So sometimes I think that maybe they have their guy (or gal) before the announcement is made. In that vein, it could be that McCain has his. Of course from the article it's hearsay, but we can at least discuss a possibility that is more than likely instead of just grabbed out of thin air. Of course, I know fuck all about him, so here he goes (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4187549.ece)-

ONE name has risen to the top of John McCain’s shortlist for vice-presidential running mate. Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, a trucker’s son and advocate of Republicanism for the masses, is the favourite to join his ticket, according to sources close to the McCain camp.

They believe that Pawlenty, 47, has the youth, working-class credentials and executive experience to attract independent voters and disaffected Democrats who find Barack Obama, 46, the Democratic party nominee, too exotic and untested and McCain, 71, too old and too focused on national security.
...
Pawlenty has already pioneered the concept of “Sam’s Club conservatism”, named after the popular discount stores founded by Sam Walton of the giant Wal-Mart retail chain, which holds out the promise of good value, small government catering to working people.
...
“I believe the Republican brand needs refreshment,” he said. “Our principles haven’t changed but the country is changing in terms of demographics, culture and technology and we need to make sure the Republican messenger has a modern message.”
...
Pawlenty is a firm believer in the heroic age of Republicanism, but his role models are presidents who brought their party into the modern era. “I consider myself a common sense, main-stream conservative in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln,” he said.
...
However, Pawlenty has sound relations with the conservative wing of the Republican party without being a perfect fit. He admires Ronald Reagan more for his flexibility than his ideological certitude. “He had an independent, pragmatic streak and I believe I have some of those characteristics as well,” he said.

And he brings his own branded demographic, already mentioned-
During his campaign for governor in 2001, Pawlenty coined the phrase “Sam’s Club conservatism”, urging conservatives to resist “the stereotype of the Republican party . . . that we’re all a bunch of wealthy snobs” and to appeal to members of “Sam’s Club, not just the country club”.

The idea was taken up by conservative intellectuals in The Weekly Standard magazine, who argued that it could rescue a tired and discredited party “from the wreckage of Bush-style, big government conservatism”.

“Sam’s Club is a metaphor for hard-working, middle-class people who want government to be effective and to deliver value,” Pawlenty said. He is nearly a quarter of a century younger than McCain, but cites the Republican nominee’s popularity in an MTV poll as proof that he can attract young voters.

Is this guy going to be enough to eat into Obama's advantage? Will it matter at all? Will Obama steal any of this spotlight that might happen because of him with an even more 'dazzling' VP?

Sirmomo1

22-06-2008, 23:44

Democrats who find Barack Obama, 46, the Democratic party nominee, too exotic and untested

Is exotic the latest euphemism for black?

Cannot think of a name

22-06-2008, 23:47

Is exotic the latest euphemism for black?

Seems so.

Ashmoria

22-06-2008, 23:51

Pawlenty may be a good choice. the republican elite are stuck in failure.

one of the big functions of VP, even as a failed candidate, is to be the frontrunner in the next set of primaries. the party needs to get away from the neocon/robber baron mindset that is screwing their current chances.

Ashmoria

23-06-2008, 01:03

this just in: Kim Jong-il has endorsed Barack Obama...

I wonder what it is that he likes about him...

maybe he thinks he looks like denzel washington.

Hotwife

23-06-2008, 01:03

this just in: Kim Jong-il has endorsed Barack Obama...

I wonder what it is that he likes about him...

IL Ruffino

23-06-2008, 01:19

So I keep seeing McCain's ads about what he promises to do, and while I'm barely interested in even getting to know him, I'd like to know how he plans to get shit done.

Does he have a fancy PDF like Obama?

Heikoku 2

23-06-2008, 01:29

this just in: Kim Jong-il has endorsed Barack Obama...

I wonder what it is that he likes about him...

1- Source?

2- Even if he did, there are always the odds that he KNOWS he's not well-liked in America and actually wants McCain to get elected.

3- Do you have a point here? Or mindless insinuation?

Fleckenstein

23-06-2008, 02:23

this just in: Kim Jong-il has endorsed Barack Obama...

I wonder what it is that he likes about him...

Ooh, I didn't know the all-powerful sourceless brain picked up Korea!

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 02:39

Ooh, I didn't know the all-powerful sourceless brain picked up Korea!

Even if it has a source, would it matter? Since when do we take into account who Kim Jong-Il thinks should be president either way?

Heikoku 2

23-06-2008, 03:41

Even if it has a source, would it matter? Since when do we take into account who Kim Jong-Il thinks should be president either way?

Oh, it doesn't. But I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-DK will try to go "he might be a Muslim", "Hamas supports him", "Kim Jong-Il supports him", and try to make an issue off of it because he's got NOTHING else. Neither does McCain. Both only have the "I want the war to go on".

...and thus the poor lil' soldiers
Without nothing to lose
Due to being condemned to die off just say
"I don't know why I fought",
"I don't know why I died"
"I really just wish that I was not here...."

And Halliburton gets one dollar richer.

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 03:51

Oh, it doesn't. But I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-DK will try to go "he might be a Muslim", "Hamas supports him", "Kim Jong-Il supports him", and try to make an issue off of it because he's got NOTHING else. Neither does McCain. Both only have the "I want the war to go on".

...and thus the poor lil' soldiers
Without nothing to lose
Due to being condemned to die off just say
"I don't know why I fought",
"I don't know why I died"
"I just and only wish I was not here...."

And Halliburton gets one dollar richer.

It's kind of sad watching 'them' make the same mistake the 'Democrats' (I use scare quotes because while it wasn't necessarily the case, it was certainly the narrative) did in 2004-

Instead of running for the presidency, they're running against Obama. It's still early yet, and they have a lot of time to get their feet under them, but they aren't off to the greatest of starts.

Heikoku 2

23-06-2008, 03:52

It's kind of sad watching 'them' make the same mistake the 'Democrats' (I use scare quotes because while it wasn't necessarily the case, it was certainly the narrative) did in 2004-

Instead of running for the presidency, they're running against Obama. It's still early yet, and they have a lot of time to get their feet under them, but they aren't off to the greatest of starts.

If they make mistakes, let them. McCain wants more war.

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 04:09

If they make mistakes, let them. McCain wants more war.

Well, 'sad' was a bit euphemistic...

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 04:42

Two things (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/us/politics/22obama.html?pagewanted=1&ref=todayspaper)...

First, called it-
Senator Barack Obama is drawing up plans for extensive advertising and voter-turnout drives across the nation, hoping to capitalize on his expected fund-raising advantage over Senator John McCain to force Republicans to compete in states they have not had to defend in decades.
...
Mr. Obama has added several seasoned hands to his advertising team, a harbinger of a multifaceted television campaign that people inside and outside Obama headquarters said would grow well beyond its already large presence in 18 states.

Future commercials could run on big national showcases like the Olympics in August and smaller cable networks like MTV and Black Entertainment Television that appeal to specific demographic and interest groups.

He is also dispatching paid staff members to all states, an unusual move by the standards of modern presidential campaigns where the fight is often contained to contested territories.

Aides and advisers to Mr. Obama said they did not believe he necessarily had a serious chance of winning in many of the traditionally Republican states. They said he could at least draw Mr. McCain into spending time and money in those places while swelling Democratic enrollment and supporting other Democrats on the ballot.
...
The campaign is in many ways building on a strategy championed by Howard Dean, the party chairman who has been pressing Democrats to establish a presence in all states rather than focus primarily on battlegrounds. But Mr. Obama is putting his own stamp on the plan by moving much of the party’s operations from Washington to his headquarters in Chicago and installing Paul Tewes, one of his top organizers, to oversee it.

Party leaders in Republican-leaning states like Georgia and Montana are already reporting an influx of paid Obama staffers and volunteers who were sent there to begin registering potential Obama voters.

Mr. Obama’s team is also sending resources to Virginia, which no Democratic presidential candidate has won since 1964. Abbi Easter, treasurer of the state’s Democratic Party, said Mr. Obama had dispatched five paid staff members to the state to begin organizing a voter registration drive.

“I’ve been doing Democratic politics in the state for 25 years,” Ms. Easter said, “and this is such a novelty I feel like a kid at their first Christmas.”

She said she was also expecting help from as many as 100 of the 3,600 “Obama Organizing Fellows,” a group of full-time volunteers fanning out across the country to oversee local registration efforts. The mobilization is being helped along by Mr. Obama’s robust Internet operation specializing in reaching out to the younger voters who use social networking sites like Facebook.
We of course said this would happen.

Second, however, is that this-
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/22/us/22obama.600.1.jpg
looks a touch too much like this-
http://www.screenhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/citizen_kane_1.jpg
Just not as oppressive...

Maineiacs

23-06-2008, 06:28

Do you have a point here? Or mindless insinuation?

When has DK ever had anything else?

Dempublicents1

23-06-2008, 06:34

Let me know if it shows up

It does now! =)

IL Ruffino

23-06-2008, 06:52

I see no one wants/has the ability to tell me what McCain's plans are.

The South Islands

23-06-2008, 07:05

It concerns me that Obama seems to be anti-NASA.

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 07:17

I see no one wants/has the ability to tell me what McCain's plans are.

I guess you could check his website, but no-substance doesn't seem to be popping right about now. More of the OMG! Obama sacrifices kittens to Marga! type of nonsense right about now.

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 07:23

It concerns me that Obama seems to be anti-NASA.

Huh?

The South Islands

23-06-2008, 07:27

Huh?

He proposes to cut the NASA budget to pay for his whole education thing. I do not like that.

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 07:51

He proposes to cut the NASA budget to pay for his whole education thing. I do not like that.

Well, rather than dragging the details out of you, I did the google (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php) thing. I have to say, I'm really not as bothered.

First of all, what he proposed was not as dramatic as all that. He said he would delay the Constellation program for five years to boost education. That program means fuck all if we don't have a generation that can understand its accomplishments, so it makes a certain degree of sense. Not to mention that what's to be gained by the Constellation program is kind of dubious.

I don't know that this really counts as "anti-NASA" so much as 'recognizing current priorities.'

The South Islands

23-06-2008, 08:07

Well, rather than dragging the details out of you, I did the google (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php) thing. I have to say, I'm really not as bothered.

First of all, what he proposed was not as dramatic as all that. He said he would delay the Constellation program for five years to boost education. That program means fuck all if we don't have a generation that can understand its accomplishments, so it makes a certain degree of sense. Not to mention that what's to be gained by the Constellation program is kind of dubious.

I don't know that this really counts as "anti-NASA" so much as 'recognizing current priorities.'

Except the funding for the Constellation Program doesn't rely on anything additional beyond the real terms of the present budget. By delaying Orion for 5 years, not only does he leave the US without a manned space program for nearly a decade, it seriously threatens the ability for future Engineers to retain skills and knowledge for building spacecraft. A delay would be absolutely crushing to the US manned space program.

NASA's budget is so small (comparatively) to everything else. Why does Obama want to cut NASA's budget? Why not all the other crap we spend billions on? Why cut the one part of government that has been doing a really good job during the past 4 years?

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 08:28

Except the funding for the Constellation Program doesn't rely on anything additional beyond the real terms of the present budget. By delaying Orion for 5 years, not only does he leave the US without a manned space program for nearly a decade, it seriously threatens the ability for future Engineers to retain skills and knowledge for building spacecraft. A delay would be absolutely crushing to the US manned space program.

NASA's budget is so small (comparatively) to everything else. Why does Obama want to cut NASA's budget? Why not all the other crap we spend billions on? Why cut the one part of government that has been doing a really good job during the past 4 years?
I'm not sure I buy that kind of doom and gloom. It seems a bit dramatic to say that if we wait 5 years we'll "totally forget how to make space craft."

While the enormous cost of the Iraq war has maybe made us lose some scope, $100 billion isn't really chump change. And the deal with cuts is that there is always going to be someone who doesn't want their part cut. And he's only proposing delaying one really expensive project with dubious returns for something that is in real trouble yesterday. This isn't shutting down NASA, this is just saying that the really expensive thing is going to have to wait until we have that kind of money.

I still don't see this as anti-NASA as much as it's pro-solve some of the more immediate and damaging problems on this planet before we start working on other-worldly ones.

The South Islands

23-06-2008, 08:42

I'm not sure I buy that kind of doom and gloom. It seems a bit dramatic to say that if we wait 5 years we'll "totally forget how to make space craft."

While the enormous cost of the Iraq war has maybe made us lose some scope, $100 billion isn't really chump change. And the deal with cuts is that there is always going to be someone who doesn't want their part cut. And he's only proposing delaying one really expensive project with dubious returns for something that is in real trouble yesterday. This isn't shutting down NASA, this is just saying that the really expensive thing is going to have to wait until we have that kind of money.

I still don't see this as anti-NASA as much as it's pro-solve some of the more immediate and damaging problems on this planet before we start working on other-worldly ones.

100 Billion? Try 17.5 Billion/year for the entire NASA budget. Significantly less then it's peak back in the 60s. This isn't more money. This is the same amount of money. This is NOT an expensive project when you compare it to...well, just about anything. This isn't "dump money on the problem" like Apollo. This is a concerted, organized program to replace the shuttle. Obama says that he's pro science, yet he comes back and states that he wants to halt the manned space program. It's hypocritical.

Furthermore, I challenge the assertion that Constellation is dubious in it's value. It is the next generation spacecraft. If it gets pushed back, it leaves us with no manned spacecraft, no heavy booster, and no direction. It leaves the Russians as the sole provider of manned spaceflight, which we would be funding anyway. We talk of outsourcing jobs, but it seems to me that Obama want's to outsource tens of thousands of jobs in Texas, Florida, and a dozen other states directly to central Kazakhstan.

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 08:46

100 Billion? Try 17.5 Billion/year for the entire NASA budget. Significantly less then it's peak back in the 60s. This isn't more money. This is the same amount of money. This is NOT an expensive project when you compare it to...well, just about anything. This isn't "dump money on the problem" like Apollo. This is a concerted, organized program to replace the shuttle. Obama says that he's pro science, yet he comes back and states that he wants to halt the manned space program. It's hypocritical.

Furthermore, I challenge the assertion that Constellation is dubious in it's value. It is the next generation spacecraft. If it gets pushed back, it leaves us with no manned spacecraft, no heavy booster, and no direction. It leaves the Russians as the sole provider of manned spaceflight, which we would be funding anyway. We talk of outsourcing jobs, but it seems to me that Obama want's to outsource tens of thousands of jobs in Texas, Florida, and a dozen other states directly to central Kazakhstan.

$100 billion is the cost of the project.

Look man, I grew up with the shuttles, I get the whole 'space is nifty' thing. But taken in the long view, if we don't fix education NASA is going to have a much bigger problem than how to remember how to build a space ship if the project takes a five year delay.

I still have to say you're being way to dramatic about this one and making it into a whole lot more than what it is.

The South Islands

23-06-2008, 17:32

$100 billion is the cost of the project.

Look man, I grew up with the shuttles, I get the whole 'space is nifty' thing. But taken in the long view, if we don't fix education NASA is going to have a much bigger problem than how to remember how to build a space ship if the project takes a five year delay.

I still have to say you're being way to dramatic about this one and making it into a whole lot more than what it is.

100 billion over more then a decade. With no increases in the NASA budget.

Discussion over the necessity of manned spaceflight is for another thread. I don't want to hijack this any more then I already have. However, it is very curious why Mr. Obama would want to cut the funding of possibly the one agency that's not run by incompetent cronies, the one agency that has been successful over the past few years, the one agencywho's future is looking bright. There are so many other things to cut. So many useless programs and massive overspending. Why does he decide to cut science funding? It just doesn't seem to match his stated priorities.

Lackadaisical2

23-06-2008, 17:48

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195

Apparently Obama is in the pocket of big agriculture, and supports tariffs on ethanol from brazil, while keeping in place the corn ethanol subsidy . Well, I'm not too surpsised. It seems that between this and gas taxes, Obama plans on making life harder for the average person if hes elected. So, whats the big change Obama keeps talking about? Delivering us from one group of lobbyists to another?

(I would do more but i have to get to work)

Ifreann

23-06-2008, 17:56

Maybe the change is that he's not 'in their pocket'. Or maybe it's just a campaign slogan, who knows?

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 18:13

100 billion over more then a decade. With no increases in the NASA budget.
I only have the source I found. if you have another, go for it.

Discussion over the necessity of manned spaceflight is for another thread. I don't want to hijack this any more then I already have. However, it is very curious why Mr. Obama would want to cut the funding of possibly the one agency that's not run by incompetent cronies, the one agency that has been successful over the past few years, the one agencywho's future is looking bright. There are so many other things to cut. So many useless programs and massive overspending. Why does he decide to cut science funding? It just doesn't seem to match his stated priorities.
And again, you're being overdramatic. He's not 'punishing' NASA or even shutting it down, he's delaying one very expensive project (not even canceling it, just delaying it) with dubious long term returns in lieu of an immediate and pressing problem. This isn't 'an affront on science' but rather an assessment of immediate priorities. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Conserative Morality

23-06-2008, 18:14

Obama is (Like the title says) just another politician. He's not for 'change', not any more then any other candidate. He's not going make some radical improvements, and he's not going to be America's #1 president. He's just very charismatic, a faker, a liar, and a horrible parasite.*Waits for "Obama iz teh savior and this iz all liez!!!!!1!11!11" people*

Myrmidonisia

23-06-2008, 18:15

Once McCain said that he didn't understand economics as well as he would like. Well, he certainly has a better handle on it than Our Saviour Obama. I was going to use this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_energy_4) to point out how real innovations occur, i.e. offer a prize. But deeper in the article, it was clear just how little Our Saviour Obama understands the free market...

Last week McCain suggested one way to ease supply concerns would be to lift a federal ban on offshore oil drilling if individual states want to allow it. His Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, opposes that idea, saying it would do nothing to address immediate price concerns.

On Sunday, Obama told a Washington audience he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders whose futures speculation he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

Or maybe he does? In the first paragraph, Our Saviour Obama completely discounts the idea of how futures trading affects the CURRENT price of oil. In the next, he gives traders almost all the credit for rising prices. Well, which is it?

Personally, I like the idea of letting states decide what should be done with their territory and that traders should be left alone. Futures traders serve a valuable social function and should be left unmolested.

Our Saviour Obama should be left to learn these lessons as a junior Senator, not as President of the United States.

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 18:27

Once McCain said that he didn't understand economics as well as he would like. Well, he certainly has a better handle on it than Our Saviour Obama. I was going to use this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_energy_4) to point out how real innovations occur, i.e. offer a prize. But deeper in the article, it was clear just how little Our Saviour Obama understands the free market...

Or maybe he does? In the first paragraph, Our Saviour Obama completely discounts the idea of how futures trading affects the CURRENT price of oil. In the next, he gives traders almost all the credit for rising prices. Well, which is it?

Personally, I like the idea of letting states decide what should be done with their territory and that traders should be left alone. Futures traders serve a valuable social function and should be left unmolested.

Our Saviour Obama should be left to learn these lessons as a junior Senator, not as President of the United States.

Except that even the oil companies don't think that opening up protected land will have an immediate effect on prices and say at best it would take 5-10 years. Plus states would be making risk assessments yet other states would actually be taking the risks-ocean currents mean that a spill or accident off one states shore would land on another states shore. Not to mention the shared ocean resource that would be lost by all state's concerns.

Trade Orginizations

23-06-2008, 18:31

Ifreann

23-06-2008, 18:33

Trade Orginizations

23-06-2008, 18:35

he is a poltician...thus he is a parasite

Ifreann

23-06-2008, 18:36

he is a poltician...thus he is a parasite

Cute

Kyronea

23-06-2008, 18:36

I only have the source I found. if you have another, go for it.

And again, you're being overdramatic. He's not 'punishing' NASA or even shutting it down, he's delaying one very expensive project (not even canceling it, just delaying it) with dubious long term returns in lieu of an immediate and pressing problem. This isn't 'an affront on science' but rather an assessment of immediate priorities. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm sorry, but I actually have to agree with The South Islands on this one, after giving it some thought. The Shuttles are aged enough as it is. If we're going to continue with any sort of government-based space flight, we need a replacement for them ASAP. We can't afford to wait on that.

Trade Orginizations

23-06-2008, 18:37

true though

Hotwife

23-06-2008, 18:37

Wilgrove

23-06-2008, 18:44

He's good...he's actually able to cover up the fact that he's just another politician.

Be afraid...be very afraid...

Geniasis

23-06-2008, 18:49

Conserative Morality

23-06-2008, 18:49

How is he a parasite?

In the same way that every politician is a parasite. If you don't already know that..

Dempublicents1

23-06-2008, 19:04

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195

Apparently Obama is in the pocket of big agriculture,

And what in your article suggests that? It makes a point of saying that neither campaign has received large amounts of money from the industry.

That said, I'm sure it won't be long before Arch shuts down this thread. The election thread is stickied, you know.

Ifreann

23-06-2008, 19:07

In the same way that every politician is a parasite. If you don't already know that..

Yeah yeah yeah, politicians are the great evil, all out to screw the average hard working man, etc, etc.

Khermi

23-06-2008, 19:10

The only "Change" Obama is interested in, is that which goes into his pocket after he steals every last cent of it from yours.

Any politician can talk the talk, what's important is their voting record. They'll whisper sweet nothings into your ear and you'll vote them back into the office and then they'll get back to the business of screwing you over some more. Nothing beats an Oligarchy; gotta love it!

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 19:12

I'm sorry, but I actually have to agree with The South Islands on this one, after giving it some thought. The Shuttles are aged enough as it is. If we're going to continue with any sort of government-based space flight, we need a replacement for them ASAP. We can't afford to wait on that.
First of all, you don't have to appologize for disagreeing. Even his supporters don't have to agree with everything he does and don't have to agree with other supporters. I have said early on that he's a candidate that I can disagree with and feel like it's a conversation instead of being labeled 'traitor' and 'terrorist.'

And, if nothing else, I am THRILLED to be having a specific policy debate instead of a OMG! He's a black radical christian Muslim Terrorist! nonsense thing.

And I don't think this is about extending the shuttle program or even shelving NASA, it's putting off the moon-to-mars project. I just don't see that as the crippling blow it's painted as.
You're forgetting that drilling is already taking place outside the 12-mile limit.

China and other nations are drilling around California and Florida already, taking oil from just outside the limit.

And there's nothing you can do about it.

Would you rather have Chinese drilling, or us? Who benefits more? Who has more control over the way the drilling is done?
Are you threatening my milk shake?

The South Islands

23-06-2008, 19:12

I only have the source I found. if you have another, go for it.

Take a look at the NASA budget on wikipedia. With no additional funding, all goals of Constellation can be accomplished. If you're "delaying" Orion by putting it's funding somewhere else, you are cutting NASA's budget.

And again, you're being overdramatic. He's not 'punishing' NASA or even shutting it down, he's delaying one very expensive project (not even canceling it, just delaying it) with dubious long term returns in lieu of an immediate and pressing problem. This isn't 'an affront on science' but rather an assessment of immediate priorities. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

It is cutting NASA's budget. How is that not punishing them? Orion is cheap compared to continuting shuttle usage. It's cheap compared to subsidising the entire Russian space agency just to fly our people up there. This IS an affront to science. Furthermore, I challenge that Orion is dubious. However, that is for another thread.

Obama needs to seriously rethink his ideas about promoting science, yet slicing NASA's budget.

CthulhuFhtagn

23-06-2008, 19:13

In the same way that every politician is a parasite. If you don't already know that..

...you know the definition of the word "parasite".

The South Islands

23-06-2008, 19:16

And I don't think this is about extending the shuttle program or even shelving NASA, it's putting off the moon-to-mars project. I just don't see that as the crippling blow it's painted as.

No, it's not. He is proposing to delay the first stage of Constellation, which is the testing of the Ares I booster and development of the Orion spacecraft. Moon landings won't happen until 2018, at the earliest. What his proposed delay does is make NASA rely on overpriced Soyuz spacecraft to ferry our astronauts to the ISS for nearly 10 years. It cripples our manned spaceflight inititive.

Undivulged Principles

23-06-2008, 19:29

He's good...he's actually able to cover up the fact that he's just another politician.

Be afraid...be very afraid...

That is more from people ignoring the facts than anything else.

I really get a kick out of how a guy that rises up through the ranks of Chicago politics, among the most corrupt anywhere, can sell himself as a "Man of Change" and people actually fall for it.

I also like how they constantly defend how he changes his stance from one day to the next, not that McCain is any better (he's going to have to change his "Straight Talk" to "The Lobby Bus"), but he isn't harping about change and hope when he isn't about to provide either.

Cannot think of a name

23-06-2008, 19:31

No, it's not. He is proposing to delay the first stage of Constellation, which is the testing of the Ares I booster and development of the Orion spacecraft. Moon landings won't happen until 2018, at the earliest. What his proposed delay does is make NASA rely on overpriced Soyuz spacecraft to ferry our astronauts to the ISS for nearly 10 years. It cripples our manned spaceflight inititive.

At this point you have to start providing sources because frankly that's not what I was able to find and I don't want to do all your work for you.

Trostia

23-06-2008, 19:31

Yeah yeah yeah, politicians are the great evil, all out to screw the average hard working man, etc, etc.

Purely by coincidence, the folks pointing out "yet another politician/parasite" in the case of Obama, are people who support other candidates. And purely by another coincidence, they don't seem so quick to point out how corrupt/parasitic/diabolical other candidates are. Since these are coincidences they don't reveal any sort of bias but are in fact genuine indicators of the posters' universal, chic, political cynicism.

Gauthier

23-06-2008, 19:33

I guess this means we need to vote for McCain and 4 MORE YEARS OF BUSHEVISM, WHOOOOO!!

[/sarcasm]

EDIT: In before lock, since this clearly strays from Teh Big Election Thread.

Trostia

23-06-2008, 19:34

I really get a kick out of how a guy that rises up through the ranks of Chicago politics, among the most corrupt anywhere, can sell himself as a "Man of Change" and people actually fall for it.

Ahhh.... guilt by association...

We don't need to point out that Obama is corrupt! We can just allude that he is because Chicago is stereotypically corrupt and he's from there! This is superior to alluding that Obama is a Muslim and thus out to destroy America, since it's harder for those PC bastards to point out our tedious use of fallacy.

Soheran

23-06-2008, 19:36

Protectionism is disgusting.

Myrmidonisia

23-06-2008, 19:40

Except that even the oil companies don't think that opening up protected land will have an immediate effect on prices and say at best it would take 5-10 years. Plus states would be making risk assessments yet other states would actually be taking the risks-ocean currents mean that a spill or accident off one states shore would land on another states shore. Not to mention the shared ocean resource that would be lost by all state's concerns.
Here's the contradiction -- I thought it was more obvious, but here we go...

Futures traders are indeed raising the price on oil. They do that because they see a reduced supply in the ... FUTURE. Opening up more favorable areas to exploration should produce more supply in the ... FUTURE. There will indeed be an immediate price reduction because the futures traders will lower their bids on FUTURE supplies of oil.

So, how can Our Saviour Obama state that there will be NO effect from opening up more favorable areas to exploration and drilling AND say that the futures traders are largely responsible for causing the high price of oil?

The answer is that he can't. Most demagogues can't resolve the contradictions that they raise. McCain has the best solution between the two -- open up additional areas and watch the prices fall on their own.

NationStates Jolt Archive

US election, McCain vs Obama et al, Take 1. - Page 5