US Elections 2008

[DarkSide Hero]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

In Palin's defense, what she's sharing is natural resources. That's something of dubious ownership to start with. Heck, don't most states do that with airwaves?

Obama, OTOH, is proposing to share the handiwork of Joe the Plumber. Those leaky toilets aren't repairing themselves.

Note, I don't disagree with Obama's approach. The wealth of those making 250k+ a year is built on more than just their own sweat, and seeing to it even the more modest get healthcare and education is enriching society as a whole. I'm just saying, it's not the same as saying that Alaska's underground belongs to the Alaskans.

Alaska ranked #3 in 2005 Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State @ $1.84.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
It's a welfare state.

[Max Thrillington]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

I am going to have so much fun with this post, now how many debates that Gravel has been in and how many Obama has been in.

It isn't about the quantity, it's about quality. What does it matter how many debates you're in when your points are vague?

If Gravel did so good in ripping in Obama, why he was one of the first ones to drop out of the race?

Because it's a popularity contest.

And why are you cautious about that? Please explain your answer

because they grant immunity to telecoms for shady illegal acts?

But you think that Obama Foreign is the same as W. You should go to Barack website and read it alittle more carefully, Obama believe in talk to our enemies, go ahead the people that we want to get since we got bombed and strengthen our relationship with our allies, not pissed them off like Bush or McCain did.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

can you tell me who said that? (hint: female pornstars use to have it in the 80s.)

Every president since 1950's has been in support of Israel and that will not ever change unless Israel does something stupid.

and every president will continue to do so. Where's the change?

But right now, he is trying something different. Right now, I want to try something different unless you like pay alot of money in oil and gas prices (even know that it has been going down alot) He want to use every resources we have right now to fixed this problem of oil dependence and there is a way, actually it is the Mother Nature way.

No, he promises to try something different. It's not going to happen--ever during his term. This economy RUNS on oil and that's going to be a fact for decades to come.

By using the Wind and Sun like they are using in Montana and Big Sky States, Clean Coal, and other resources, we can get away from oil dependence.

How is that going to break dependence? Those sources are more for generating electricity. 70% of oil is used for transportation.

To each its own, I say. You have a right to choose any person you like as president but There is no such thing as a perfect policy or even a perfect candiate. All the candiates has flaws in their system and even in office, some of them will not able to do the things they promise to do. But they are out there, trying to do things that will make each and every American citizen alittle bit more safer at work and home, to get alittle bit more money to help out with all the bills and food so they are not going hungry, to get alittle bit better education for our kids, so they can be the next Barack Obama, John McCain, or anything they want to be in 20 - 30 years and so much more. Like Obama say today "This is a chance for us to look forward to next 4 years, not back at last 4."

All I want for my government is to leave me alone. That's it.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

You had better hope that this doesn't happen. If Obama screws up the financial crisis, the U.S. is going to be in very deep trouble, and no amount of ideology is going to be proof from that. Heck, everything might go to hell even if he does do a great job.

We'll you're screwed.. me, not so much.

[DarkSide Hero]

Originally Posted by Max Thrillington

How is that going to break dependence? Those sources are more for generating electricity. 70% of oil is used for transportation.

By using cars that run on electricity or biodiesel made from switchgrass.

[nanafan]

Originally Posted by james0246

Missouri is considered the 'bellwether' state due to the fact that the state has the best track record for the past century in regards to voting for the eventual winner (both in the primaries as well as the actual election). Missouri has predicted every election except the 1956 election in which Missouri voted for challenger Adlai Stevenson, over incumbent Eisenhower. I have no idea why Missouri voted for Stevenson, but I assume it was St. Louis' fault .

That being said, Missouri is also seen as a a microcosm of America. It is heavily influenced on its West and East Borders by highly Democratic cities (Kansas City on the West and St. Louis on the East), with the middle portion of the state being an even mixture of Republican and Independent Voters (overall, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are about equal to each other within the state).

thanks james, i guess i have some pride from being from missouri when they have decided a lot in the elections. i still don't get why they call obama a socialist. wasn't the bailout kinda socialist, the government stepped in and did stuff to somewhat fix it...maybe

[Max Thrillington]

Originally Posted by DarkSide Hero

By using cars that run on electricity or biodiesel made from switchgrass.

and what of the 250,000,000 already on the road?

[DarkSide Hero]

Originally Posted by Max Thrillington

and what of the 250,000,000 already on the road?

If we can give tax incentives for hummers, then I don't see why we can't do the same for e-vehicles.
The petro vehicles already on the road will be phased out over time through a federal mandate just like Analog Television.

[Aquillion]

Originally Posted by DarkSide Hero

Alaska ranked #3 in 2005 Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State @ $1.84.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
It's a welfare state.

The ironic thing about that list is how the more liberal states, on the whole, tend to be closer to the bottom, while the more conservative ones are generally higher up.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Aquillion

The ironic thing about that list is how the more liberal states, on the whole, tend to be closer to the bottom, while the more conservative ones are generally higher up.

California needs to do better in our fight for our share of pork

[Luminisk]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_138606.html

This is getting sadder and sadder.

[Cherudim Arche]

Originally Posted by Luminisk

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_138606.html

This is getting sadder and sadder.

McCain really needs to admit his faulty past decisions.

It is just pathetic now, McCain faulting Obama for his own incident for his role.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Dynames/ Virtue

McCain really needs to admit his faulty past decisions.

It is just pathetic now, McCain faulting Obama for his own incident for his role.

It gets better, some of McCain camp is saying that McCain may win the election now or make it a close and tight battle.

If Obama is still leading over McCain by 7% on the polls, how in the hell is going to be a close and tight battle

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

It gets better, some of McCain camp is saying that McCain may win the election now or make it a close and tight battle.

If Obama is still leading over McCain by 7% on the polls, how in the hell is going to be a close and tight battle

It is definitely strange as to how confident the McCain camp is, even though they are still losing by quite a margin and that there is only a week or so left. Considering the McCain camp's confidence to victory as a mere bluff may be considered as carelessness. Contrary to this is that being too concerned of their promised victory may be giving them too much attention. In other words, McCain is currently try to win the election at all costs, even though there chances are slim. If the McCain camp does win, there will certainly be a celebration in China and North Korea. However, I doubt it. Generally, the only reason in which McCain is certain to win may be the last minute voters re-considering the issue of race and religion. Chances are also slim.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

It gets better, some of McCain camp is saying that McCain may win the election now or make it a close and tight battle.

If Obama is still leading over McCain by 7% on the polls, how in the hell is going to be a close and tight battle

I'm pretty sure they're going with the mentality that polls don't give out the big picture. In some ways I agree with that train of thought due to the fact there are so many people who are not taking these polls. Give me a good estimate or stat showing who and how many people are taking these polls that they will prove undoubdtfully that its a huge lead. McCain camp seems really confidente that many of the undecided voters that may not be taking voting in these polls will swing to their side.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by DarkSide Hero

Alaska ranked #3 in 2005 Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State @ $1.84.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
It's a welfare state.

I don't understand some of the inconsistencies in that list. Meaning... Why would a state like California be broke if we actually are spending less that we tax? Or am I misunderstanding the data?

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

It gets better, some of McCain camp is saying that McCain may win the election now or make it a close and tight battle.

If Obama is still leading over McCain by 7% on the polls, how in the hell is going to be a close and tight battle

Most of the right wing is trying to argue the polls are flawed in their sampling and that dems don't have a 8+ point advantage in sheer numbers. (Note: Every pollster has their own weighting and sampling methods. The most transparent and usually considered reliable pollsters usually have around a +6 Dem sampling.)

Other common talking points from the right are: Bradley effect and cherry picked historical trends (MO being the 100% estimator, etc).

One of the Mason-Dixon staff (trying to be anonymous ) tried to claim that all the pollsters were completely wrong in their sampling except a couple of them including IBT/TIPP. (IBT/TIPP is well known for their McCain leads 3:1 among younger people study which was marred by... poor sampling .)

The most common counter points are the reverse-bradley effect and other sampling issues which SeijiSensei and my previous posts have touched on.

Note that the record turnout among early voters (which likely throws a huge wrench in the sampling) is not the same as the reverse-bradley effect.

[Vexx]

Don't forget vote suppression, caging, and challenging of votes.

[Luminisk]

http://www.wasillaproject.com/

How do you turn a small town in Alaska with zero debt into a $25 million pothole?
Ask Palin she'll definitely give you some pointers.

[DarkSide Hero]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I don't understand some of the inconsistencies in that list. Meaning... Why would a state like California be broke if we actually are spending less that we tax? Or am I misunderstanding the data?

You are misunderstading the data.
The list shows how much a state pays in Federal Income tax compared to how much Federal help is received to build things like roads and bridges or maintaining them. Some states also have alot of land under control of the Federal Government. Texas should be a rich state and for the most part it is, however we store alot of nuclear waste and decommissioned nuclear weapons here so we receive alot of federal help for it.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by DarkSide Hero

You are misunderstading the data.
The list shows how much a state pays in Federal Income tax compared to how much Federal help is received to build things like roads and bridges or maintaining them. Some states also have alot of land under control of the Federal Government. Texas should be a rich state and for the most part it is, however we store alot of nuclear waste and decommissioned nuclear weapons here so we receive alot of federal help for it.

Wow, I had a serious brain cramp to not understand it. Thanks for clearing it up, but what are the determining factors for how much the Fed spends on each state?

[Luminisk]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

...what are the determining factors for how much the Fed spends on each state?

Your senators, look up the word "pork barrel".