US Elections 2008

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Aquillion

Luckily, those are the ones McCain can least afford to lose (ND and Montana are 3 EVs each, while Virginia is 13, Indiana is 11, and Ohio is 20), but the point isn't that he has a particularly good chance in ND and Montana. The point is that it's shocking that he's competitive in those stats at all. Polls have shown him ahead at both at a few points, and even when McCain is ahead, his lead is much less than it should be in states that have gone Republican for the last 12 years. McCain will have to either defend them, or risk an unexpected upset that he can't afford with the map this close. All of these are states that have been key to Republican electoral strategies in the past three elections; losing any of them would be very problematic for them (losing either Ohio or Indiana + Virginia would probably decide the election, unless they can pull an unexpected upset somewhere else.)

I'm also not sure why you say Obama has a better chance in Virginia than in Indiana. If you look at the polls, Obama's actually been doing better in Virgina, out of the two. It has a fairly sizable black population, and has been edging increasingly Democratic as its northern urban areas grow. (Don't confuse it with West Virginia, mind. The two states are very different. Virginia is much more urban, especially today.)

If you're just talking about gut feelings and the way the states "usually go", that's the point. Virginia is not quite so surprising for the reasons I mentioned, but North Dakota and Montana are very surprising.

I'll be terriblly surprised if Obamer takes Indiana, of all the upper midwest states it's easily the most republican. NC will be harder to take than VA cause it's more dixie but he does have a good chance there especially with the big city peeps and the college kids, same with VA. Montana, yea forget it.

[WanderingKnight]

The perception that the election is all about the candidates comes directly from television. TV coverage can't, or won't, delve into issues like who the candidates will bring with them to staff the next government.

It's all about the hype. How do you expect the media to sell if they expect their consumers to think?

[cors8]

Well the McCain camp wants this to be about personalities instead of the issues anyway.

[bayoab]

Montana has been compared to Colorado so it may very well go blue. That said, the polls are in complete disarray currently and those midwest states rarely get polled because nothing interesting comes out of them from regular polling. I'm waiting for Friday-ish until I start pimping statistics and polls again.

In before posting edit: Montana just got very fun.

[ElldenStorm]

Originally Posted by cors8

Well the McCain camp wants this to be about personalities instead of the issues anyway.

I disagree. Obama's entire campaign is built on a foundation of his personality, or rather, his charisma. ALONE! That's all he has to stand on which is pretty sad that the Democratic Party couldn't front a more established and worthy candidate IMO.

This entire election became a personality tug-of-war with the Palin pick, because before then, Obama had McCain decimated on the personality front (Lets face it, McCain is an older gentlemen and delivering a well delivered speech, isn't his strong suit. He's not a gifted orator.). The election only became a personality conflict afterwards because suddenly that status quo was upset.

Seriously, before, this election was only a glorified popularity contest. So don't give me that it's the McCain camp that wants this to be all about the personalities, instead of the issues. Because beforehand, playing to the personality advantage over McCain was to the Obama camp's advantage! Now that they've lost that thunder though because of Palin, the Obama camp would like to try and focus on the issues more to deflect that shift, however they still have to focus on attacking Palin because they HAVE to destroy her if they really want any chance to win. On the otherside though, since alot of those attacks are focused on Palin's personality or personal life, then yes there's a focus there since they have to defend against that.

[Anh_Minh]

The poor bastards may have to study Sarkozy's campaign. McCain for "How to be represent change without denying the last few years of his party's dominance", and Obama for "How to attack a woman without looking like a sexist pig".

[cors8]

Originally Posted by ElldenStorm

I disagree. Obama's entire campaign is built on a foundation of his personality, or rather, his charisma. ALONE! That's all he has to stand on which is pretty sad that the Democratic Party couldn't front a more established and worthy candidate IMO.

This entire election became a personality tug-of-war with the Palin pick, because before then, Obama had McCain decimated on the personality front (Lets face it, McCain is an older gentlemen and delivering a well delivered speech, isn't his strong suit. He's not a gifted orator.). The election only became a personality conflict afterwards because suddenly that status quo was upset.

Seriously, before, this election was only a glorified popularity contest. So don't give me that it's the McCain camp that wants this to be all about the personalities, instead of the issues. Because beforehand, playing to the personality advantage over McCain was to the Obama camp's advantage! Now that they've lost that thunder though because of Palin, the Obama camp would like to try and focus on the issues more to deflect that shift, however they still have to focus on attacking Palin because they HAVE to destroy her if they really want any chance to win. On the otherside though, since alot of those attacks are focused on Palin's personality or personal life, then yes there's a focus there since they have to defend against that.

Here's the original quote from McCain manager Rick Davis:
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Anyway, in a war of personalities, McCain has the ultimate trump card of being a POW. It is impossible to smear that and the Obama camp won't try to. Also, while McCain sucks at speeches, he's quite good unscripted settings. Palin also appeals to the "All-American" image.

Quite frankly, if it came down to only the issues, McCain/Palin would lose in a landslide.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The poor bastards may have to study Sarkozy's campaign. McCain for "How to be represent change without denying the last few years of his party's dominance", and Obama for "How to attack a woman without looking like a sexist pig".

the best weapon Obama's got for attacking Palin is Hillary Clinton. Ironically Obama's best shot at winning lies with the person he pass over for the vp slot. Bill is going to extract his pound of flesh form Obama for the clinton's help when they have secret meeting on 9/11 in NY.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ElldenStorm

I disagree. Obama's entire campaign is built on a foundation of his personality, or rather, his charisma. ALONE! That's all he has to stand on which is pretty sad that the Democratic Party couldn't front a more established and worthy candidate IMO.

This entire election became a personality tug-of-war with the Palin pick, because before then, Obama had McCain decimated on the personality front (Lets face it, McCain is an older gentlemen and delivering a well delivered speech, isn't his strong suit. He's not a gifted orator.). The election only became a personality conflict afterwards because suddenly that status quo was upset.

Seriously, before, this election was only a glorified popularity contest. So don't give me that it's the McCain camp that wants this to be all about the personalities, instead of the issues. Because beforehand, playing to the personality advantage over McCain was to the Obama camp's advantage! Now that they've lost that thunder though because of Palin, the Obama camp would like to try and focus on the issues more to deflect that shift, however they still have to focus on attacking Palin because they HAVE to destroy her if they really want any chance to win. On the otherside though, since alot of those attacks are focused on Palin's personality or personal life, then yes there's a focus there since they have to defend against that.

I have to say... you must be getting the Democrat's "entire campaign" through a different set of news pipes than I am. The issues have been laid out over and over and over and over by the Democrats quite loudly.

All they have to do with Palin is keep hammering on her stated positions and her record on those issues. And... get her into an unscripted debate against Biden where she can't just throw soundbites without challenge.

[ElldenStorm]

Originally Posted by cors8

Here's the original quote from McCain manager Rick Davis:
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Anyway, in a war of personalities, McCain has the ultimate trump card of being a POW. It is impossible to smear that and the Obama camp won't try to. Also, while McCain sucks at speeches, he's quite good unscripted settings. Palin also appeals to the "All-American" image.

Quite frankly, if it came down to only the issues, McCain/Palin would lose in a landslide.

I don't particularly care if that quote is from McCain's campaign manager. It doesn't really mean much, and anyone can find what they want to in this election if they look for it.

On the personality front however, it was defined by Obama in this election, because that's what he's running on. You say that McCain has a trump card in that respect because he was a POW. I say you're wrong, because that has nothing to do with his personality. It's his personal history and it defines a great deal of his character, yes. Personality though, atleast in many a mind is seperate from Character. Character draws a conotation of principles, values and integrity. Whereas Personality tends to draw a conotation of your 'likeability' and appeal to others.

As for a landslide election on the issues alone, that's funny. There are plenty of other sources apparently then what you're obviously listening to that believe Obama has been on the defensive for the last five weeks. He's lost his momentum, he's defending his statements and half the time he's slipping even on that, and he's loosing on the issues. There are no more teleprompters from this point on and he sucks at delivering unscripted.

But since, I'm obviously an 'ignorant' individual, perhaps you'd care to define those issues for me as you see them, because I personally only thought there were a few big ones in this election. The war, the economy, abortion, foreign affairs, healthcare and taxes. Oh, and energy. Under that context, objectively speaking, I don't think either of them are 'winning' on the issues, unless ofcourse you're bias agrees with one more than the other. Which I believe it does. But since they're virtually tied on the polls, unless you look at the more specific polls, McCain is edging ahead on the 'issues.'



Now, personally, I don't care what Obama says about the war. Everyone wants to do this stupid dog and pony show about WMD, the wrong war at the wrong time and Lies, when the reality is clear. We're there now and we have a responsibilty. You want to tell the families of those who have died for that cause that their loved ones sacrafice was all for nothing? I don't! Because that is beyond unforgivable! Oh, and he was against the troop surge, but now he's acknowledged that it worked beyond all expectations... Hmmmm... As for the Economy, if Obama's elected, based on what littled I've learned in Economics 101, and both Micro and Macro Economics on the college level (All of which I got an A+ in, except Mirco... I got an A-), I fully expect our economy to go down the toilet if he's elected (And there are some really fucking smart economist out there who are quaking in their boots aswell).

On the issue of abortion, it's not for me to say at this point in my life, though I'm almost certainly not a proponent of partial-birth or post-birth abortions which Obama has supported in the past and has yet to clarrify himself on those issues, but then again I have a different perspective on that then most people. My mother worked for Planned Parenthood as a Woman's Health Practionier with a Masters Degree. No she didn't do abortions or anything like that, but those who were getting them often had to see her beforehand much to her distaste. I've discussed those particular issues with her at graphic length and well, it's more then most people want to even consider on those topics.

Foreign Affairs though, look at Obama's reaction to the Georgian cricsis! It took him 9 days to get his response 'just' right! It was like he was actively polling people for the right stance on the issue, and we're suppose to rely on him possibly to answer 'the' phone call at 3 AM where a decision is needed right then and there? -spits- Then what about his proposed Senate Bill to send nearly a TRILLION dollars to the U.N.?! Which is the most corrupt, most worthless organization in the world which isn't intent on doing the United States any favors. Yet he has the gall to talk about our National Debt like he actually cares!? THAT'S NEARLY A TRILLION DOLLARS!!! It would be almost an increase of 10% on the current debt! Has the man actually come out and said, "Oups, my bad, maybe that wasn't such a good idea!" NO! I'll keep our Trillion bucks, thankyou very much!

In regards to Healthcare, sure, the system is busted as it is now, but you know, it's funny. For all our intelligence as 'supposedly' great Americans, we can't look at all the other nations in the world that have universal healthcare and realize a very simple fact. It doesn't work! Every nation with it is either cutting back benefits or going bankrupt on those systems! And the quality of the care provide is downright abysmal ontop of all that! I'll agree we need change there, but Obama's idea ain't the ticket! Oh sure, it sounds nice and looks great on paper, but the execution is an entirely different matter. And the notion that simply because were Americans, that we can make it work when others can't is purely delusional.

And on the subject of taxes, again, going back to Economics 101. They're both wrong. Now, if McCain came out and said he was going to support tax reform and push for a Flat Tax, I'd be all for that and doing a happy dance (Seriously, as simple as it is, it really does sound interesting in the results. They actually believe it would return more revenue then our current tax system, and tax fraud would become nearly non-existent, because tax would be paid on anything bought and sold).

With the current tax system though, raising taxes in an already 'ailing' economy is the epitome of stupidity. Taxing corporations, small businesses and individuals or couples that make over $250,000 is not a ticket for success. These people are the people who create jobs, employ people and spend the most. That said, $250,000 is very arbitrary and rather on the low end of the scale, and yet depending on cost of living, investments and commitments aswell as a number of other factors, that doesn't necessarily mean they're rich.

Sure, someone might annually be making more then that, but they might only be living on say $40-60,000. The rest of it can be tied up in the costs of running their bussiness, and that's just 'getting by.' Well! Thankyou Mister Obama, raising their tax rate nearly 20% just put that person out of business and his three employs out of a job! -grins sarcastically with thumbs up- Great job! Yet he has the audacity to talk about 'creating new jobs' and keeping them!? But hey! Obama's now talking about perhaps keeping the tax cuts? Maybe he's wising up!

Hmmm... Energy... Well, can we say 'no win situation?' Especially if everyone actually wants to keep the economy going strong durring any transitional period? The inconveinent truth no one in the media wants to acknowledge, is we're STILL going to be using oil 50 years from now at the very least for transportation purposes. There are very few fuel sources that can drive 18-Wheelers or Passenger Jets. Those two means of transportation are virtually the backbone of our economy. Without it, people don't fly and goods don't make it to market. Fuel Cells and Electric just aren't there and they probably won't be for a very long time. Developing all sources of energy is the only option in my mind without coming off as blatantly hipocritcal, because gas is going to continue going up in price, regardless as long as we import. Yet Obama doesn't want to develope Oil or Nuclear. Which I don't get about the nuclear... Europe has massive amounts of nuclear power, and they recyle their nuclear waste! Why can't we?

Originally Posted by Vexx

I have to say... you must be getting the Democrat's "entire campaign" through a different set of news pipes than I am. The issues have been laid out over and over and over and over by the Democrats quite loudly.

All they have to do with Palin is keep hammering on her stated positions and her record on those issues. And... get her into an unscripted debate against Biden where she can't just throw soundbites without challenge.

And you know what I say to that!? It's probably a good thing I listen to different sources. Would it surprise you to know that I watch both CNN and Fox? I even lower myself to watch MSNBC occassionally, that I may stop soon after recent events. I also follow a number of different online sources aswell. I don't care if the Democrats have been more elaborate with the 'issues.' Because in all probability, elaborate solutions won't fix these problems, so they're nothing more then for show. That's the real world for ya! The Republicans have also been over the issues in their own way.

Now, the question is, what sources do you go to? And how does their coverage compare to other sources? If it's fairly lopsided then, my question to you, is are you naive enough to believe your voting as an 'informed' voter, or are you nothing more then a talking voterslip that's been influenced to vote the way you will. Oh, absolutely, both Obama and McCain are full of shit. I just think Obama's trying sell us five times as much shit as McCain!

As for the Vice Presidential Debates, I'm eagerly looking forward to them! Because Joe Biden is a has-been and a loose cannon. Have you done any research on Sarah Palin? She didn't get where she is on the tailcoats of others. She's a smart, ambitous woman, and said to be a first-rate debater. Now, I will say, I would have loved to have seen a Hillary vs Palin debate... -sigh- I guess I won't be pulling out the popcorn and coke this time around....

[Vexx]

@ElldenStorm: Before you go insulting everyone on the thread so easily you should do a bit of history check on what they've had to say in the thread. What I said was that you must using a different set of pipes because you seemed to think the Democrats were not talking about issues. They are and have been - but some news organizations don't see fit to carry that.
I use BBC, PBS and all its investigative elements, NPR, CNN, and online feeds from Reuters and other sources. I have feeds from Europe and Asia just to see what their perspective is. Fox I stopped watching for useful information years ago, but tune occasionally just to see how far into lala-land they are. MSNBC to a large extent just spouts the corporate mantra as does the Wall Street Journal but they're somewhat useful. So.. .get off your high horse before slapping labels around like "talking voterslip" on someone who might have a different perspective than you.

I think we can agree that the audience isn't listening at all with the polls splitting 50/50 in which case we're probably going to end up with 4 more years of Bush... McCain, whatever. I've been a Republican for a couple of decades until Bush2 and his pack of .... well, I've stated my position on what the Republican party has become and how they need a LONG time out to re-invent themselves.

Defining Biden as a loose cannon may be not-off-the-mark but you err considerably in calling him a has-been given the power he exerts in the Senate. Thank you, I've done considerable research on Palin and the closer I look the farther rightwing she gets. Her own speeches and interviews put her there without any help from the left. Since the Republicans put her up as VP, the nation has not gotten to see a single unscripted word out of her - they want to paint her as "mom and apple pie" running with "Mr. Wrapped in Flag", not running on the opposite side of every issue the majority of women poll as.

Your entire response to cors8 was,frankly, contained a lot of insulting language and black'n'white assertions about topics that require a bit more than "econ 101" academic theory or push debatable assessments of the solutions other countries are using. You might take a look at this: http://forums.animesuki.com/faq.php?...#faq_rules_1_2 if you haven't already.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by ElldenStorm

Now, personally, I don't care what Obama says about the war. Everyone wants to do this stupid dog and pony show about WMD, the wrong war at the wrong time and Lies, when the reality is clear. We're there now and we have a responsibilty. You want to tell the families of those who have died for that cause that their loved ones sacrafice was all for nothing? I don't! Because that is beyond unforgivable! Oh, and he was against the troop surge, but now he's acknowledged that it worked beyond all expectations...

That's called a sunken cost fallacy. The idea that you have to spend more resources because you've spent so much already is usually idiotic. In this case those those resources are the lives of US soldiers, so it goes way beyond idiotic to horrific.

As for the surge, it didn't work. The reason violence is down in Iraq was the Sunni militias switching sides. They did it before the surge was even thought of. Even if the surge did work, that doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's like a guy who bets his last $50 on a long shot in a horse race. If he wins great, but it was still a bad idea even if it worked out in the end. Saying well everything worked out in the end does not excuse the mistakes made in Iraq.

Finally, the Iraqis don't want us there anymore. Hell, even Bushy has finally acknowleded this and is begining to withdraw troops. McCain's position would reverse this.

Hmmmm... As for the Economy, if Obama's elected, based on what littled I've learned in Economics 101, and both Micro and Macro Economics on the college level (All of which I got an A+ in, except Mirco... I got an A-), I fully expect our economy to go down the toilet if he's elected (And there are some really fucking smart economist out there who are quaking in their boots aswell).

Funny, Bushy was elected and the economy went down the toilet. Why would any rational person want to elect someone who promises to continue with the same economic policies with a proven track record of failure?

On the issue of abortion, it's not for me to say at this point in my life, though I'm almost certainly not a proponent of partial-birth or post-birth abortions which Obama has supported in the past and has yet to clarrify himself on those issues, but then again I have a different perspective on that then most people. My mother worked for Planned Parenthood as a Woman's Health Practionier with a Masters Degree. No she didn't do abortions or anything like that, but those who were getting them often had to see her beforehand much to her distaste. I've discussed those particular issues with her at graphic length and well, it's more then most people want to even consider on those topics.

Post-birth abortions? Really?

Foreign Affairs though, look at Obama's reaction to the Georgian cricsis! It took him 9 days to get his response 'just' right! It was like he was actively polling people for the right stance on the issue, and we're suppose to rely on him possibly to answer 'the' phone call at 3 AM where a decision is needed right then and there?

McCain's initial reaction would have meant war with Russia. A war with Russia would be a bad thing. Also in the end McCain came to exactly the same position on the issue Obama did. So we have a choice between someone who's first reaction was to calmly analyze the situation and come to a conclusion or someone who's first reaction was to blow stuff up, then later sat down to analyze the situation and eventually came to the same conclusion. Which would you rather go with there?

Then what about his proposed Senate Bill to send nearly a TRILLION dollars to the U.N.?! Which is the most corrupt, most worthless organization in the world which isn't intent on doing the United States any favors. Yet he has the gall to talk about our National Debt like he actually cares!? THAT'S NEARLY A TRILLION DOLLARS!!! It would be almost an increase of 10% on the current debt! Has the man actually come out and said, "Oups, my bad, maybe that wasn't such a good idea!" NO! I'll keep our Trillion bucks, thankyou very much!

Source? I have not heard that. Even if true, Bushy added several trillion to the debt.

In regards to Healthcare, sure, the system is busted as it is now, but you know, it's funny. For all our intelligence as 'supposedly' great Americans, we can't look at all the other nations in the world that have universal healthcare and realize a very simple fact. It doesn't work! Every nation with it is either cutting back benefits or going bankrupt on those systems! And the quality of the care provide is downright abysmal ontop of all that! I'll agree we need change there, but Obama's idea ain't the ticket! Oh sure, it sounds nice and looks great on paper, but the execution is an entirely different matter. And the notion that simply because were Americans, that we can make it work when others can't is purely delusional.

Except that they aren't. Yes those systems have problems, but bankrupting the nation isn't one of them any more than our military spending is bankrupting ours. Of course I should qualify that by pointing out that those nations spend far less on defense than the US does. If the US spent the same on defense proportionally, we'd have more than enough money for healthcare.

And on the subject of taxes, again, going back to Economics 101. They're both wrong. Now, if McCain came out and said he was going to support tax reform and push for a Flat Tax, I'd be all for that and doing a happy dance (Seriously, as simple as it is, it really does sound interesting in the results. They actually believe it would return more revenue then our current tax system, and tax fraud would become nearly non-existent, because tax would be paid on anything bought and sold).

Flat taxes only serve to raise tax for the lower income brackets while giving a massive, massive tax cut to the rich. It's a bad idea no matter how you look at it. Also based on that last line you seem to be confusing a flat tax, that is an income tax where people pay the same percentage of their salary in tax regardless of income with a federal sales tax which would do away with income tax completely in favor of a new tax on everything bought and sold. Neither of which is a particularly good idea.

With the current tax system though, raising taxes in an already 'ailing' economy is the epitome of stupidity. Taxing corporations, small businesses and individuals or couples that make over $250,000 is not a ticket for success. These people are the people who create jobs, employ people and spend the most. That said, $250,000 is very arbitrary and rather on the low end of the scale, and yet depending on cost of living, investments and commitments aswell as a number of other factors, that doesn't necessarily mean they're rich.

Cutting taxes in the middle of a war is the epitome of stupidity. Also I'd point out that the trickle down economics, that is cutting taxes to people who "create jobs" has been tried twice. Reagan and Bushy both did it and both times did quite a bit of damage to the economy and created huge debt in the process.

Sure, someone might annually be making more then that, but they might only be living on say $40-60,000. The rest of it can be tied up in the costs of running their bussiness, and that's just 'getting by.' Well! Thankyou Mister Obama, raising their tax rate nearly 20% just put that person out of business and his three employs out of a job! -grins sarcastically with thumbs up- Great job! Yet he has the audacity to talk about 'creating new jobs' and keeping them!? But hey! Obama's now talking about perhaps keeping the tax cuts? Maybe he's wising up!

See that's why you don't skim money off the top when you own a business. You pay yourself a salary from your business. Keep your business expenses seperate from your personal expenses.

Hmmm... Energy... Well, can we say 'no win situation?' Especially if everyone actually wants to keep the economy going strong durring any transitional period? The inconveinent truth no one in the media wants to acknowledge, is we're STILL going to be using oil 50 years from now at the very least for transportation purposes. There are very few fuel sources that can drive 18-Wheelers or Passenger Jets. Those two means of transportation are virtually the backbone of our economy. Without it, people don't fly and goods don't make it to market. Fuel Cells and Electric just aren't there and they probably won't be for a very long time. Developing all sources of energy is the only option in my mind without coming off as blatantly hipocritcal, because gas is going to continue going up in price, regardless as long as we import. Yet Obama doesn't want to develope Oil or Nuclear. Which I don't get about the nuclear... Europe has massive amounts of nuclear power, and they recyle their nuclear waste! Why can't we?

Actually most 18 wheelers use diesel engines. The thing about them, they can run on a wide varity of fuels. Cars are a much bigger problem to find alternative fuels for. Though you're right, we are going to be using oil for quite some time. That makes drilling offshore for more oil now even worse. Think about it, do you want more domestic oil 10 years from now, which is how long it would take, when we still probably have a global surplus, or 20 years from now when the we've hit peak oil gloabally and can no longer produce as much, demand for the stuff is higher than ever, and wars are being fought over the remaining sources.

What we should be doing is building more solar, wind, and nuclear plants. Of course there's the issue of money. Raising taxes to cover the costs is one option, but I prefer a more ironic one, sell more coal to China. Of course that won't cover all of it, but it'd help in other areas too and create jobs in some of the poorest parts of the country.

And you know what I say to that!? It's probably a good thing I listen to different sources. Would it surprise you to know that I watch both CNN and Fox? I even lower myself to watch MSNBC occassionally, that I may stop soon after recent events. I also follow a number of different online sources aswell. I don't care if the Democrats have been more elaborate with the 'issues.' Because in all probability, elaborate solutions won't fix these problems, so they're nothing more then for show. That's the real world for ya! The Republicans have also been over the issues in their own way.

So it doesn't matter if the democrats have well thought out plans because they won't work anyway? Even if they won't, at least it shows they've been giving the matter some thought. Besides half the issues in this election the republicans not only don't have a plan for, Bushy created them in the first place.

Now, the question is, what sources do you go to? And how does their coverage compare to other sources? If it's fairly lopsided then, my question to you, is are you naive enough to believe your voting as an 'informed' voter, or are you nothing more then a talking voterslip that's been influenced to vote the way you will. Oh, absolutely, both Obama and McCain are full of shit. I just think Obama's trying sell us five times as much shit as McCain!

If your source is a cable news network, you're not informed. It doesn't matter which one either. Sure you could make a scale showing biases on each network, but bias really isn't as big an issue as it's made out to be. The real issue is how in depth the reports are. The major networks just don't have any. You'll get mainly talking points repeated over and over, but they don't follow up and look deeper.

If Obama and McCain are both full of shit as you say, why supposrt either of them then? Why not go with a third party candidate?

As for the Vice Presidential Debates, I'm eagerly looking forward to them! Because Joe Biden is a has-been and a loose cannon. Have you done any research on Sarah Palin? She didn't get where she is on the tailcoats of others. She's a smart, ambitous woman, and said to be a first-rate debater. Now, I will say, I would have loved to have seen a Hillary vs Palin debate... -sigh- I guess I won't be pulling out the popcorn and coke this time around....

I think we can agree the debates will be quite interesting. Though I doubt they'll go the way you think they will.

Actually I have done research on Sarah Palin, from the looks of it about as much as the McCain vetting commitee did, I googled her name. What I found I didn't like.

[Hari Michiru]

First of all, I'd like to say that I am not American, have no care about what happens to that country, and tend to lean more towards Obama.

Originally Posted by ElldenStorm

Now, personally, I don't care what Obama says about the war. Everyone wants to do this stupid dog and pony show about WMD, the wrong war at the wrong time and Lies, when the reality is clear. We're there now and we have a responsibilty. You want to tell the families of those who have died for that cause that their loved ones sacrafice was all for nothing? I don't! Because that is beyond unforgivable! Oh, and he was against the troop surge, but now he's acknowledged that it worked beyond all expectations... Hmmmm... As for the Economy, if Obama's elected, based on what littled I've learned in Economics 101, and both Micro and Macro Economics on the college level (All of which I got an A+ in, except Mirco... I got an A-), I fully expect our economy to go down the toilet if he's elected (And there are some really fucking smart economist out there who are quaking in their boots aswell).

If the troops really aren't working, then they should send them back. Heck, even if people did lose family there, there's no point in leaving the troops there if they aren't doing anything. That will result in more causalities. And more broken families. Also, the American economy isn't doing so hot anyway...

Originally Posted by ElldenStorm

Then what about his proposed Senate Bill to send nearly a TRILLION dollars to the U.N.?! Which is the most corrupt, most worthless organization in the world which isn't intent on doing the United States any favors. Yet he has the gall to talk about our National Debt like he actually cares!? THAT'S NEARLY A TRILLION DOLLARS!!! It would be almost an increase of 10% on the current debt! Has the man actually come out and said, "Oups, my bad, maybe that wasn't such a good idea!" NO! I'll keep our Trillion bucks, thankyou very much!

The U.N. isn't supposed to do any countries any favours. That would be illegal. Duh. And you don't have a trillion dollars to keep XD.

Originally Posted by ElldenStorm

In regards to Healthcare, sure, the system is busted as it is now, but you know, it's funny. For all our intelligence as 'supposedly' great Americans, we can't look at all the other nations in the world that have universal healthcare and realize a very simple fact. It doesn't work! Every nation with it is either cutting back benefits or going bankrupt on those systems! And the quality of the care provide is downright abysmal ontop of all that! I'll agree we need change there, but Obama's idea ain't the ticket! Oh sure, it sounds nice and looks great on paper, but the execution is an entirely different matter. And the notion that simply because were Americans, that we can make it work when others can't is purely delusional.

Universal health care is doing just fine in Canada...

Originally Posted by ElldenStorm

Hmmm... Energy... Well, can we say 'no win situation?' Especially if everyone actually wants to keep the economy going strong durring any transitional period? The inconveinent truth no one in the media wants to acknowledge, is we're STILL going to be using oil 50 years from now at the very least for transportation purposes. There are very few fuel sources that can drive 18-Wheelers or Passenger Jets. Those two means of transportation are virtually the backbone of our economy. Without it, people don't fly and goods don't make it to market. Fuel Cells and Electric just aren't there and they probably won't be for a very long time. Developing all sources of energy is the only option in my mind without coming off as blatantly hipocritcal, because gas is going to continue going up in price, regardless as long as we import. Yet Obama doesn't want to develope Oil or Nuclear. Which I don't get about the nuclear... Europe has massive amounts of nuclear power, and they recyle their nuclear waste! Why can't we?

If you develop oil or nuclear energy, the planet will be more polluted than it already is. You Americans laugh at China's pollution, but America isn't trailing far behind. We're going through the technological revolution right now, and cleaner options will come quickly.

[solomon]

I'll second Vexx's choices of news sources. You can be free to watch any news source you choose, but in all reality the cable news channels get worse and worse every year. The whole media bias thing is overblown half the time, all cable news is biased toward infotainment and useless information cause it can be marketable and entertaining and therefore profitable US broadcast news has always had this problem (all though less so before the 70s and 80s). If your gonna look at mainstream news sources, read the papers. That's really where the news MEAT is at, not tv and definetly not radio.

Debates should be fun.

I as of right now don't really care about Russia/Georgia. MAYBE I should but that's something of more immediate importance to the Black Sea states and Europe, average Joe Blow American who doesn't know his history about Slavic states and isn't paying attention to non US coverage of the issue really can't comment with any real wieght on it (I'm one of those americans by the way) cause it's more complicated than what the US media painted it as.

Palin yea she seems like a nice lady but this whole coat-tails of VP is overrated isn't it? Like how the Repubs have solidified with social conservatives ralling towards the ticket. Okay that's great, but seriously WHAT WILL BE DONE ABOUT IT. I never got what social conservatives really wanted outside of banning abortion and gay marriage, beyond that I see no real solid issues/arguments from em (those two alone seem iffy to me), let alone anything that can be legislated on.

I mean can someone tell me what the far right can really do beyond keeping homosexuals from having civil unions? Quite frankly, the whole culture wars thing is a tired political point cause aside from say child pronography (any sane person would be against that) and certain abortion issues the whole "moral/family values" crock is the biggest bunch of bull I've ever heard pushed into public sphere "debate".

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by ElldenStorm

And in regards to Palin, if I had any intention of continuing a debate on the subject, I'd ask you to cite the particulars. Because I don't believe she's that right-wing and I'm from Texas, I know right-wing when I see it... Give it time, she will do interviews before the election I'm sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if she does them before the VP debate. She hasn't to date yet, due to circumstances, and the fact that the media is currently completely off it's rocker... But hey! I love that catch phrase! 'Mom and apple pie!' LOL And I'd rather have a 'Mr. Wrapped in Flag' than communist little punk like Obama who thinks he deserves the highest office in the world because it's 'HIS' time! Anyway, you might want to check out some of the more recent of those polls, because there are some unexpected results being returned in respect to women voters. Even I'm abit surprised!

At bit off topic for this first point, but you just proved to me that you are the type of American that automatically labels communism as evil. Research, pl0x.

Also, I looked up Sarah Palin, and she really really really doesn't seem like the right person for the job. Seriously: billing the government for you and your families traveling expenses that aren't for work? Ebaying the jet you bought with government money? I don't know, but she seems suspicious...

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Defining Biden as a loose cannon may be not-off-the-mark but you err considerably in calling him a has-been given the power he exerts in the Senate. Thank you, I've done considerable research on Palin and the closer I look the farther rightwing she gets. Her own speeches and interviews put her there without any help from the left. Since the Republicans put her up as VP, the nation has not gotten to see a single unscripted word out of her - they want to paint her as "mom and apple pie" running with "Mr. Wrapped in Flag", not running on the opposite side of every issue the majority of women poll as.

Is she really that far away from the pulse of women's political thought?

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Source? I have not heard that. Even if true, Bushy added several trillion to the debt.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The current operating budget [of the UN] is estimated at $4.19 billion[.

So a trillion dollars would be about 200-250 times the current annual budget. How credible do you think is that?

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

So a trillion dollars would be about 200-250 times the current annual budget. How credible do you think is that?

Here's the non-wiki source for all the Wiki haters:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gaab3787.doc.htm

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

So a trillion dollars would be about 200-250 times the current annual budget. How credible do you think is that?

Not very, which is why I asked for a source rather than dismising it outright. It is entirely possible Obama proposed something radical like paying the money the US owes the UN, but misspoke on the number.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

As for the surge, it didn't work. The reason violence is down in Iraq was the Sunni militias switching sides. They did it before the surge was even thought of. Even if the surge did work, that doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's like a guy who bets his last $50 on a long shot in a horse race. If he wins great, but it was still a bad idea even if it worked out in the end. Saying well everything worked out in the end does not excuse the mistakes made in Iraq.

There were about a half dozen to a dozen things that happened at the same time as the surge happened (paying off high risk Iraqis, getting Al-Sadr to stop, etc). Some of these were slightly before and some were slightly after the troop increase. These combined factors are what made the surge "work". The surge by itself probably would have not worked and was not one of the bigger factors. The combination of all of these factors at the same time is what actually worked in semi-stabilizing Iraq.

One other factor is that Iraq basically fell out of the news. There are still daily bombings and other events. It is by no means peaceful there.