http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
I'm not really sure this "point" is ammo for your argument, but nice try anyway I guess...
I'm not really sure this "point" is ammo for your argument, but nice try anyway I guess...
-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2025 Smog Awards!
Election 2008, United States
- Thread starter Great Sage
- Start date
Please please give me some statistics on that. You know nothing of the issue. Saddam killed atleast a million of his own people.
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01EFDC1439F935A15752C0A9659C8B63
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239897,00.html
Please do some research before making a comment like that. Did you not know that he was executed for his crimes, and there certainly were not little crimes. And um, yeah a lot of the people that are getting killed are killed by the suicide bombers! The bombers are killing their own people because tehy dont care. You know nothing of the situation at all and Im tired of all these people making these stupid statements and everyone beleives them. The news is avaiable onliny for anyone to read.
Lincoln was able to run his election and the Civil War at the same time. I don't see why McCain can't multitask.
Friday's debate is supposed to be on foreign policy, McCain's strong point.
Instead, he's turning his back on Ole Miss (who spent a long time planning for this)
McCain was supposed to be on Letterman tonight. Instead he canceled and wants to run to Washington and fix the mess he's made from pushing for so much deregulation.
Turns out he went over to be interviewed with Katie Couric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E
Speaking of Katie, here's her interview with Palin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ
Heck of a job Sarah
okay can we shut up about regulation v.s. deregulation and understand that it's a little bit more than a campaign talking point
The fact is, some regulations are unfortunately neccesary (unfortunately because all government action is a distortion of the market) to prevent fraudulent banking practices, misrepresentation of goods and services, and so forth. However, a great deal of regulation is actually detrimental to business - increasing the costs of doing business as more time/resources must be devoted to satisfying often confusing, contradictory, expansive and oftentimes unneccesary regulations. Ideally, deregulation streamlines the process, opening up business to more people and expanding small business.
Deregulation works absolutely great for certain industries - commodities for example. Notice that the most deregulated industries - food and electronics are incredibly efficient, to the point that we can literally put the most high-end software of 2001 on a handheld or a cell phone by 2006, and that a decent meal (in terms of nourishment, not being "healthy") really costs 5 dollars - in an era of high inflation.
The problem is that while certain "deregulation" has made it easier for greedy/stupid bankers and bank institutions to do stupid things with other people's money, certain *regulations* (like the CRA) have promoted fiscal stupidity.
So don't say "regulation/deregulation is evil", be smart with what you regulate. (which is an entirely new discussion in itself)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ion_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election
Obama takes a 2% lead in North Carolina. Statistically insignificant, but still the first lead he's ever held in the state. I think the "3% string" has finally been shaken - and it's going in Obama's direction. Then again, this may all be related to the backlash against McCain's choice to postpone the debate - his numbers dropped in Rasmussen's tracking poll too.
Obama takes a 2% lead in North Carolina. Statistically insignificant, but still the first lead he's ever held in the state. I think the "3% string" has finally been shaken - and it's going in Obama's direction. Then again, this may all be related to the backlash against McCain's choice to postpone the debate - his numbers dropped in Rasmussen's tracking poll too.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110668/Gallup-Daily-Race-Back-Tie-46-Each.aspx
Gallup says McCain's decision was largely a wash, so far.
Gallup says McCain's decision was largely a wash, so far.
I suppose you would rather I cite the study showing 1.2 million dead? The numbers of the Lancet survey may, indeed, be somewhat inflated, however this seems tangential. Whether you accept the lower estimate of 151 000 deaths or a higher number, my only point was that the Iraqis have suffered badly from the invasion, contrary to Peanut-Lover's claim that they have not.
The methodology of the Lancet survey does seem to be valid though, judging from the expert opinions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#The_second_study_.282006.29
In other news, Palin is crazy and Obama is pushing for votes in the UK.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Rasmussen seems convinced that McCain's decision was an absolute disaster.
Rasmussen seems convinced that McCain's decision was an absolute disaster.
I always contended that we did WWII incorrectly - US + Britain destroy France as Hitler intended. French = [FAIL]
uh yeah
anyway, the debate. From what I can tell, there really proved to be no memorable moments here. Strangely, the people who watched it seem to actually believe that OBAMA won. This applies majorly for undecided voters as well. While this may prove to be false after the debate has had some media penetration and people have thought about it more, it still shows that Obama had a great outing and may have just put McCain away - barring some new development in the second or third debate.
anyway, the debate. From what I can tell, there really proved to be no memorable moments here. Strangely, the people who watched it seem to actually believe that OBAMA won. This applies majorly for undecided voters as well. While this may prove to be false after the debate has had some media penetration and people have thought about it more, it still shows that Obama had a great outing and may have just put McCain away - barring some new development in the second or third debate.
According to the fox news text message poll McCain beat Obama 84% to 14% =/
Anyway... yea, more legitimate sources say that independents sided more strongly with Obama than McCain (by like 10%). I think it was more a draw, possibly slight edge to Obama. McCain came off as an arrogant and condescending ass-hole, but spoke well most of the time. Obama proved he knows enough to be Commander in Chief, which is what mattered most in this debate. McCain's poll stats are sliding and he needed a strong performance last night. He didn't get it, even on the topic that's supposed to be his strongest. In that sense Obama was the winner last night.
Anyway... yea, more legitimate sources say that independents sided more strongly with Obama than McCain (by like 10%). I think it was more a draw, possibly slight edge to Obama. McCain came off as an arrogant and condescending ass-hole, but spoke well most of the time. Obama proved he knows enough to be Commander in Chief, which is what mattered most in this debate. McCain's poll stats are sliding and he needed a strong performance last night. He didn't get it, even on the topic that's supposed to be his strongest. In that sense Obama was the winner last night.
McCain seemed like he did a good job in trying to make Obama seem naive, but Obama stood his ground pretty well. Neither really left a good impression on me sadly, and they didn't really go into how they were going to adjust their plans to the economic crisis, even though they were asked about it. I hope the Biden/Palin debate isn't as fruitless, I could see Biden coming out as the victor but who knows, I hope Sarah surprises people. Still disappointed that the debate that mattered the most didn't help me in making my decision.
I'm going to Thailand. I'll have a job and cheap women.
Over here I have no job and women are expensive.
Well, overall though, they can't 'do' anything without the consent/approval of the congress, so on that question i felt when Obama gave points or guidelines it was more an actual answer.
You're right, and Obama did lay out a lot of economic guidelines, but as I recall he didn't say anything on how he was going to change plans based on recent events, he simply agreed that spending had to be reduced, as did McCain. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
EDIT: I have a question to ask for anyone, maybe a discussion could sprout from this, but what do you think is more important for our next president, foreign issues or domestic issues? Keep in mind that though we have a big economic crisis on our hands, the executive branch has more direct power over international affairs, as far as I have learned.
EDIT: I have a question to ask for anyone, maybe a discussion could sprout from this, but what do you think is more important for our next president, foreign issues or domestic issues? Keep in mind that though we have a big economic crisis on our hands, the executive branch has more direct power over international affairs, as far as I have learned.
If the economy keeps on heading the way it is, Canada will be one and the same with the US come 2009.
Domestic. Country First!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4837644.ece
McCain camp to use shotgun wedding as another political stunt
Here's the sad story of McCain's first wife
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
Both candidates will probably claim credit for negotiating the bailout to $250bn + $100bn if(!) needed.
My concern now is that if any bailout was to work, it would be better to overdo it than underdo it. The worst case scenario for spending too much public money is the banks laughing all the way to the... bank, but at least they would have a clean slate and the economy can start moving again.
However, the worst case scenario for spending too little is that it will have no effect whatsoever. Therefore, $350bn would have just been wasted and the system may collapse anyway. I am not convinced having oversight is automatically better either, because it will slow down any potential action by the authorities...
I hated the "big number" hysteria generated when people heard about the $700bn bailout. I blame the stigma associated with "toxic assets"; I guess "overvalued assets" is just not memorable enough. Good mortgages were packaged with bad mortgages to create these assets. Though the bad mortgages will likely default, the good mortgages will probably not. These "toxic assets" may return $0.65 (or more) to the dollar if held to maturity.
I think people misunderstood the bailout in any case. The media talked about a "blank cheque" which is probably the only two words (other than $700bn) that registered with the dopey American public. In short; banks do not trust each other's books. Nobody knows the value of collateral, so they are finding it impossible to borrow, and are reluctant to lend. Therefore, the state is buying all assets that are "difficult to value" to inject liquidity into the system. In my judgement, this is probably the least evil out of any realistic plans.
Edit: my other gripe is the term "taxpayers'" money, which is a complete misnomer. Once you pay your taxes, that money does not belong to you and the state is free to spend it as it pleases.
Edit2: expecting the private sector to step in to generate capital of its own (like some people suggest) when they know the authorities will buckle sooner or later (under pressure from the public to act) is plain naive and unrealistic.
My concern now is that if any bailout was to work, it would be better to overdo it than underdo it. The worst case scenario for spending too much public money is the banks laughing all the way to the... bank, but at least they would have a clean slate and the economy can start moving again.
However, the worst case scenario for spending too little is that it will have no effect whatsoever. Therefore, $350bn would have just been wasted and the system may collapse anyway. I am not convinced having oversight is automatically better either, because it will slow down any potential action by the authorities...
I hated the "big number" hysteria generated when people heard about the $700bn bailout. I blame the stigma associated with "toxic assets"; I guess "overvalued assets" is just not memorable enough. Good mortgages were packaged with bad mortgages to create these assets. Though the bad mortgages will likely default, the good mortgages will probably not. These "toxic assets" may return $0.65 (or more) to the dollar if held to maturity.
I think people misunderstood the bailout in any case. The media talked about a "blank cheque" which is probably the only two words (other than $700bn) that registered with the dopey American public. In short; banks do not trust each other's books. Nobody knows the value of collateral, so they are finding it impossible to borrow, and are reluctant to lend. Therefore, the state is buying all assets that are "difficult to value" to inject liquidity into the system. In my judgement, this is probably the least evil out of any realistic plans.
Edit: my other gripe is the term "taxpayers'" money, which is a complete misnomer. Once you pay your taxes, that money does not belong to you and the state is free to spend it as it pleases.
Edit2: expecting the private sector to step in to generate capital of its own (like some people suggest) when they know the authorities will buckle sooner or later (under pressure from the public to act) is plain naive and unrealistic.
Time for an election update! Most of this reflects the pre-debate state of affairs.
Safe Republican - Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska (1, 3), Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arizona
Standard set of solid states. Obama pulled out of North Dakota and Georgia, and I don't see much opportunity in these states anymore. Even if Palin's approval rating nosedives I doubt Obama carries Alaska. Obama would have to be winning by about 15% to carry even something like Arkansas.
Likely Republican - Montana, Nebraska-2, West Virginia
Obama would have to be winning by about 7-8% to carry these states (and congressional district). Montana would require a nosedive in Palin's numbers as well.
Leans Republican - Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina
At Obama's current 4-6% victory range, these states are within reach. Indiana might be a tough nut to crack, but Missouri has history going for it and NC has demographics going for it.
Toss-up - Virginia, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire
In a close election, these states could go either way. All of these states are fairly polarized so don't expect major victories for either side.
Leans Democratic - New Mexico, Colorado, Pennsylvania
If McCain is winning by 4%, he'll pick these up for sure. The likelihood of that? I'd say about 4%.
Likely Democratic/Safe Democratic - Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine (1, 2)
The difference between Likely Democratic and Safe Democratic is purely theoretical; unless Obama collapses, he'll win all of these without much effort.
Safe Republican - Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska (1, 3), Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arizona
Standard set of solid states. Obama pulled out of North Dakota and Georgia, and I don't see much opportunity in these states anymore. Even if Palin's approval rating nosedives I doubt Obama carries Alaska. Obama would have to be winning by about 15% to carry even something like Arkansas.
Likely Republican - Montana, Nebraska-2, West Virginia
Obama would have to be winning by about 7-8% to carry these states (and congressional district). Montana would require a nosedive in Palin's numbers as well.
Leans Republican - Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina
At Obama's current 4-6% victory range, these states are within reach. Indiana might be a tough nut to crack, but Missouri has history going for it and NC has demographics going for it.
Toss-up - Virginia, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire
In a close election, these states could go either way. All of these states are fairly polarized so don't expect major victories for either side.
Leans Democratic - New Mexico, Colorado, Pennsylvania
If McCain is winning by 4%, he'll pick these up for sure. The likelihood of that? I'd say about 4%.
Likely Democratic/Safe Democratic - Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine (1, 2)
The difference between Likely Democratic and Safe Democratic is purely theoretical; unless Obama collapses, he'll win all of these without much effort.
