• Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!

Election 2008, United States

Who would you vote for if the presidential race is held now?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 415 72.4%
  • John McCain

    Votes: 130 22.7%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 28 4.9%

  • Total voters
    573
I think that we should go to a big thing - funding that 2 trillion dollar salvation package for the irrespnsible retards, who were the original cause of market failure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Obama would like to lower taxes on those that don't pay anything, while he raising taxes on those that support the entire economy, casuing an even bigger recession.

Obama claims to be making a balanced tax plan, but the taxes on the wealthy won't bring in that much, as they will stop investing (thus no capital gains tax increase benefits), and that will lead to a bigger problem in the stock market (leading to even less capital gains tax).
 
McGraw's post sums up my opinions perfectly. While McCain is likely to become a fairly average president, I believe that Obama has the kind of charisma necessary to become a GREAT president. People lose sight of the fact that presidents are leaders, not managers - although a skilled manager is not always a bad thing (see: Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton). Still, the greatest presidents have been those who inspired, who gave hope to those who didn't have it before.

The most troubling part of the Obama campaign right now is that that spark seems to have vanished; ever since the Pennsylvania primary, Obama seems to have taken to heart some of the criticisms of his opponents that he is too "high and mighty" and needs to be more down-to-earth. I think this is looking at it the wrong way; being high and mighty is fine, as long as you do it in a way that connects to people. People LIKE presidents to have vision; but they want to feel that there's also a plan to reach that vision. Obama's message was spot-on - an end to partisan bickering, an end to the "culture wars", and a government that would be more responsive to the variety of problems that we face today. The problem is that the beef just wasn't there - Obama's bipartisan efforts have mostly been manifest in "easy stuff", the kind of bills that pass 500-2. It doesn't help that his opponent actually CAN claim that kind of record, and on hard stuff that alienated his own party. Granted, McCain seems to have turned his back on that history, and that has hurt him significantly.


If I were an Obama advisor, I would suggest dropping the populist silliness. It's not him and everyone knows it - especially those "blue collar" voters that everyone says he needs to win. He can't be John Edwards any more than Hillary Clinton could. What he needs to do is return to his vision - but do it in a way that feels grounded in reality. These points should be used a lot -

- Health care. Talk about the need for bipartisan health care reform. Health care costs are spiraling and, for the lower middle class, eating up huge portions of their paychecks (not to mention our federal budget and driving up our debt). McCain's "plan" is a joke; this should be an easy victory.

- Restoration of presidential oversight and accountability. Promise to undo a lot of the secrecy that has been rife in the Bush administration. Point out that Palin has suddenly started evading the troopergate issue and link it to Dick Cheney. This should play well in places like Montana, where there is opposition to the federal government's power-grabs and secrecy in recent years.

- Show some spine on foreign policy. Henry Kissinger (an informal McCain adviser) endorsed the concept of talking to foreign enemies. George Bush has endorsed his position on bombing targets in Pakistan. When it comes to foreign policy, nuance simply doesn't work. Instead of babbling over the difference between "preparation" and "preconditions", say what Iran would actually need to do before you would consider high-level talks.

- Promise a compromise on energy that has REAL drilling - not the "hey guys, let's drill where there's no oil!" BS that Pelosi and Reed are trying. Everyone is seeing through that and it's going to cost you. Obama needs to find a way to put some air in between him and Pelosi and Reed, who have toxic numbers at a national level. The Gang of 10 compromise is a good start, but that will probably fall to GOP strong-arm tactics and leave us with no energy policy until next year. This puts Obama on the side of change and the voters while putting him against the left wing of his party. That's a win-win, I think.

- Use Biden more. I read a story about Biden and his way with people and it made me smile - he's a great guy and he connects well with people. Craft a two-person message that combines his connections to your vision. As an advantage, nothing defuses worries about inexperience more than a co-presidency with someone with 36 years of experience (which is generally why a lot of people hoped for Hillary).


That's kind of a starting list, and IMO maybe it's not all great advice - I'm sure he knows things I don't, but still, having studied presidents in the past, I think I know some useful things about what gets people elected.
 
If you want something really interesting about Palin, I highly suggest you watch this video.

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

Apparently, she believes in witchcraft.

Funny, I thought the most recent accusation was that she's a Bible-thumper.

You guys have got to keep your stories straight. I mean, at least I'm consistent about harping on Obama's choice of church for 22 years.

Meanwhile, Obama has from his own mouth promised to slash out military advancement. specifically future combat systems:

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

Actually, considering the heading for it (Why Obama MUST be President), I imagine you were the one who posted it.

I also hear Palin has a tanning bed. Bad Material Wealth, Bad Prosperity! Equal Misery Now!


That is some of the most base-less stuff I've ever seen. What makes you think that Bill Clinton would let terrorists bomb New York? Oh yeah, he's a democrat.

No unceunce. See, this is why I shouldn't even bother posting in this topic. It is obvious to me that all I will get in contrariness and stupidity.

WTC 1993 Look it up.


1993:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Look, maybe you haven't figured it out, but just because I loathe the current state of the worthless Democratic Party, I'm not going to accuse anyone of anything that didn't actually happen, nor use hearsay and conjecture from one source out to make a name for themself. See, I would have assumed the 1993 WTC bombing was common knowledge. My bad.

Speaking of human disingenuousness Luduan, I seem to recall a certain Senator John Kerry making statements similar to former Staff Sergeant Massey. Reminiscent of Genghis Khan and all that. Democracy Now is not a neutral site, it is fervently anti-war, anti-bush, and has no qualms fabricating stories to suit its agenda. They're the same kind of people that spat on Vietnam Vets and held the mantra "Peace at any cost."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now!

Notable Guests said:
Notable guests, interviews, and on-air debates

* Tariq Ali and Christopher Hitchens — took opposing sides in two debates over the Iraq War, in December 4, 2003[1] and October 12, 2004.[2]
* Jean-Bertrand Aristide - Interviewed on March 16, 2004, The recently ousted Haitian President accused the United States of kidnapping him and overthrowing the government of Haiti.[3]
* Lori Berenson — Interviewed in 1999 in Peru by Amy Goodman; political activist arrested in 1995 on suspicion of collaborating with the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, a Peruvian leftist guerrilla organization. It was the first time a journalist was able to interview Berenson inside the prison where she was incarcerated.[4]
* Jimmy Carter — Interviewed by Amy Goodman on 10 September 2007; former US President: author of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.[5]
* Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela — Interviewed by Amy Goodman in September 2005.[6]
* Noam Chomsky — A regularly interviewed guest; MIT linguistics professor, political analyst, and author.[7]
* Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States — Interviewed by Amy Goodman on November 7, 2000.[6] The White House press office had lined up a series of short, routine, election-day interviews with local news outlets. But in this interview, which extended to nearly 30 minutes, Clinton was confronted with a series of pointed questions that compelled him to defend his record on a wide array of issues, with Clinton at one point complaining that Goodman had been "hostile and combative."[7][8]
* Alan Dershowitz and Norman G. Finkelstein — Finkelstein is a frequent guest. This was a much publicised debate about whether the Dershowitz book, The Case for Israel was plagiarised and inaccurate. Dershowitz has written that he agreed to appear on the show after being told he would debate Noam Chomsky, not Finkelstein.[8]
* Michael Eric Dyson — Regular guest; Georgetown professor, writer & radio host.
* Robert Fisk — Frequent guest; prominent and controversial British journalist who currently serves as a Middle East correspondent for The Independent.
* Danny Glover — Regular guest; American actor, film director, and political activist.
* Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve — Interviewed by Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein, journalist and author of The Shock Doctrine, September 24, 2007.[9] In a follow-up interview, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele, based on their October 2007 article in Vanity Fair[10], call Greenspan "flat wrong" regarding claims by Greenspan in that interview denying Federal Reserve responsibility in the transfer of billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve to Iraq, $9 billion of which the reporters claim has yet to be accounted.[11]
* Dennis Kucinich, Democratic Presidential candidate — Interviewed by Goodman and Gonzalez on November 9th, 2007.[9]
* Evo Morales - Interviewed on September 22nd, 2006; the president of Bolivia talked about his recent speech at the United Nations in New York where he held up a coca leaf and argued for international drug law reform as well as talked about the nationalization of Bolivia's energy reserves among other topics.[10]
* Bill Moyers — Interviewed by Amy Goodman; former host of the PBS show NOW with Bill Moyers and currently the host of the PBS show Bill Moyers' Journal.[11]
* Yoko Ono — Musician, peace activist and widow of John Lennon. Interviewed by Amy Goodman on October 16, 2007.[12]
* Greg Palast — Frequent guest; US-born writer and investigative journalist for the BBC and The Observer.
* Scott Ritter — Interviewed by Amy Goodman; former UN weapons inspector who disputed the Bush administration's claims about weapons programs in Iraq.[13]
* Arundhati Roy — Recurring guest; Indian writer, anti-war activist, and leading figure in the alter-globalization movement
* Edward Said — was a regular guest; Columbia University professor, literary critic and Palestinian activist and intellectual.
* Howard Zinn — Interviewed by Amy Goodman; historian and activist; author of several books, including A People's History of the United States.[14]

Hmm... It seems Democracy Now is very committed to a certain veiwpoint. Namely that of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, radical communists with a reputation for revisionist history. With a few exceptions for their debates, all of their programming appears to be heavily left-leaning.

Posting up a list of Link References makes it look bulletproof, but all it brings is the appearance of heft. Go behind the links and you'll see its nothing but a bulleted list of talking points and surface-level analysis.

Terrible things do happen in war, but the US military does not intentionally target civilians. That is a losing strategy, and would be self-defeating. The idea anyone would argue otherwise doesn't pass the smell test. Have their been mistakes? There are always mistakes. War is ugly, John McCain knows that. Barack Obama doesn't and yet has claimed he will invade Pakistan on at least one occasion.

Before anyone responds with what amounts to "No Way! Obama stands for Peace, Justice, and Truth!," Just Google it first. I'm not going to do your groundwork for you.
 
Obama is just as much of a war mongering fuck as any president since the Federal Reserve took over this nation. If he becomes president, Pakistan gets invaded, more troops go into Afghanistan, and troops move into Iran.
 
Ambitions, are you a paleo-conservative? I thought I was the only one on Smogon who hates the Fed.

fuck 90% inflation since the fed's inception.

Also, don't forget the moral hazard!

But yeah, I honestly do feel that for all his potential to inspire, Obama in terms of substance does not differ significantly from Bush.
 
Ancien said:
Ambitions, are you a paleo-conservative? I thought I was the only one on Smogon who hates the Fed.

fuck 90% inflation since the fed's inception.

Also, don't forget the moral hazard!

But yeah, I honestly do feel that for all his potential to inspire, Obama in terms of substance does not differ significantly from Bush.

Few posts put a smile on my face such as this did.
 
WTC 1993 Look it up.

1993:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

Look, maybe you haven't figured it out, but just because I loathe the current state of the worthless Democratic Party, I'm not going to accuse anyone of anything that didn't actually happen, nor use hearsay and conjecture from one source out to make a name for themself. See, I would have assumed the 1993 WTC bombing was common knowledge. My bad.

See, thats why I don't like speaking with assholes not familiar with history. Those who praise JFK for all of the wonderful things he did, need to look at Johnson for the reality - JFK's proposals didn't pass with JFK alive. JFK got things fucked up with his proposals - most of them were cancelled, if I recall correctly from my US History book.

Why do I mention this? Because people overlook the fact that Clinton was a failure in international affairs. WTC was an international affair - not many died, but he failed to pursue those responsible for a good amount of time. Oh, and in case you don't know, Bin Laden was within range under his presidency - a sniper had him dead center. Clinton gave the order to not fire. Here's a list of his royal fuckups, including housing fuck up he made by forcing banks to lend money to the untrustworthy people: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/S...&bn=4476&tid=4825246&mid=4825258&tof=14&frt=2


Speaking of human disingenuousness Luduan, I seem to recall a certain Senator John Kerry making statements similar to former Staff Sergeant Massey. Reminiscent of Genghis Khan and all that. Democracy Now is not a neutral site, it is fervently anti-war, anti-bush, and has no qualms fabricating stories to suit its agenda. They're the same kind of people that spat on Vietnam Vets and held the mantra "Peace at any cost."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now!



Hmm... It seems Democracy Now is very committed to a certain veiwpoint. Namely that of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, radical communists with a reputation for revisionist history. With a few exceptions for their debates, all of their programming appears to be heavily left-leaning.

Posting up a list of Link References makes it look bulletproof, but all it brings is the appearance of theft. Go behind the links and you'll see its nothing but a bulleted list of talking points and surface-level analysis.

Terrible things do happen in war, but the US military does not intentionally target civilians. That is a losing strategy, and would be self-defeating. The idea anyone would argue otherwise doesn't pass the smell test.

I seem to recall stories of WWII where we didn't slaughter civilians as a result of Geneva - remember when the Japs surrendered, or better yet came forth as civillians? We accepted them, and they blew themselves up. Remember early postwar Iraq? "Civilians" drove their cars into barricades and blew themselves up.

Have their been mistakes? There are always mistakes. War is ugly, John McCain knows that. Barack Obama doesn't and yet has claimed he will invade Pakistan on at least one occasion.

Before anyone responds with what amounts to "No Way! Obama stands for Peace, Justice, and Truth!," Just Google it first. I'm not going to do your groundwork for you.

I'll save that harrowing search of three seconds:
From Australian press: http://www.theage.com.au/national/obama-may-want-more-troops-in-afghanistan-20080912-4fiv.html
British press: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2651607/Barack-Obama-will-appeal-to-European-voters-to-get-more-troops-for-Afghanistan.html
Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/489/

The list goes on
 
Funny, I thought the most recent accusation was that she's a Bible-thumper.

You guys have got to keep your stories straight. I mean, at least I'm consistent about harping on Obama's choice of church for 22 years.

ROFL! You didn't watch the video. Her pastor is known to call people witches and threaten to kill them with mobs. Once again, your response is like proudly wearing ignorance as a badge of honor.

Meanwhile, Obama has from his own mouth promised to slash out military advancement. specifically future combat systems:

That would be amazingly wonderful, considering the military expenditure now is greater than the rest of the world combined.
 
The problem with our military is that it for the most part is a beefed up version of a WWII conventional military - when that's pretty much the opposite of what we need. Big tanks and battleships look awesome, but for the challenges we face, they're pretty much useless. We could slash our conventional resources by half and still solo the entire planet with ease - that's how powerful our military is. Actually, we could probably still do it after slashing 75%.

We spend too much on conventional WWII/Cold War tech (granted upgraded, but it's still the same fundamental concepts) and not enough developing systems that would be more useful in combatting guerilla terrorism (which is the only military strategy that could be remotely successsful against our military)
 
I considered that to be the case for a long time... until the Russia-Georgia War. Granted, Russia's military is still a shadow of its former self, but it's hard to claim that conventional warfare is dead yet.
 
I wouldn't say it's dead either - but considering the sheer overkill that is the United States military in terms of size, technology and training, we could definitely afford to cut it down in order to fix the budget, especially since if the 2050 financial armageddon happens (i.e. the federal government going from "broke" to "flat broke", the entitlements go bellyup, inflation increases, and the creditor nations deciding to stop financing our debt), we likely won't have much of a military period :(

Yes. It. Could. Be. That. Bad.
 
Speaking of human disingenuousness Luduan, I seem to recall a certain Senator John Kerry making statements similar to former Staff Sergeant Massey. Reminiscent of Genghis Khan and all that. Democracy Now is not a neutral site, it is fervently anti-war, anti-bush, and has no qualms fabricating stories to suit its agenda. They're the same kind of people that spat on Vietnam Vets and held the mantra "Peace at any cost."

I never claimed Democracy Now! is a neutral media outlet; I am perfectly well aware that it is left-leaning. However, attacking the objectivity of the medium that ran the interview simply distracts from the content of the interview: it is the opinion of the former Marine SSgt I was referencing, not that of Democracy Now! I would be grateful if you actually provided examples/proof of their fabricating stories, because that is something I have never heard.

Hmm... It seems Democracy Now is very committed to a certain veiwpoint. Namely that of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, radical communists with a reputation for revisionist history. With a few exceptions for their debates, all of their programming appears to be heavily left-leaning.

I do not know whether or not Prof Zinn is a "communist," my only experience with him having been A People's History, but Prof Chomsky is not, especially the type of state socialist you use the term to describe. His political ideology more closely mirrors that of Anarcho-Syndicalism or Libertarian Socialism (yes, the evil "S" word).

Posting up a list of Link References makes it look bulletproof, but all it brings is the appearance of theft.

"The appearance of theft"? You mean because I actually cite sources to back up my assertions, rather than simply composing hate-filled tirades full of hyperbolic analogies, misused terminology, ad hominem attacks, and unsubstantiated allegations?

Go behind the links and you'll see its nothing but a bulleted list of talking points and surface-level analysis.

Yes, because reports of human rights violations and the illegality of the Iraq War (from Richard Perle, no less) are "talking points" and "surface-level analysis". The only one of my claims that you have actually challenged is the interview, which you did by attacking the objectivity of the organization that conducted it, rather than its contents.
 
Oil rose TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS A BARREL today, before dropping a bit and ending up $16. I knew the fed's plan was inflationary as hell.
 
Creating the Federal Reserve was not a terrible idea per se, because it greatly improved liquidity; without which, I would wager that postwar America would not nearly have grown so quickly. However, to allow a Chairman who loved to print money (Greenspan) to be succeeded by an academic who only knows how to print money (Bernanke) was an appalling misjudgement.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama moved to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in a roiling economy, vowing on Monday to slash federal spending on contractors by 10 percent and saving $40 billion.

Don't be fooled by such simple political tricks. In context, $40 billion accounts for ~0.0138% of fiscal spending from October 2007 to September 2008 (which totalled $2.9 trillion). The move is nothing more than a token gesture to woo ordinary folk who read "big number" and think it will make a difference.
 
$40 billion isn't a bad number compared to a $500 billion deficit, though. It's better than McCain's claim to deficit-fighting by cutting $17 billion worth of earmarks.
 
Creating the Federal Reserve was not a terrible idea per se, because it greatly improved liquidity; without which, I would wager that postwar America would not nearly have grown so quickly. However, to allow a Chairman who loved to print money (Greenspan) to be succeeded by an academic who only knows how to print money (Bernanke) was an appalling misjudgement.

Well, aside from its blatant unconstitutionality and the fact that its loose credit policies and rampant inflation in the 20s paved the way for the Depression in the 30s (i hate to beat a dead horse but "sound familiar?"), one must beg the question that "is the massive boom worth the massive bust after?"

well, depends on when you grow up - the bust is primed to occur in my prime working years so obviously i'm not very happy!

and yeah, I've thoroughly divested myself of the notion that McCain will cut spending or actually do anything to fix the economy.

Even if Obama is serious about actually cutting spending, the most leftist congress in the history of this country won't let him. Unlike Clinton, there's no Perot to force the candidates to rein in spending, and there's no Gingrich to subliminate that message and force Clinton to compromise. Unless Obama is willing to consistently veto the excesses of the Pelosi/Reid Congress, spending will balloon.

I wish Paul could have been that Perot-type but in reality, neither party can do the same thing with his policies - sadly, people see the Fed as being part of the solution, not the problem
 
"is the massive boom worth the massive bust after?"

In a word, "yes". The great depression remains an anomaly. Subsequent busts have been much shorter than their proceeding/succeeding booms (except the 1981-82 contraction). Consider also that growth is exponential, so the expected long term outcome compares favourably to a more consistent/gradual growth rate.

Recession should not strike such fear in people... it is like a spring clean; streamlining inefficient businesses and eliminating failing ones (Darwin would be proud). I think the fact that many freak at the mere mention of the word is indicative of how pervasive short termism is. Instead of hoping it will never rain, buy an umbrella.
 
It will be interesting to see if that coward shows up to face Obama.

That's right, I'm calling McCain a coward for backing out.

In what logical universe would McCain back out from a debate where he basically stones Obama? Obama doesn't even know how many states there are in the US, he's been quoted as visiting 57, before Alaska and Hawaii. He makes Dan Quayle look like Winston Churchill.

Actually what McCain is doing is acting over Obama's head. Just yesterday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked McCain for leadership, and McCain delivered it to him. Now Reid is backtracking. Obama never even entered the equation because he's such a non-factor on anything of any importance.

Oh, and for just one example Luduan, your first link on your references points to an article basically saying the 600,000 is an extrapolation based on sparse, basically unprovable estimates gathered from major metropolitan areas It also factors in deaths from natural causes and domestic violence. In short, 600,000 is just a BSN: Big Scary Number. It has no basis in reality other than it sounds nice. It is an inflation of a estimation using poor methodology. It'd be like saying the total deaths in New York City were 100,000 since September 11th. Such a number would take the deaths that occurred that particular day and then add the natural deaths and murders over the following seven years. It doesn't grasp what it is supposed to grasp, but it makes for a great public service announcement.

Also Smogoners, do not forget to pick up your Barack Obama limited edition coins. They bear the likeness of The Chosen One with "President of the United States 2008."

http://www.birminghampost.net/birmi...arack-obama-presidential-coin-65233-21832869/

6C2482D8-9916-2B49-0AD35BCD7C147EB5.jpg

Most people wait until the actually have power before approving graven images of their likeness. That's just too much to ask for The Chosen One, who has his own Presidential Seal and various other Glorious Leader Agitprop.

I will laugh so hard when this man loses. Hopefully I can pick up one of these coins so that, for the rest of my life, I can mock the least qualified, most arrogant man to ever run for President of the United States. He certainly won't look like all the Presidents of the Dollar Bills, because he will have a Dollar Bill Coin struck in his image when he has never become President.

Historical Note: Julius Caesar started printing his image on coins just before the Roman Empire began its decline.
 
Back
Top