President Poll

[joruussuun]

OK, it's been a few weeks, and I think it's time for another poll.
This is such an exciting time in politics!

Who will be the next President of the United States of America?

The poll is anonymous, so tell the truth.

If you feel like explaining, tell us who you chose and if that person is different than the person you want.

I've been a big fan of Obama since 2004. I finished his first book and am currently into his second one and have been following all the political news closely. I've NEVER been paying attention this much before, and it took Obama to do that for me. I think he's what we need to put us back on track, restore our image, and heal. I'm going ahead and naming him The Great Healer. Yes, I'm probably a zealot... like I said though, I've never had such a fervor for politics before him though.

So yeah,
Want to win: Obama
Will win: Obama (especially since he's been gaining a ton of momentum lately.)
Will settle for: Vice President Obama. He still has plenty of time, and after a couple of terms of VP, nobody'll be complaining about a so-called "lack of experience". (Though what they call "lack of experience", I call more eager to please the people than the Washington Movers and Shakers.)


EDIT: BTW, before Bush, I was closer to the line between Dem and Rep, and was a big fan of McCain (the only politician I ever liked before Obama). But now I consider myself more Democratic, and think McCain may have lost his chance due to current administration and age.

EDIT2: I've mentioned this before in another thread, but Huckabee should not win the nomination (and doesn't look like he will, so good). The President should NEVER be a preacher IMO.

[Baron Samedi]

Paul, but I wouldn't mind Obama. McCain wouldn't be too shabby either.

[EternalGamer]

I want it to be Clinton (nothing against Obama, I just like her policies better), but I'm pretty convinced at this point that Obama will win the Democratic primary, and, by default, the election. But that's fine by me as well. I think Obama would do a fine job, I just think Clinton would do better.

[Heretic Machine]

I'd like an Obama/Edwards ticket. I'd settle for Obama/Clinton. If it comes down to Clinton/(anyone) I'll either stay home or vote Republican out of spite, regardless of who gets the nomination (unless it's Huckabee... in which case, I'll start trying to figure out a way to move to the Netherlands.)

I answered Obama for the poll, but I'd say that there is only a 40% chance of that happening (that's mostly just a guess based on the feeling I'm getting from things). If he wins over Clinton in the primary, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't think the Republicans have any kind of decent chance of winning at all, regardless of who they nominate.

[joruussuun]

I want it to be Clinton, but I'm pretty convinced at this point that Obama will win the Democratic primary, and, by default, the election. And I'm not too unhappy with him, either. I would just prefer Clinton.

Ah, but you mentioned in the other thread you'd settle for a VP Clinton. I think that would be great (and a guaranteed win), but I just don't think Clinton would settle for being VP.

[EternalGamer]

Paul, but I wouldn't mind Obama. McCain wouldn't be too shabby either.

Paul? The question is who WILL win. Paul's a cute and nonoffensive sideshow but really, he doesn't have a shot.

[Baron Samedi]

Paul? The question is who WILL win. Paul's a cute and nonoffensive sideshow but really, he doesn't have a shot.

Why does that matter?

[EternalGamer]

Ah, but you mentioned in the other thread you'd settle for a VP Clinton. I think that would be great (and a guaranteed win), but I just don't think Clinton would settle for being VP.


I don't either. VP really only works for weaker candidates that want to strenghen their chances for the next go around. For candidates as prominent as Clinton and Obama, it is far too risky to tie yourself to an administration that way. You are better off biding your time.

[EternalGamer]

Why does that matter?

I guess it doesn't. If you want to ignore the poll question, go right ahead. :p

[Heretic Machine]

Why does that matter?

...Because the poll asks who will win, not who you want to win (though that is an implied part of what you should post). Paul isn't going to win.

[Baron Samedi]

Fair enough. I stand corrected in my reading skills. Looks like the waters are becoming clear. We'll know for sure come tomorrow.

[Heretic Machine]

Fair enough. I stand corrected in my reading skills. Looks like the waters are becoming clear. We'll know for sure come tomorrow.

Don't worry about it, I showed some bias in my answer too.

[EternalGamer]

I'd like an Obama/Edwards ticket. I'd settle for Obama/Clinton. If it comes down to Clinton/(anyone) I'll either stay home or vote Republican out of spite, regardless of who gets the nomination (unless it's Huckabee... in which case, I'll start trying to figure out a way to move to the Netherlands.)



Um, Clinton and Obama's policies are pretty close to identical on all but a few points. And even then it is just different approaches and not radically different thinking. So you would vote for Obama and you hope he wins, but if Clinton you'll vote for a nominee you completely disagree with? Elections are not supposed to be highschool popularity contests. Vote for the policies not the person you want a beer with.

[joruussuun]

For the people who voted for McCain (or other Republicans), what are the chances America is going to vote Republican after two terms of Bush?

[Wraith]

Hopefully McCain. Though I hope Obama takes the Dem nomination. McCain vs. Obama may be a closer race, but I just don't want Hillary in the contest.

Haven't been that impressed with Romney, but I don't think he'd make a bad VP. McCain/Pawlenty maybe.

I really hope it's not Romney vs. Hillary, in the end. (But at least it won't be Rudy vs. Hillary.)

[Baron Samedi]

For the people who voted for McCain (or other Republicans), what are the chances America is going to vote Republican after two terms of Bush?

McCain has a better chance in the primaries, but I think Paul has a better chance for the election. McCain comes off as just a nice old-timer, but falls flat on a per issue basis. Chances are, the Reps will lose on Bush alone.

[Mattism]

For the people who voted for McCain (or other Republicans), what are the chances America is going to vote Republican after two terms of Bush?

Stranger things have happened especially if Hillary gets the nod.

[Wraith]

For the people who voted for McCain (or other Republicans), what are the chances America is going to vote Republican after two terms of Bush?What are the chances that America is going to vote for Bush after one term of Bush?

[Heretic Machine]

Um, Clinton and Obama's policies are pretty close to identical on all but a few points. And even then it is just different approaches and not radically different thinking. So you would vote for Obama and you hope he wins, but if Clinton you'll vote for a nominee you completely disagree with? Elections are not supposed to be highschool popularity contests. Vote for the policies not the person you want a beer with.

I've seen their policies, they seem pretty fucking different to me, especially where it counts (like health care). And no, I don't trust Clinton, not even a little. On top of that, the only office she has ever been elected to is as a senator for New York, and I think she has been a joke in that position from what I've observed. I have absolutely no faith in her ability to do anything but grab power for herself.

McCain has a better chance in the primaries, but I think Paul has a better chance for the election. McCain comes off as just a nice old-timer, but falls flat on a per issue basis. Chances are, the Reps will lose on Bush alone.

It doesn't help that the very moment the primaries are over, more voters are going to start hearing his fighting terrorism is more important than saving the economy shtick. If we actually elect that guy when he's saying stuff like that, it'll be time to abandon ship.

[EternalGamer]

I really hope it's not Romney vs. Hillary, in the end.

Ironically, this is the one scenario where I would be concerned the democrats could lose.

[EternalGamer]

I've seen their policies, they seem pretty fucking different to me, especially where it counts (like health care). And no, I don't trust Clinton, not even a little. On top of that, the only office she has ever been elected to is as a senator for New York, and I think she has been a joke in that position from what I've observed. I have absolutely no faith in her ability to do anything but grab power for herself.

Ah, it is the "power hungry bitch" argument.

[joruussuun]

Also, does anyone else feel that McCain will pick Giuliani as running mate? I don't know why it took me so long to see, but it just jumped at me over the weekend.

[Baron Samedi]

Ah, it is the "power hungry bitch" argument.

Okay, then why would you vote for Hilary?

[torrefaction]

Eh. Doubt the Republicans will see a win. As much as I don't want a Democrat in office, I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. Between Romney and McCain. It's funny...if he hadn't started to toe the party line as much as he did for the past 8 years, I would've been happy about it. I used to really like McCain, but I'm not really sure how I feel about him as President.

If it's Romney Vs. Clinton, I'll be voting for Clinton. And then I'll be gargling with Listerine once an hour for the next 4 years.

I'm calling it for Obama, which I don't like at all. I think Obama is full of hot air and rhetoric.

[torrefaction]

Ironically, this is the one scenario where I would be concerned the democrats could lose.

That's funny, because it's the one scenario that would ensure I'd vote for a Democrat.

[Wraith]

Also, does anyone else feel that McCain will pick Giuliani as running mate? I don't know why it took me so long to see, but it just jumped at me over the weekend.Would this win him New York? I honestly don't know, I'm just wondering.

[Heretic Machine]

Ah, it is the "power hungry bitch" argument.

Her policies are shit. Her track record is shit. Her personality is shit. Her motives are questionable, at best. What is there to vote for? She runs based on what's between her legs, and what is on the end of her name. To me, those two things just don't come together to make a good presidential candidate.

[Inverarity]

Okay, could one of the two people (at this point) who voted for Ron Paul please provide some sort of explanation? As I read it, the poll is a prediction of who *will* win, not who you want to win, and I can see a path to the White House (however far-fetched) for everyone on that list but Paul.

I realize that I'm inviting chaos by actually inviting Ron Paul supporters to post when they have no trouble butting into every political discussion on their own. But there's a difference between pulling the lever for someone on principle (which I admire) and actually thinking they have a realistic chance of winning.

[Ancalagon]

Will someone please enlighten a non US citizen on what the different candidates stand for?

Huckabee I know is a Christian conservative.

In particular, what do Obama and Clinton stand for?

[Telefrog]

Okay, could one of the two people (at this point) who voted for Ron Paul please provide some sort of explanation? As I read it, the poll is a prediction of who *will* win, not who you want to win, and I can see a path to the White House (however far-fetched) for everyone on that list but Paul.

I realize that I'm inviting chaos by actually inviting Ron Paul supporters to post when they have no trouble butting into every political discussion on their own. But there's a difference between pulling the lever for someone on principle (which I admire) and actually thinking they have a realistic chance of winning.

Oh, Hell. Put on your flame-retardent suit. Here it comes...

[joruussuun]

Also, has anyone besides me read Obama's books? Or even Clinton's? It's good to research your candidate, and the books offer personal insight you don't get from watching the news.

[Heretic Machine]

Will someone please enlighten a non US citizen on what the different candidates stand for?

Huckabee I know is a Christian conservative.

In particular, what do Obama and Clinton stand for?

Obama is a (relatively) left-leaning candidate, while Clinton floats towards the middle. That is a simplified response, and if you really want to know the big differences I can probably dig up an article for you.

McCain is a gung-ho military guy who seems to be focusing heavily on fighting terrorism. Romney is a former corporate tool who is going to focus on the economy, which can be a good or a bad thing, depending on how much you trust a corporate tool. Huckabee is a religious nut with a few good ideas (I like the idea of taxing what you buy instead of what you make, on principal, but have no idea about what it would mean for us), but he is a nut, and probably won't get elected based on that fact alone (nor should he).

[Baron Samedi]

Also, has anyone besides me read Obama's books? Or even Clinton's? It's good to research your candidate, and the books offer personal insight you don't get from watching the news.

Obama's delivered 4000 babies! :rolleyes:

[Inverarity]

Oh, Hell. Put on your flame-retardent suit. Here it comes...
Yeah, I know, not my best idea ever. But still, I'm hoping that the folks around here will have more reasoned opinions and ability to carry on a conversation than you find in most other forums. Call me an optimist.

[EternalGamer]

Okay, then why would you vote for Hilary?

Because I don't think she is a "power hungry bitch." Yeah, she is ambitious and wants power to change things, but that is no different than any of the other (male) politicians. I really do think there is barely implicit sexism at work in those types of comments.

Overall, I do believe that most politicians are sincere in wanting to change the world for the better, on both sides of the aisle. I know it's cooler to be completely cynical, and it certainly the load of bullshit the media feeds us. Everytime there is a debate the "political analyst" will start talking about posturing and the "strategies" the candidates are using. With that type of rhetoric floating around in all the media, it is easy to see how people do become cynical and believe that politicians are all power hungry slimeballs. But I don't buy it.

If there is a villian in this scenario, I think it's the media. It's because they are too full of cowardice to actually spend any time analyzing the value of someone's ideas or arguments. They might be percieved as showing a "bias" if they do. So instead, they spend their time talking about how the candidates reacted, how they look, how people think about them, how they are strategizing. In short, they talk about everything except the value of their ideas. And they do so because they are too afraid to actually say when they think someone presents a good argument or when someone else presents a bad one.

As a result, the media rejects the idea that elections are about a battle of ideas. They instead empty out the discussion and just turn it into a brute battle for power and mind control of the American public. It's really insulting to both the politicians and the public and we shouldn't put up with their bullshit. Everytime CNN starts using boxing rhetoric or throws up their stupid ads about the "Ballot Bowl" I want to throw stuff at the television.

[joruussuun]

Obama's delivered 4000 babies! :rolleyes:

It's also not a widely known fact that he saved America from the scheming of a mad, bald man who wanted to create a new land in the middle of the Atlantic, flooding the USA and killing BILLIONS. :rolleyes:

[Telefrog]

Yeah, I know, not my best idea ever. But still, I'm hoping that the folks around here will have more reasoned opinions and ability to carry on a conversation than you find in most other forums. Call me an optimist.

Politics + EvAv = reasoned opinions? Yikes!

Seriously though, some of the best debates I've ever had have been on EvAv, so there's still hope. In my experience, trying to get hardcore (diggnation) Ron Paul supporters to face reality is never pleasant.

[EternalGamer]

Obama is a (relatively) left-leaning candidate, while Clinton floats towards the middle. That is a simplified response, and if you really want to know the big differences I can probably dig up an article for you.

McCain is a gung-ho military guy who seems to be focusing heavily on fighting terrorism. Romney is a former corporate tool who is going to focus on the economy, which can be a good or a bad thing, depending on how much you trust a corporate tool. Huckabee is a religious nut with a few good ideas (I like the idea of taxing what you buy instead of what you make, on principal, but have no idea about what it would mean for us), but he is a nut, and probably won't get elected based on that fact alone (nor should he).

Wow. Do real people exist in your world or is everyone except you an obvious stereotype?

[Suave Peanut]

He wasn't my first choice, personally, but I have felt since I first read about him in a newspaper article in 2004 that Barack Obama was going to be our next President.

[Heretic Machine]

Wow. Do real people exist in your world or is everyone except you an obvious stereotype?

Everyone, including myself, is an obvious stereotype.

He wasn't my first choice, personally, but I have felt since I first read about him in a newspaper article in 2004 that Barack Obama was going to be our next President.

Sometimes I get the feeling that someone behind the scenes has been pulling strings to push him towards being president... It just seems like he popped up out of no where, and all of a sudden everyone (even me) was thinking that he had a shot at being president. Like, literally, the first time I heard of him people were talking about him being a good candidate for the next presidential race.

Probably just paranoia.

[Telefrog]

If there is a villian in this scenario, I think it's the media. It's because they are too full of cowardice to actually spend any time analyzing the value of someone's ideas or arguments. They might be percieved as showing a "bias" if they do. So instead, they spend their time talking about how the candidates reacted, how they look, how people think about them, how they are strategizing. In short, they talk about everything except the value of their ideas. And they do so because they are too afraid to actually say when they think someone presents a good argument or when someone else presents a bad one.

Unfortunately, what you want are editorials. Rather than just presenting the news, you want reasoned analysis of the candidates platform, which isn't going to happen without bias. If any of the mainstream analysts said, "Wow, that's a great idea!" or "Whoa! That's a suck platform," people would rightly assume that there is a bias in their reporting.

[joruussuun]

Everyone, including myself, is an obvious stereotype.
No! You're unique... just like everyone else.

[EternalGamer]

Everyone, including myself, is an obvious stereotype.



Or maybe rather, because you are an obvious stereotype, you assume everyone else is as well.

[Heretic Machine]

Or maybe rather, because you are an obvious stereotype, you assume everyone else is as well.

Whatever you say, snowflake.

[Telefrog]

Or maybe rather, because you are an obvious stereotype, you assume everyone else is as well.

If I went by Suprbowl ads, I'm a big roly-poly panda that owns a bamboo furniture outlet that just needs a really good sales list.

(Sorry for the derail. That ad really offended me, and I usually laugh asian stereotyping off since I'm a half-breed.)

[EternalGamer]

Unfortunately, what you want are editorials. Rather than just presenting the news, you want reasoned analysis of the candidates platform, which isn't going to happen without bias. If any of the mainstream analysts said, "Wow, that's a great idea!" or "Whoa! That's a suck platform," people would rightly assume that there is a bias in their reporting.

Except editorials aren't usually open exploration of ideas either. They are usually nothing more than efforts to pat people on the back who already agree with them. Rarely have I seen an editorial that is willing to question the fundemental ideological basis from which the writer presents their views. And I imagine if such did exist, they wouldn't have a job for long. And that is because, in an attempt to be "balanced" the media needs a puppet for the left and a puppet for the right and not someone who is unpredictable.

[Suave Peanut]

Sometimes I get the feeling that someone behind the scenes has been pulling strings to push him towards being president... It just seems like he popped up out of no where, and all of a sudden everyone (even me) was thinking that he had a shot at being president. Like, literally, the first time I heard of him people were talking about him being a good candidate for the next presidential race.

Probably just paranoia.

No, I agree... and that's why I'm not fighting it! :p

[joruussuun]

If I went by Suprbowl ads, I'm a big roly-poly panda that owns a bamboo furniture outlet that just needs a really good sales list.

(Sorry for the derail. That ad really offended me, and I usually laugh asian stereotyping off since I'm a half-breed.)

I got offended by that one and the one before (Indian I think)... and I'm plain ol' white boy.

[GrinR]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hillary is kryptonite for the democratic hopes in the oval office. Everyone seems to forget how well over half the country rejected Kerry in '04; who seriously thinks those folks are going to vote for an even more liberal woman this time around?

My money is on whatever clod the Republicans manage to prop up this year.

[Karamazov]

I dont like any of the leading candidates.

McCain: Iffy on the war situation.
Romney: The Antichrist.
Hillary: Hillary.
Obama: Anti-gun.

I can live with the McCain or possibly Obama, but if Hillary or Romney end up becoming POTUS I'm going to leave the country.

[Telefrog]

I got offended by that one and the one before (Indian I think)... and I'm plain ol' white boy.

The Salesgenie ads with Ling-ling the broken engrish speaking panda and the one with Ramesh the indian guy and his seven kids were incredibly offensive.

Had they been about white or black people, they would've just been unfunny and dull. Adding that dash of 'clueless foreigner' to the ads really put them into a classy space.

Bravo Salesgenie! You have shown that with enough money, networks will accept any ad, regardless of taste.

/End thread derail.

[Inverarity]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hillary is kryptonite for the democratic hopes in the oval office.
I totally agree. She's been a good senator, she represents a state that mostly likes her (unlike the nation in general), and I think her political skills are best used where she is right now. I don't think she'd be a bad president either, mind you, but I think there are far too many doubts about her electability.

The Democrats should not consider nominating anyone about whom so much of the country has already made up its mind, and who has no chance of changing those opinions.

[joruussuun]

I dont like any of the leading candidates.

McCain: Iffy on the war situation.
Romney: The Antichrist.
Hillary: Hillary.
Obama: Anti-gun.

I can live with the McCain or possibly Obama, but if Hillary or Romney end up becoming POTUS I'm going to leave the country.

Since when is Obama Anti-Gun? From what I can tell, he's only Anti-Assault Weapons and for enforcing the laws already in effect.

Unless YOU have assault rifles or something... *ducks*

[joruussuun]

If you get a chance, I encourage anyone who's curious about Obama to read this (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) (<--warning .pdf link).

[Wraith]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/wraithakamrak/tr2008a.png

I think this is the candidate Republicans really need. If it weren't for those pesky term limits (and the thirst for human flesh)...

[Ancalagon]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hillary is kryptonite for the democratic hopes in the oval office. Everyone seems to forget how well over half the country rejected Kerry in '04; who seriously thinks those folks are going to vote for an even more liberal woman this time around?

My money is on whatever clod the Republicans manage to prop up this year.

Was that the election that bush had to manipulate votes to win? Wasnt it like only 1 state mattered, and Bush's cronies made sure he won it? or was that the 2000 election?

Sometimes I get the feeling that someone behind the scenes has been pulling strings to push him towards being president... It just seems like he popped up out of no where, and all of a sudden everyone (even me) was thinking that he had a shot at being president. Like, literally, the first time I heard of him people were talking about him being a good candidate for the next presidential race.

Probably just paranoia.

If our illustrious and well meaning Leader has appointed Obama to be the POTUS, then who are we to argue? Just go with the flow, remember, be as the sheep, not the wolf.

[Skyelan]

Sometimes I get the feeling that someone behind the scenes has been pulling strings to push him towards being president... It just seems like he popped up out of no where, and all of a sudden everyone (even me) was thinking that he had a shot at being president. Like, literally, the first time I heard of him people were talking about him being a good candidate for the next presidential race.

Probably just paranoia.

I dunno, man. It might the Japanese, who have been controlling the electoral process by having a high school that trains elite assassins and has them vote en masse using the dozens of voting booths in their auditorium in the way they want it, causing their cantidate of choice to take control. Which won't be such a bad proposition if someone named Michael Wilson ever decides run.

Naaaahhhh.....

[Karamazov]

Since when is Obama Anti-Gun? From what I can tell, he's only Anti-Assault Weapons and for enforcing the laws already in effect.
He wants to ban semi-automatics, and thats bullshit.

Unless YOU have assault rifles or something... *ducks*
I'm planning on getting a Bushmaster AR-15 clone at some point in the future.

[bKangy]

I'd probably consider McCain heavily if I was a US citizen and Clinton wins. She is everything that is wrong with politics to me, the idea of "power for the sake of being the most powerful". Obama meanwhile, preaches the politics of "us", of having power because it's the best way to extend his lifelong goals of helping people out, many of whom come from similarly disadvantaged backgrounds.

Listen to their speeches before the media highlighted why Obama was resonating. Hillary is "me me me", Obama is very much focused on people, and what the group as a whole can achieve by working within the American system. That to me is what seperates them, and their policies reflect that as well I think.

[PathMaster]

For the people who voted for McCain (or other Republicans), what are the chances America is going to vote Republican after two terms of Bush?

Actually, from early and even more recent polls, McCain is beating all democrats in a national race. Only by a few percentage points, but he is winning.

I've seen their policies, they seem pretty fucking different to me, especially where it counts (like health care). And no, I don't trust Clinton, not even a little. On top of that, the only office she has ever been elected to is as a senator for New York, and I think she has been a joke in that position from what I've observed. I have absolutely no faith in her ability to do anything but grab power for herself.
Actually, she is doing a fine job as a NY senator. This is coming from someone in NY. Where her ideas actually affect me.

I voted Clinton. Obama just has too little experience to me.

[Schnoogs]

I think this poll reflects who people want to be "POTUS" instead of who actually has the best shot

[Beelzebud]

I'm hoping for Obama.

After 8 years of Bush, the Republicans really don't deserve the power.

[bKangy]

I think this poll reflects who people want to be "POTUS" instead of who actually has the best shot

Oh yeah, I'm an Obamaniac, but I'm optimistically hoping for a narrow draw tomorrow.

[Telefrog]

I think this poll reflects who people want to be "POTUS" instead of who actually has the best shot

Okay, so your prediction is...?

[Schnoogs]

I'm hoping for Obama.

After 8 years of Bush, the Republicans really don't deserve the power.

Some would argue that canditates like Kerry prove just the opposite. :p

[Schnoogs]

Okay, so your prediction is...?

Figure it out from my previous post

[Beelzebud]

Some would argue that canditates like Kerry prove just the opposite. :p

Good thing Kerry isn't running.

Republicans ran on fear in 2004. They sat a few blocks from the world trade center site, and capitalized on fear.

People aren't buying that shit any more like they were 4 years ago.

[GrinR]

Was that the election that bush had to manipulate votes to win? Wasnt it like only 1 state mattered, and Bush's cronies made sure he won it? or was that the 2000 election?

If our illustrious and well meaning Leader has appointed Obama to be the POTUS, then who are we to argue? Just go with the flow, remember, be as the sheep, not the wolf.

I won't interfere with your fantasy life. Where I live, Dubya has been elected president twice. I daresay in '04 he was helped into office by dreamers such as yourself who scared away undecideds with negative vitriolic spew about him, instead of a vision for the future.

It will probably enrage you even further to continue to live in your fantasy world if Hillary is elected and roundly defeated by whatever clod the R's nail to the podium. It'll come as a total surprise to you, I'm sure, and I'm equally sure your claims of voter fraud and stolen elections will prove exactly as impotent as they did in '00 and '04.

[bKangy]

I voted Clinton. Obama just has too little experience to me.

Not really, he's been involved in local politics for years. Clinton's experience is very comparable in the senate, with Obama having a better legislative record in the time they've both been there, as well as the fact that while Clinton was First Lady, doing in reality very little, Obama was fighting for all sorts of important issues in Illinois, and before that trying to use his career and legal expertise to lift poverty in inner city areas. He's plenty experienced, this is the biggest lie of the campaign. I'm not sure if you want to count "union breaking Wall Mart board member" as experience or not to give her the edge, but if you value that kind of experience you may be better off looking at the Republican party.

[Xerxes]

You should of title the thread, "I'm moving to Canada if..."

[GrinR]

Good thing Kerry isn't running.

Republicans ran on fear in 2004. They sat a few blocks from the world trade center site, and capitalized on fear.

People aren't buying that shit any more like they were 4 years ago.

I hate to break it to you, but the folks who were buying into "that shit" in '04 are only more bought in today. Especially the military families, who often have first-hand understanding of the enemy we face.

[Schnoogs]

Good thing Kerry isn't running.

Republicans ran on fear in 2004. They sat a few blocks from the world trade center site, and capitalized on fear.

People aren't buying that shit any more like they were 4 years ago.

Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that Kerry was simply a bad candidate. I flipped parties because of that buffoon.

[Slack3r78]

Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that Kerry was simply a bad candidate. I flipped parties because of that buffoon.

Seriously. Democrats were fucking deluding themselves in thinking that Kerry was in any way a strong candidate. I knew they'd lost the general election when he got the nom.

[PathMaster]

Not really, he's been involved in local politics for years. Clinton's experience is very comparable in the senate, with Obama having a better legislative record in the time they've both been there, as well as the fact that while Clinton was First Lady, doing in reality very little, Obama was fighting for all sorts of important issues in Illinois, and before that trying to use his career and legal expertise to lift poverty in inner city areas. He's plenty experienced, this is the biggest lie of the campaign. I'm not sure if you want to count "union breaking Wall Mart board member" as experience or not to give her the edge, but if you value that kind of experience you may be better off looking at the Republican party.

Local politics does not equate to a national stage. Things are obviously different. As First Lady, she at least saw how things worked, whether or not that counts as experience is debatable. And in the debates, Obama does not seem to come across with any clear plans. He boosts plenty though. This is all how I see him. ME.

[Slack3r78]

For the record, I think Obama has a good shot at the presidency depending on how things go tomorrow. The latest polling I've been reading up on today seems to indicate that Clinton's numbers have been crashing, and that it's within a couple of points nationally.

That said, there are still an awful lot of 'undecideds' at this late stage, which could through things either way.

[GrinR]

Local politics does not equate to a national stage. Things are obviously different. As First Lady, she at least saw how things worked, whether or not that counts as experience is debatable. And in the debates, Obama does not seem to come across with any clear plans. He boosts plenty though. This is all how I see him. ME.

I hate to say it, but this is part of what I like about Obama. He really does seem genuinely interested in making a change... what change, I don't know. I can see him being briefed on the global security situation, free from the haze of the kooky Democratic party line, and getting serious about Al Qaida and global tyranny. Then again, I could also see him making disasterous mistakes ala Clinton.

*shrug*

[Ancalagon]

I won't interfere with your fantasy life. Where I live, Dubya has been elected president twice. I daresay in '04 he was helped into office by dreamers such as yourself who scared away undecideds with negative vitriolic spew about him, instead of a vision for the future.

It will probably enrage you even further to continue to live in your fantasy world if Hillary is elected and roundly defeated by whatever clod the R's nail to the podium. It'll come as a total surprise to you, I'm sure, and I'm equally sure your claims of voter fraud and stolen elections will prove exactly as impotent as they did in '00 and '04.

Actually, I dont live in America, so I dont have a vested interest in either D's or R's.

That info was from Michael Moore's documentary films, and while I realize that some of his information might not be credible, his assertions are very interesting.

But hey, you feel free to make personal attacks to compensate for your insecurities. Go ahead. Honestly, I dont give a shit about either way, but if you get so offended when someone mentions a movie that wasnt favourable towards your God, then please, grow up. Your fantasy hero is still a man, and even he has faults.

[Karamazov]

Seriously. Democrats were fucking deluding themselves in thinking that Kerry was in any way a strong candidate. I knew they'd lost the general election when he got the nom.

Sorta like the situation with Bob Dole in 1996. What the fuck were the Republicans thinking?

[bKangy]

Local politics does not equate to a national stage. Things are obviously different. As First Lady, she at least saw how things worked, whether or not that counts as experience is debatable. And in the debates, Obama does not seem to come across with any clear plans. He boosts plenty though. This is all how I see him. ME.

I highly doubt it'd take a man of his intellect and career track record long to figure out the bureaucracy of the WH. Obama has plenty of clear plans, his policies are widely available on his website and much of them are the continuation of the agendas he set out so far during his senate term. And to say Obama is the man with the "me" agenda when compared to Hillary is completely silly.

[Slack3r78]

Local politics does not equate to a national stage. Things are obviously different. As First Lady, she at least saw how things worked, whether or not that counts as experience is debatable.
Reagan and Kennedy also had years-of-service numbers very similar to Obama's. Reagan as Gov of CA and Kennedy as a legislator.

And in the debates, Obama does not seem to come across with any clear plans. He boosts plenty though. This is all how I see him. ME.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Sure, he may not enumerate his policies precisely in debates, but, honestly, I think you're kidding yourself if you really think any of the candidates are giving anything more substantial than talking points in that setting.

[Schnoogs]

That info was from Michael Moore's documentary films.

I think you said enough right there...

[Telefrog]

Actually, I dont live in America, so I dont have a vested interest in either D's or R's.

That info was from Michael Moore's documentary films, and while I realize that some of his information might not be credible, his assertions are very interesting.

I'm not going to criticize you too heavily, but if you're getting your US political information from Michael Moore films, you really have almost no practical input to any discussion on those topics. His movies are entertaining ang well put together, but they are about as accurate and objective as any other party propaganda.

Note that this is coming from someone that hates Bush with a passion.

[torrefaction]

Sure, he may not enumerate his policies precisely in debates, but, honestly, I think you're kidding yourself if you really think any of the candidates are giving anything more substantial than talking points in that setting.

He's horrible in the debates if you ask me. He's never felt like a powerful presence. He just seems full of hot air. He's got a good presence at speeches, but he just seems full of rhetoric there too.

He just goes on and on, arbitrarily promising change, but saying almost nothing about HOW he's going to make changes. The only attractive thing to me about Obama's platform is the CTO position. I still fault Bill Clinton (and George Bush) for not having the foresight to do the same at a time when it was clear the future was arriving.

[torrefaction]

Actually, I dont live in America, so I dont have a vested interest in either D's or R's.

That info was from Michael Moore's documentary films, and while I realize that some of his information might not be credible, his assertions are very interesting.

But hey, you feel free to make personal attacks to compensate for your insecurities. Go ahead. Honestly, I dont give a shit about either way, but if you get so offended when someone mentions a movie that wasnt favourable towards your God, then please, grow up. Your fantasy hero is still a man, and even he has faults.

Do yourself a favor, and research your sources before you quote such bullshit.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

[EternalGamer]

I'm not going to criticize you too heavily, but if you're getting your US political information from Michael Moore films, you really have almost no practical input to any discussion on those topics. His movies are entertaining ang well put together, but they are about as accurate and objective as any other party propaganda.

Note that this is coming from someone that hates Bush with a passion.


It is always lazy thinking to assume something is right just because a particular person said it. But it is also lazy thinking to automatically assume it is wrong, as you and Schnoogs do, because a particular person said it. Rather than engaging in attack ad hominem, why not try to respond to the particular ideas in Moore's film that you disagree with. It's lazy to dismiss everything he has to say simply because you think he is wrong on some points.

Moore's record certainly isn't flawless. But I can guarantee you that any poster on this forum has been wrong at least as many times as he has. But I"m not going to assasinat everyone here's character and dismiss anything anyone here has to say just because they may be wrong sometimes.

[joruussuun]

He just goes on and on, arbitrarily promising change, but saying almost nothing about HOW he's going to make changes. The only attractive thing to me about Obama's platform is the CTO position. I still fault Bill Clinton (and George Bush) for not having the foresight to do the same at a time when it was clear the future was arriving.
I know I linked a 64 page document (his Blueprint for Change) from Obama about HOW EXACTLY he's going to treat each and every issue. :p

I'll go ahead and link it again. (http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) <-.PDF

[PathMaster]

Reagan and Kennedy also had years-of-service numbers very similar to Obama's. Reagan as Gov of CA and Kennedy as a legislator.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Sure, he may not enumerate his policies precisely in debates, but, honestly, I think you're kidding yourself if you really think any of the candidates are giving anything more substantial than talking points in that setting.

That is how he came across in the debates to me. Obviously one can find how he feels on issues, but that is how he comes across on TV. And this is where many decide who they like more, whether or not you like that idea.

He still comes across as not having enough experience to me. I am obviously not alone in how I feel, otherwise it would not be an issue.

[Schnoogs]

It is always lazy thinking to assume something is right just because a particular person said it. But it is also lazy thinking to automatically assume it is wrong, as you and Schnoogs do, because a particular person said it.

Seeing as Michael Moore himself describes his movies as entertainment perhaps you can take his word for it.

There are so many websites, books and other documentaries focused on the lies and exaggerations in Michael Moore's movies that you almost sound clueless and naive if you aren't aware of this.

Take anything he says with a mountain of salt for he himself is not shy about describing it as anything more than entertainment.

In other words there are hundreds of more suitable sources of criticism against the government.

[TheKeck]

Anyone but Hillary.

[Slack3r78]

He's horrible in the debates if you ask me. He's never felt like a powerful presence. He just seems full of hot air. He's got a good presence at speeches, but he just seems full of rhetoric there too.

He just goes on and on, arbitrarily promising change, but saying almost nothing about HOW he's going to make changes.
I don't think he's been particularly strong in the debates, either, but my main point there was just that you really should do more looking into a candidate's policies than what they may or may not have said at a debate before you dismiss them as not having much policy at all. I mostly just get the impression that Obama's personality isn't particularly suited to a debate type setting. He's certainly not an ideological firebrand like, say, Ron Paul anyway. ;)

[antoniogaud]

Obama because he has Gravitas.

[GrinR]

Actually, I dont live in America, so I dont have a vested interest in either D's or R's.

That info was from Michael Moore's documentary films, and while I realize that some of his information might not be credible, his assertions are very interesting.

But hey, you feel free to make personal attacks to compensate for your insecurities. Go ahead. Honestly, I dont give a shit about either way, but if you get so offended when someone mentions a movie that wasnt favourable towards your God, then please, grow up. Your fantasy hero is still a man, and even he has faults.

You care enough to post, despite your presumed lack of vested interest. You are a foreigner, yet you feel that propaganda movies are sufficient information to comment on our national politics. You mention my god and assert Dubya as my hero, but I have made no mention of either in the slightest.

Who is to take you seriously?

[Beelzebud]

I hate to break it to you, but the folks who were buying into "that shit" in '04 are only more bought in today. Especially the military families, who often have first-hand understanding of the enemy we face.

You don't speak for all military families for one. A lot of military are starting to realize that we made a serious blunder going into Iraq, while letting the Taliban free to take over Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan.

And you're also wrong about what people are buying into. Look at the approval ratings of the Bush administration then, and now. It's not the same at all.

I hate to break it to you, but a lot has changed since 2004.

[Slack3r78]

He still comes across as not having enough experience to me. I am obviously not alone in how I feel, otherwise it would not be an issue.
And you're certainly entitled to that opinion, I'm just not sure what people that bring up that point want. Is the goal to just promote a career politician?

[joruussuun]

He still comes across as not having enough experience to me. I am obviously not alone in how I feel, otherwise it would not be an issue.

Working with communities to change things for the people since the early 80's. Yeah, definitely not enough experience.

Really the President only does things on a bigger scale. And Obama's been making steps up the scale since then.

[51|RandoM]

Moore's record certainly isn't flawless. But I can guarantee you that any poster on this forum has been wrong at least as many times as he has. But I"m not going to dismiss everything anyone here has to say just because they may be wrong sometimes.

It isn't whether or not Moore is right, it is just a matter of the method with which his pictures attempt to make whatever his current cause is seem far more "right" than it is.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics is the first thing that comes to mind whenever anybody brings up Moore.

Working with communities to change things for the people since the early 80's. Yeah, definitely not enough experience.

Really the President only does things on a bigger scale. And Obama's been making steps up the scale since then.

When domestic policy is the only concern of an American President you will be in a position to portray Obama as having sufficient experience based upon his community efforts. I don't see that happening any time soon, especially not when the next President will be handled a plate including ongoing issues with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, South/North Korea, China, and the former republics of the U.S.S.R, just to name the highlights.

[Schnoogs]

<Insert candidates name here> because he has Gravitas.

Fixed that for you.

[Slack3r78]

Fixed that for you.

Hillary Clinton because he has Gravitas.


Sweet.

[Schnoogs]

Hillary Clinton because he has Gravitas.


Sweet.

I actually see nothing inaccurate about that post ;)

[EternalGamer]

Seeing as Michael Moore himself describes his movies as entertainment perhaps you can take his word for it.

There are so many websites, books and other documentaries focused on the lies and exaggerations in Michael Moore's movies that you almost sound clueless and naive if you aren't aware of this.

Take anything he says with a mountain of salt for he himself is not shy about describing it as anything more than entertainment.

In other words there are hundreds of more suitable sources of criticism against the government.

And if I had your voice was a prominent one in the public dialogue and I could find millions of dollars to fund counter pieces, I could probably rip a fucking ton of things you have said to shreds too.

Rather than attacking persons, we should attack ideas. Attacking people is always lazy and illogical.

[EternalGamer]

It is whether or not Moore is right, it is just a matter of the method with which his pictures attempt to make whatever his current cause is seem far more "right" than it is.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics is the first thing that comes to mind whenever anybody brings up Moore.



When domestic policy is the only concern of an American President you will be in a position to portray Obama as having sufficient experience based upon his community efforts. I don't see that happening any time soon, especially not when the next President will be handled a plate including ongoing issues with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, South Korea, China, and the former republics of the U.S.S.R, just to name the highlights.

Perhaps with Farenheit 9/11. But it is not like that one film define the entirety of his work. In that film he had a bad argument presented in a bad manner. Not like that hasn't happened at some time or another to every person that has ever lived on the planet earth.

[torrefaction]

I don't think he's been particularly strong in the debates, either, but my main point there was just that you really should do more looking into a candidate's policies than what they may or may not have said at a debate before you dismiss them as not having much policy at all. I mostly just get the impression that Obama's personality isn't particularly suited to a debate type setting. He's certainly not an ideological firebrand like, say, Ron Paul anyway. ;)

Oh, I understand most of Obama's policies, and more so thanks to the folks on here than anything HE'S done to make me understand his policies. That's a huge failure on his part. In some ways, he deserves the reactions he gets. The debates are the place for him to inform the public of his policies, and in that sense, he's been nothing but "epic fail!".

Regardless, I always knew I wouldn't like his policies...he's a democrat. But how in the world did Hillary end up my favorite Democrat. That's just not right.

[Schnoogs]

Rather than attacking persons, we should attack ideas. Attacking people is always lazy and illogical.

I guess it's a good thing then that we've been attacking the lies and exaggerations in his movies and not the fact that he's fat or ugly.

No offense but pay attention to people's posts before you bore us with this after school message on "Getting along".

http://bestweekever.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/more_you_know1.jpg

[PathMaster]

Working with communities to change things for the people since the early 80's. Yeah, definitely not enough experience.

Really the President only does things on a bigger scale. And Obama's been making steps up the scale since then.

So wait, Clinton has done nothing in her life before being a First Lady? Huh.
From a quick glance at her wiki: Yes, we all know the validity of such a link.
As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992,[89] where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system.[90][91] One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship,[90] she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association[90] to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place

[Beelzebud]

The debates are the place for him to inform the public of his policies, and in that sense, he's been nothing but "epic fail!".

I'm not sure I'd give those debates that much credit. Republicans and Democrats don't agree on much, but I think we could all agree that the "gotcha" style "infotainment" format these debates take on aren't the best way to discuss the issues like a group of adults, as opposed to a group of professional wrestlers. :D

[joruussuun]

When domestic policy is the only concern of an American President you will be in a position to portray Obama as having sufficient experience based upon his community efforts. I don't see that happening any time soon, especially not when the next President will be handled a plate including ongoing issues with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, South/North Korea, China, and the former republics of the U.S.S.R, just to name the highlights.

Yes, but like I said, he keeps taking his steps up in scale, and in recent years has been on several foreign policy committees and been part of delegations to other countries.

[Schnoogs]

Perhaps with Farenheit 9/11. But it is not like that one film define the entirety of his work. In that film he had a bad argument presented in a bad manner. Not like that hasn't happened at some time or another to every person that has ever lived on the planet earth.

sounds like you don't really know a whole lot about his movies. There are numerous books and websites dedicated to ripping to shreds Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine. You sound a bit naive if you think Michael Moore first found controversy with Fahrenheit 9/11.

Why don't we just ditch MM for the rest of this thread.

[joruussuun]

So wait, Clinton has done nothing in her life before being a First Lady? Huh.
From a quick glance at her wiki: Yes, we all know the validity of such a link.

Ummm... I wasn't saying ANYTHING AT ALL about Clinton's experience. I can argue for one candidate's experience without meaning the opposing candidate must lose some.

EDIT: Umm... I was talking about Obama BTW in the other post, if you couldn't tell... and the "not enough experience" was severe sarcasm.

[EternalGamer]

I guess it's a good thing then that we've been attacking the lies and exaggerations in his movies and not the fact that he's fat or ugly.

No offense but pay attention to people's posts before you bore us with this after school message on "Getting along".

http://bestweekever.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/more_you_know1.jpg

You did not. You're response was "You've said enough right there." This implies that anything Moore has to say is automatically wrong. This is attack ad hominem.

No offense but pay attention to your own posts.

[Beelzebud]

On Obama's perceived lack of experience. I think the man himself made the best argument in his own favor:

"You can't find people with more experience than Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and we all see how that has turned out."

[PathMaster]

Ummm... I wasn't saying ANYTHING AT ALL about Clinton's experience. I can argue for one candidate's experience without meaning the opposing candidate must lose some.

EDIT: Umm... I was talking about Obama BTW in the other post, if you couldn't tell... and the "not enough experience" was severe sarcasm.

True, but I took it to assume/implied it, on the previous comment of her similar lack of experience. My fault on that one.

If Obama actually stopped his rhetoric and gave me a clear concise answer on an issue, I might swing to his side, but until he does that, he comes off has have no idea what he is doing. That is of course separate from whether or not he actually does.

[Schnoogs]

You did not. You're response was "You've said enough right there." This implies that anything Moore has to say is automatically wrong. This is attack ad hominem.

No offense but pay attention to your own posts.

You are desperate aren't you. He said his source were Michael Moore movies which have been shown time and time again to be inaccurate and full of lies.

My post was a direct response to him citing the movies. So again you should pay attention more to people's posts and more importantly spare us your 3rd grade understanding of rhetorical ploys.

[Beelzebud]

He said his source were Michael Moore movies which have been shown time and time again to be inaccurate and full of lies.

Such as? I know it's fun to hate Michael Moore, but could you point out something in F9/11 that is a lie?

[joruussuun]

If Obama actually stopped his rhetoric and gave me a clear concise answer on an issue, I might swing to his side, but until he does that, he comes off has have no idea what he is doing. That is of course separate from whether or not he actually does.

PathMaster, I again urge you to at least glance through this (http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) and see if your opinion remains the same on how he has no "clear concise answers on an issue".

If you get a chance of course... it's a pretty deep read.

Also to everyone who eats the BS that is spouted in TV ads (the "lack of experience" is just the push-button issue for me), I urge you to form your own opinion, and research any candidate, not just Obama.

[Schnoogs]

Such as? I know it's fun to hate Michael Moore, but could you point out something in F9/11 that is a lie?

Educate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy)

If you're that naive that you thought that movie was 100% accurate I think reading the above link will be like that scene in the Matrix when Neo first awakes in the "Real world"

(spare us the wiki attack...there are dozens of similar sources of these criticisms)

[EternalGamer]

PathMaster, I again urge you to at least glance through this (http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) and see if your opinion remains the same on how he has no "clear concise answers on an issue".

If you get a chance of course... it's a pretty deep read.

Also to everyone who eats the BS that is spouted in TV ads (the "lack of experience" is just the push-button issue for me), I urge you to form your own opinion, and research any candidate, not just Obama.

It is amazing to me how much both people in the media and those watching it are willing to just lap up catch phrases and run with them without even questioning their validity.

[PathMaster]

PathMaster, I again urge you to at least glance through this (http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) and see if your opinion remains the same on how he has no "clear concise answers on an issue".

If you get a chance of course... it's a pretty deep read.
Honestly, if he can not figure out how to present himself now, why should I give him a chance to bungle things for four years? We have already dealt with something similar to that for the past seven years.

[Beelzebud]

Educate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy)

If you're that naive that you thought that movie was 100% accurate I think reading the above link will be like that scene in the Matrix when Neo first awakes in the "Real world"

(spare us the wiki attack...there are dozens of similar sources of these criticisms)

There isn't one lie documented on that page. Not one. Have you even read it? People have problems with the way he presents the facts, but the facts are the facts.

[Telefrog]

Such as? I know it's fun to hate Michael Moore, but could you point out something in F9/11 that is a lie?

Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy) and work out from that.

[EternalGamer]

You are desperate aren't you. He said his source were Michael Moore movies which have been shown time and time again to be inaccurate and full of lies.

My post was a direct response to him citing the movies. So again you should pay attention more to people's posts and more importantly spare us your 3rd grade understanding of rhetorical ploys.

This is an issue for me on both sides. I could certainly say the same thing for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, who are, at the very least, equal in their use of facts twisted into implications that are false. But I refuse to dismiss an argument or an idea just because Rush or O'Reilly presented it. People who do that are people who are either being intelllectually lazy or who are not confident enough in their own ability to analyze an argument so they have to depend upon arguments that have the proper "name brands" attached to them.

[Beelzebud]

Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy) and work out from that.

Yeah thats the link that was already posted. Not one lie documented on that page. Having people criticize the documentary for the way it presented people isn't the same thing as pointing out lies.

[Baron Samedi]

Why does every political argument on here devolve into a misinformation argument?

[Beelzebud]

Why does every political argument on here devolve into a misinformation argument?

Welcome to politics.

[Slack3r78]

Honestly, if he can not figure out how to present himself now, why should I give him a chance to bungle things for four years? We have already dealt with something similar to that for the past seven years.

Actually, you've dealt with someone disturbingly committed to a single set of ideas regardless of outside input for seven years.

[Slack3r78]

I will say that the most disturbing thing I've seen this entire cycle is the way at the last debate that all the Republican candidates were eagerly climbing all over one another to suck at Reagan's cock a little bit.

[Baron Samedi]

Welcome to politics.

Which is why I dislike politics. It's the same as arguing over definitions in philosophy. All in all, the ultimate mockery of discussion.

[torrefaction]

There isn't one lie documented on that page. Not one. Have you even read it? People have problems with the way he presents the facts, but the facts are the facts.

Okay. I'll post it again.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

[51|RandoM]

On Obama's perceived lack of experience. I think the man himself made the best argument in his own favor:

"You can't find people with more experience than Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and we all see how that has turned out."

That argument will work for ignorant people, doesn't hold any weight with somebody who has a basic grasp of logic.

...and I think if you analyzed what Cheney and Rumsfeld sought to accomplish and what they actually did accomplish you would find that they probably were quite effective.

[Slack3r78]

...and I think if you analyzed what Cheney and Rumsfeld sought to accomplish and what they actually did accomplish you would find that they probably were quite effective.

Within a limited scope, sure. That doesn't mean the policies they pursued were wise ones.

[Beelzebud]

Okay. I'll post it again.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Oh I've seen it. From the director of Fahrenhype 9/11. Among other things the author states that Moore was lying when he said there was no connection between Al-Quaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. His proof? A book written by a right wing commentator for The Weekly Standard. Every serious analyst says there was, in fact, no connection between the two.

It's not an objective rebuttal at all, and they are in such a clamor to declare him a liar, they lie to make their points...

[Beelzebud]

That argument will work for ignorant people, doesn't hold any weight with somebody who has a basic grasp of logic.

...and I think if you analyzed what Cheney and Rumsfeld sought to accomplish and what they actually did accomplish you would find that they probably were quite effective.

When you consider that they have achieved what they set out to, then it only enforces Obama's argument, IMO...

[walkstheplanes]

We've got one more day. That's exciting.

[PathMaster]

We've got one more day. That's exciting.

Republican's? Yes. Democrats? No. Super Tuesday will not decide the Democrat nomination. Neither candidate will have the magic number of delegates.

[Telefrog]

It's not an objective rebuttal at all, and they are in such a clamor to declare him a liar, they lie to make their points...

It's propaganda. That's what his movies are about.

Look, as a movie fan, I like his work. His films are well-made. His narration work is wry and filled with just enough pathos to take seriously.

As a definite Bush opposer, and left-winger, I really agree with the ideas set forth in his films. I like seeing Bush sit cluelessly in a classroom after being told a plane hit the WTC.

I will not, however refuse to see that they are clever propaganda with a clear anti-right objective. I consider my government too important a subject on which to leave to pop filmmaking to make my decisions. You're certainly free to do so, but I'd like to do get my information from someone who doesn't clearly admit that he has an agenda.

[Heretic Machine]

It's propaganda. That's what his movies are about.

Look, as a movie fan, I like his work. His films are well-made. His narration work is wry and filled with just enough pathos to take seriously.

As a definite Bush opposer, and left-winger, I really agree with the ideas set forth in his films. I like seeing Bush sit cluelessly in a classroom after being told a plane hit the WTC.

I will not, however refuse to see that they are clever propaganda with a clear anti-right objective. I consider my government too important a subject on which to leave to pop filmmaking to make my decisions. You're certainly free to do so, but I'd like to do get my information from someone who doesn't clearly admit that he has an agenda.

I wish he'd just go back to doing fiction; Canadian Bacon was great fun, and got his message across well enough.

[Furious Wang]

Republican's? Yes. Democrats? No. Super Tuesday will not decide the Democrat nomination. Neither candidate will have the magic number of delegates.

Neither candidate will "win" the Democratic nomination tommorrow, but whomever wins California will effectively "seal the deal". Right now it looks to be Obama. He's narrowly in the lead in the California polls, and La Opinion just endorsed him.

With California, Illinois and practically every state in the south sealed away, Obama is pretty much set to win it.

[PathMaster]

Neither candidate will "win" the Democratic nomination tommorrow, but whomever wins California will effectively "seal the deal". Right now it looks to be Obama. He's narrowly in the lead in the California polls, and La Opinion just endorsed him.

With California, Illinois and practically every state in the south sealed away, Obama is pretty much set to win it.

Maybe with the idea of momentum, but not by numbers. There is a total of 1688 delegates up for grab tomorrow. Clinton is currently winning by around 75. If she were to get them all, she is still short of the magic number of 2025. If will be awhile before the magic number is achieved by either candidate. That is of course not considering the super delegates, which honestly could go against popular opinion.

[bKangy]

Maybe with the idea of momentum, but not by numbers. There is a total of 1688 delegates up for grab tomorrow. Clinton is currently winning by around 75. If she were to get them all, she is still short of the magic number of 2025. If will be awhile before the magic number is achieved by either candidate. That is of course not considering the super delegates, which honestly could go against popular opinion.

The theory is though that if one candidate comes out above the other by 100 delegates or more, the momentum will be so great the other candidate will be under pressure to drop out. It'll give the winner a few percentage points in the next round, which could see them sealed with the current votes being so close, which is the realistic immediate effect of momentum. Plus Clinton's shorter on cash than Obama, so she needs momentum to drive fundraising to survive the next set.

[joruussuun]

Maybe with the idea of momentum, but not by numbers. There is a total of 1688 delegates up for grab tomorrow. Clinton is currently winning by around 75. If she were to get them all, she is still short of the magic number of 2025. If will be awhile before the magic number is achieved by either candidate. That is of course not considering the super delegates, which honestly could go against popular opinion.

How is Clinton ahead?
Is this wrong? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914)
I thought it was accurate since Florida didn't count.

[PathMaster]

The theory is though that if one candidate comes out above the other by 100 delegates or more, the momentum will be so great the other candidate will be under pressure to drop out. It'll give the winner a few percentage points in the next round, which could see them sealed with the current votes being so close, which is the realistic immediate effect of momentum. Plus Clinton's shorter on cash than Obama, so she needs momentum to drive fundraising to survive the next set.
So Clinton's current lead almost pushes Obama out? Hmm. I am thinking with it actually being so close..it will continue. On the money issue, last I heard, she had plenty of capital left. I can not find the chart, but she actually had more liquid capital then Obama, even after his recent money raising. He is still $4 million behind her in total money raised though.

[PathMaster]

How is Clinton ahead?
Is this wrong? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914)
I thought it was accurate since Florida didn't count.

Florida did not count, but you forget the super delegates.

Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html) & CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/)

[Heretic Machine]

And according to CNN, Paul was able to raise more money than any of the other Republicans in the 4th quarter of '07; money only takes you so far.

[Variable Gear]

I'm voting for Obama.

[walkstheplanes]

I really thought this board was a lot more right leaning before this month.

[Jetherik]

I dont like any of the leading candidates.

I can live with the McCain or possibly Obama, but if Hillary or Romney end up becoming POTUS I'm going to leave the country.

Boy, I haven't heard talk about leaving the country in four years... None of those people left. Will you really leave? Will you actually vote? If you vote and leave, then fine, you did your part - but if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain (unless you are not of age to vote).

[Jetherik]

I really thought this board was a lot more right leaning before this month.

I did to. I wonder what happened. I guess it isn't "in" to be republican anymore.

[Heretic Machine]

Boy, I haven't heard talk about leaving the country in four years... None of those people left. Will you really leave? Will you actually vote? If you vote and leave, then fine, you did your part - but if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain (unless you are not of age to vote).

I'd love to leave... seriously, for more than one reason. But transcontinental relocation seems like a very, very expensive prospect.

[Schnoogs]

I really thought this board was a lot more right leaning before this month.

I never would have thought that. Place always seemed slightly to the left to me.

[PathMaster]

An article (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=1155) on how the super delegates could affect the Democratic nomination.

[IrishWhiskey]

Wow, thats a lot of responses in a short amount of time.

If I was voting who I wanted, It'd be Obama. If I was voting likely to be the next POTUS, it'd be Hillary or McCain. Although most people here don't like Hillary (including myself) its not indicative of the national polls, and her better organization and get out the vote will help her win. McCain could beat her in the general, as he has higher popularity numbers, however he'll lose support among Democrats and Independents once he's no longer "the least conservative candidate" and if he can't inspire the base, the turnout doesn't look good.

EDIT2: I've mentioned this before in another thread, but Huckabee should not win the nomination (and doesn't look like he will, so good). The President should NEVER be a preacher IMO.I'd be okay with a President who was a preacher. Just as long as he recognized he had to be President of all the people, not just those who think the Earth is a few thousand years old, condoms are evil, evolution is Satan lying, AIDS victims should be locked up, and that the Constitution should be rewritten to keep it more in line with their understanding of the Bible. I'd vote for a Rabbi President as well, just not one who wanted to ban pork.

[Shadowstorm]

Obama. Not Hillary. Please ... not Hillary.

[PathMaster]

The theory is though that if one candidate comes out above the other by 100 delegates or more, the momentum will be so great the other candidate will be under pressure to drop out. It'll give the winner a few percentage points in the next round, which could see them sealed with the current votes being so close, which is the realistic immediate effect of momentum. Plus Clinton's shorter on cash than Obama, so she needs momentum to drive fundraising to survive the next set.

In a second reply to this, I give you another thread on this forum (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43790). Which discusses Newsmeat (http://www.newsmeat.com/).

According to that site, Obama has spent more and has less cash on hand then Clinton.

[bKangy]

In a second reply to this, I give you another thread on this forum (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43790). Which discusses Newsmeat (http://www.newsmeat.com/).

According to that site, Obama has spent more and has less cash on hand then Clinton.

Yeah, but the theory is that Clinton's backers are big donors, dropping the max limit. She is supposedly (I'll find some sources later) running out of fresh meat. Barack's donations meanwhile are lots and lots of small donations all the time, he's finding it easier to fund as he goes.

[walkstheplanes]

I never would have thought that. Place always seemed slightly to the left to me.

Hah! Maybe a matter of perspective then.

[PathMaster]

Yeah, but the theory is that Clinton's backers are big donors, dropping the max limit. She is supposedly (I'll find some sources later) running out of fresh meat. Barack's donations meanwhile are lots and lots of small donations all the time, he's finding it easier to fund as he goes.

Several millions dollars could be a lot to make up with small donations.

[GrinR]

I really thought this board was a lot more right leaning before this month.

As one of the handful of Republicans, I can tell you that's never been the case. Hell, 5 years ago this place was a screaming tower of liberal madness in comparison with today.

[Furious Wang]

Maybe with the idea of momentum, but not by numbers. There is a total of 1688 delegates up for grab tomorrow. Clinton is currently winning by around 75. If she were to get them all, she is still short of the magic number of 2025. If will be awhile before the magic number is achieved by either candidate. That is of course not considering the super delegates, which honestly could go against popular opinion.

You miss the point. The big three states on tuesday are New York, Illinois, and California. Hillary takes New York no contest. Obama takes Illinois no contest. If Obama does in fact win California, its practically over. The La Opinion endorsement is huge and will undoubtedly shift a large number of Hispanics over to Obama. Momentum from a California win will lead him to big victories in the Hispanic-Heavy Southwest, and you can already count on the entire Southeast going heavily in Obama's favor. A projected even split with Hllary in the rest of the country will ensure Obama's nomination.

If Obama doesn't win California you can count on the opposite happening. Hillary will win Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. etc. and it will be a virtual avalanche in her favor.

California is make it or break it for the democratic nomination. Why else do you think the last debate was held there?

Superdelegates are not committed in the same way that delegates are. They "could" go against popular opinion, but they won't should Obama gain a lead in pledged delegates. The only reason so many early superdelegates tentatively committed to Hillary is because her nomination was seen as inevitable and they wanted to be first on the gravy train. Clinton is not the establishment candidate. The Clintons have always been seen as outside of the establishment and practically reviled for it by the media and the Democratic "old guard". They won't all be splitting for Hillary to swing the vote should she fall behind in the delegate count, but they will stick with her if she gains the lead by a reasonable margin.

Everyone wants their shot at a cabinet position or a judicial appointment.

[torrefaction]

As one of the handful of Republicans, I can tell you that's never been the case. Hell, 5 years ago this place was a screaming tower of liberal madness in comparison with today.

No kidding. I remember when I first started posting, I got the feeling that I was going to be eaten alive. I think my first post outside of lurking was in a gun control thread, where I think Zanzibar wanted to put my head on a stick on the front page, to warn any other conservatives away.

[Xerxes]

When domestic policy is the only concern of an American President you will be in a position to portray Obama as having sufficient experience based upon his community efforts. I don't see that happening any time soon, especially not when the next President will be handled a plate including ongoing issues with Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, South/North Korea, China, and the former republics of the U.S.S.R, just to name the highlights.

And Cuba when Fidel dies. :D

[Heretic Machine]

You miss the point. The big three states on tuesday are New York, Illinois, and California. Hillary takes New York no contest. Obama takes Illinois no contest. If Obama does in fact win California, its practically over. The La Opinion endorsement is huge and will undoubtedly shift a large number of Hispanics over to Obama. Momentum from a California win will lead him to big victories in the Hispanic-Heavy Southwest, and you can already count on the entire Southeast going heavily in Obama's favor. A projected even split with Hllary in the rest of the country will ensure Obama's nomination.

If Obama doesn't win California you can count on the opposite happening. Hillary will win Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. etc. and it will be a virtual avalanche in her favor.

California is make it or break it for the democratic nomination. Why else do you think the last debate was held there?

Superdelegates are not committed in the same way that delegates are. They "could" go against popular opinion, but they won't should Obama gain a lead in pledged delegates. The only reason so many early superdelegates tentatively committed to Hillary is because her nomination was seen as inevitable and they wanted to be first on the gravy train. Clinton is not the establishment candidate. The Clintons have always been seen as outside of the establishment and practically reviled for it by the media and the Democratic "old guard". They won't all be splitting for Hillary to swing the vote should she fall behind in the delegate count, but they will stick with her if she gains the lead by a reasonable margin.

Everyone wants their shot at a cabinet position or a judicial appointment.

From what I've heard on CNN today, it seems that California has lots of early voting going on. Apparently as much as half of the voters could of already voted, at times when Hilary was the favored candidate. That is what they were saying, at least, though I find it hard to believe that half of the people voting there would bother voting early.

[bKangy]

From what I've heard on CNN today, it seems that California has lots of early voting going on. Apparently as much as half of the voters could of already voted, at times when Hilary was the favored candidate. That is what they were saying, at least, though I find it hard to believe that half of the people voting there would bother voting early.

I think polling includes early voters though, so it's sort of hard to tell. I still think Obama's going to lose Cali by a slim, slim margin, but will get the delegate lead.

[Generation ABXY]

I put McCain. I like Huckabee more, but he seems to be falling further and further behind Romney, who is (last I heard) already behind McCain.

Now, if you're wondering why I put him over Clinton or Obama it is bcause, for as much as people are talking about the changes we are seeing this election, I don't think Americans will be willing to honestly vote in a female or African American. I don't mean that as a remark against either candidate, or their respective groups, I just don't think Ameica as a whole is ready.

P.S. If there are letters missing from the above message, my apologies - my Bluetooth keyboard is giving me hell again

[PathMaster]

You miss the point. The big three states on tuesday are New York, Illinois, and California. Hillary takes New York no contest. Obama takes Illinois no contest. If Obama does in fact win California, its practically over. The La Opinion endorsement is huge and will undoubtedly shift a large number of Hispanics over to Obama. Momentum from a California win will lead him to big victories in the Hispanic-Heavy Southwest, and you can already count on the entire Southeast going heavily in Obama's favor. A projected even split with Hllary in the rest of the country will ensure Obama's nomination.

If Obama doesn't win California you can count on the opposite happening. Hillary will win Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. etc. and it will be a virtual avalanche in her favor.

California is make it or break it for the democratic nomination. Why else do you think the last debate was held there?

Superdelegates are not committed in the same way that delegates are. They "could" go against popular opinion, but they won't should Obama gain a lead in pledged delegates. The only reason so many early superdelegates tentatively committed to Hillary is because her nomination was seen as inevitable and they wanted to be first on the gravy train. Clinton is not the establishment candidate. The Clintons have always been seen as outside of the establishment and practically reviled for it by the media and the Democratic "old guard". They won't all be splitting for Hillary to swing the vote should she fall behind in the delegate count, but they will stick with her if she gains the lead by a reasonable margin.

Everyone wants their shot at a cabinet position or a judicial appointment.

I would love for you to explain how that contradicts what I said. That is the idea of momentum you talked about, which is what I agreed on. But the Numbers could very well not swing his way today. The next primaries may change that momentum into numbers though.

Honestly, we will just have to wait and see.

[Wonda Mic]

It is clear that Obama is a favorite with the younger crowd. And seeing this forum is primarily a young group....

[torrefaction]

Didn't know where else to post this, but I thought it was really cool...
http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/37963/43588

[IrishWhiskey]

Well the first results are in:Seventy five percent of the nearly 100 votes cast by expatriate Americans a minute after midnight Indonesia time (12 p.m. Monday EST) went to Obama. The rest were cast in favor of Clinton, said Arian Ardie, country committee chair for Democrats Abroad.I wouldn't count this as indicative, just interesting. As for how the day will shape out, I'm guessing Clinton takes California (The polls are all over the place, but trend Clinton, and she'll likely have the early voters). Romney might still win California, would would be a big upset for the McCain campaign. We'll see.

[PathMaster]

Clinton now has the lead by 93 votes. Close enough to 100 that most would usually consider it done. Should Obama drop out of the race? Some of you thought Clinton should if she lost California, do you now think the same with Obama losing?

[antoniogaud]

Clinton now has the lead by 93 votes. Close enough to 100 that most would usually consider it done. Should Obama drop out of the race? Some of you thought Clinton should if she lost California, do you now think the same with Obama losing?

What 'votes' are you talking about? Obama has the delegate lead. If you count super-delegates Clinton leads by 70 or so, but not only can t hose change (and many will) but by Sunday Obama figures to lead that count as well after the next round of primaries this week.

Also we have yet to count New Mexico which is essentially tied with 16,000 votes to go. Counting restarts this morning at 11est.

[Telefrog]

Clinton now has the lead by 93 votes. Close enough to 100 that most would usually consider it done. Should Obama drop out of the race? Some of you thought Clinton should if she lost California, do you now think the same with Obama losing?

Who said Clinton should drop out if she lost Cali?

As far as I can see, even with the CA result pretty much a done deal, the Democratic side is still a dead heat. The nomination is still up for grabs.

The Republican side is pretty much decided at this point.

[Heretic Machine]

Clinton now has the lead by 93 votes. Close enough to 100 that most would usually consider it done. Should Obama drop out of the race? Some of you thought Clinton should if she lost California, do you now think the same with Obama losing?

That whole California thing is just bullshit. The kind of bullshit people were spewing when they were saying people should drop out after the second primary. Hilary doesn't even get that many more delegates from California than Obama, and on top of that, he exceeded his goal for the night (getting within 100 delegates of Clinton).

The biggest victories Clinton was going to get were last night, and they weren't great. From here on out we have Obama states, and on top of that, many people feel that she has ran out of money while Obama is still rolling in it.

[PathMaster]

Well that is according to CNN and includes super delegates. And I was exaggerating some comments from Obama supporters.

In the end, as I said many times before, this is far from over. Some people are way to easy to get aggitated.

many people feel that she has ran out of money while Obama is still rolling in it. I would love a citation on that. Because, I have seen some information that disagrees (http://www.newsmeat.com/).

[Chrome Dome]

Ah, but you mentioned in the other thread you'd settle for a VP Clinton. I think that would be great (and a guaranteed win), but I just don't think Clinton would settle for being VP.

I don't like the combo tickets and I don't see them being very successful. It's like the politicians are saying, "We're not really that different, and when we told you we were, we were lying."
Which is probably the truth but it hasn't been a successful tactic in the past, even against one of the stupidest people to ever run for (and win) the presidency of the United States.

[Primus]

Myself.

http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/

Spread the word.

[joruussuun]

From here (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/06/642567.aspx):
It looks like Obama, by the narrowest of margins, won last night’s delegate hunt. By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton; the Obama camp projects winning by nine delegates (845-836). He also won more states (13 to Clinton’s eight; New Mexico is still outstanding), although she won the most populous ones (California and New York). And Obama’s argument that he might be the most electable Democrat in a general election was bolstered by the fact that he won nine red states versus four for Clinton. Yet with Clinton’s overall superdelegate lead (259-170, based on the lists they've released to us), and when you toss in the 63-48 lead Obama had among pledged delegates going into Super Tuesday, it appears Clinton has about 70 more overall delegates than Obama does (1140-1150 for Clinton versus 1070 to 1080 for Obama). It’s that close, folks…

No two places seem to have the same numbers...

[Schnoogs]

It's funny...I can tell where my heart lies in this because when I went to CNN this morning I was upset when I saw that Hillary was ahead of Obama. I'm not sure where that emotional reaction is coming from but I'm definitly leaning Obama's way now as far as the Dems are concerned.

Now if only McCain would drop dead.

EDIT...I wonder if the Secret Service is gonna be after me now? ;)

[torrefaction]

I have absolutely no idea how I'm going to vote. The only scenario that's sure is that if Romney gets the nom (exceedingly unlikely), I'm voting for a Democrat.

[Schnoogs]

I have absolutely no idea how I'm going to vote. The only scenario that's sure is that if Romney gets the nom (exceedingly unlikely), I'm voting for a Democrat.

I'm the opposite...if McCain gets the nom I might as well vote for a true democrat and not republican who acts like one.

I like Romneys stance on immigration...he might be the last guy left who isn't messing around there.

[PathMaster]

It's funny...I can tell where my heart lies in this because when I went to CNN this morning I was upset when I saw that Hillary was ahead of Obama. I'm not sure where that emotional reaction is coming from but I'm definitly leaning Obama's way now as far as the Dems are concerned.

Now if only McCain would drop dead.

EDIT...I wonder if the Secret Service is gonna be after me now? ;)

Secret Service detail does not start until you get the actual nomination, but now ends after your presidency. Clinton was officially the last one to keep the SS detail until he dies. Bush Jr, gets it because his father was President. So the next person will have to go without.

[joruussuun]

Secret Service detail does not start until you get the actual nomination, but now ends after your presidency. Clinton was officially the last one to keep the SS detail until he dies. Bush Jr, gets it because his father was President. So the next person will have to go without.

Obama has had a Secret Service detail since announcing his candidacy a year ago.

[Heretic Machine]

Secret Service detail does not start until you get the actual nomination, but now ends after your presidency. Clinton was officially the last one to keep the SS detail until he dies. Bush Jr, gets it because his father was President. So the next person will have to go without.

Seriously? That's fucking crazy, man.

[Xerxes]

It is clear that Obama is a favorite with the younger crowd. And seeing this forum is primarily a young group....

Maybe he just appeals to gamers. :rolleyes:

[cp#]

I voted Paul. Will not be voting for McCain or Hillary even if they get it.

[PathMaster]

Obama has had a Secret Service detail since announcing his candidacy a year ago.

Wow..that is really weird. Maybe they made a concession for other reasons. I also could be wrong. Thanks.

[joruussuun]

Wow..that is really weird. Maybe they made a concession for other reasons. I also could be wrong. Thanks.

No, they definitely made a concession for other reasons; mainly him being the first black candidate with a real shot at the White House.

[Dukefrukem]

It is clear that Obama is a favorite with the younger crowd. And seeing this forum is primarily a young group....

It's because no one here realizes how little experience he has. They're voting for the hip new dude who wants to raise taxes to solve people's problems they solve themselves. People need to realize this fast.

[joruussuun]

It's because no one here realizes how little experience he has. They're voting for the hip new dude who wants to raise taxes to solve people's problems they solve themselves. People need to realize this fast.
Or you could just believe what ads say on TV instead of doing research for yourself. He's for raising taxes on the "rich", and if you're rich enough to where this affects you; I don't feel sorry for you. The rich are better equipped to shoulder that responsibility.

I'm for Obama, and that's after tons of research online, following articles over the past 4 years, and reading both his books.

His experience can be argued both ways, as it has here before and probably will again. I say experience isn't everything, even though I think he's had enough (again, doing my own research, not just listening to TV ads). Just look at the current administration, some of those people are the most experienced in government. In some aspects I think experience can work against you. You'd be detached from the US people, and working more for the Washington movers and shakers.

[Dukefrukem]

Or you could just believe what ads say on TV instead of doing research for yourself. He's for raising taxes on the "rich", and if you're rich enough to where this affects you; I don't feel sorry for you. The rich are better equipped to shoulder that responsibility.

I'm for Obama, and that's after tons of research online, following articles over the past 4 years, and reading both his books.

His experience can be argued both ways, as it has here before and probably will again. I say experience isn't everything, even though I think he's had enough (again, doing my own research, not just listening to TV ads). Just look at the current administration, some of those people are the most experienced in government. In some aspects I think experience can work against you. You'd be detached from the US people, and working more for the Washington movers and shakers.

I prefer to take the experience from what I know to expect. I'll give you a great example; The 2002 Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Olympic_Winter_Games)

In 1999, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis. The Games were also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including then Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) President and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and SLOC vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.

Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.[20] Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources

Romney is an incredible businessman and incredible at managing money. This speaks wonders of what he could accomplish with the government budget.

[Kamalot]

I'd vote for Poll for President!

President Poll FTW!

[joruussuun]

I'd vote for Poll for President!

President Poll FTW!

All those in favor!?

Aye!

[Schnoogs]

Wow..that is really weird. Maybe they made a concession for other reasons. I also could be wrong. Thanks.

From Wikipedia...


As a former First Lady, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton already has Secret Service protection. On May 3, 2007, the Secret Service announced that Senator Barack Obama would also have protection following a request from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

[J3DI]

Obama... I like him because he is a grassroots kinda guy. I lived in Chicago for a minute and he did lots for the surrounding communities. He really was just a regular guy helping out; even continued to go to the church, play ball, and eat out at his usual spots. I like regular guys.

I don't like fake people. Clinton just seems power hungry to me and really shady. I mean, she's already had her spot in office. I really do want something new. I am in support of a progressive instead of a regressive tax. I don't think businesses nor the rich deserve giant tax cuts.

The people that are saying he has too little experience are probably the same people who voted for Bush TWICE. Which equals how much experience exactly? The experience argument only works if you are comparing him to a past president; based on who we've had for President I would go so far to say that the job description says something like:

NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY TO APPLY

[joruussuun]

With this news of Clinton injecting her campaign with $5 million of her own money, and staffers working without pay, it's revealed that the Obama campaign raised $7.2 million (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD8ULI8980) since the polls closed on Tuesday night. That's what, a day and a half?

[Dukefrukem]

The people that are saying he has too little experience are probably the same people who voted for Bush TWICE. Which equals how much experience exactly? The experience argument only works if you are comparing him to a past president; based on who we've had for President I would go so far to say that the job description says something like:

NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY TO APPLY

I was thinking you were wrong when I started reading and now I know you were def wrong.

[Telefrog]

I prefer to take the experience from what I know to expect. I'll give you a great example; The 2002 Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Olympic_Winter_Games)


Romney is an incredible businessman and incredible at managing money. This speaks wonders of what he could accomplish with the government budget.

Yes, because surely experience working with the Olympic committee and drumming up funds for that is exactly transferable to the Presidency.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but to say that his experience is 'better' or more relevant than Obama's is just being blind.

[torrefaction]

Look...I'm going to say this once...

OBAMA IS NOT INEXPERIENCED. NO MORE THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE CANDIDATES, AND NO MORE THAN NUMEROUS PAST, GREAT PRESIDENTS.

There. Why do I have to fucking defend Democrats all the time? That's bullshit.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, because surely experience working with the Olympic committee and drumming up funds for that is exactly transferable to the Presidency.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but to say that his experience is 'better' or more relevant than Obama's is just being blind.

Actually that DOES mean his experience is more valuable than Obama's.

[joruussuun]

Actually that DOES mean his experience is more valuable than Obama's.

Wrong. It's an argument that Romney is good at re-organizing the Olympics. Not an argument why Obama should not be president.

[Dukefrukem]

Wrong. It's an argument that Romney is good at re-organizing the Olympics. Not an argument why Obama should not be president.

No (again) it's an argument that Romney is very experienced with money management.

[Telefrog]

Actually that DOES mean his experience is more valuable than Obama's.

I'm not even that much of an Obama nut, but your argument makes no sense.

[Telefrog]

No (again) it's an argument that Romney is very experienced with money management.

So, by that argument, Ron Paul is a great choice because he managed a college coffee shop, and was a successful ob/gyn?

[Heretic Machine]

Romney is suspending his campaign, it is just being announced.

EDIT: Wait, it's not being announced right now, but CNN is saying that they have three Republican sources saying that he is going to be announcing it today, like in just a little bit. They're waiting for him to deliver the speech right now.

[Dukefrukem]

Romney is suspending his campaign, it is just being announced.

fuck me.................

[torrefaction]

AWESOME. It's breaking news on the front page. I was deathly afraid they'd nominate this guy.

http://www.cnn.com/

[Dukefrukem]

AWESOME. It's breaking news on the front page. I was deathly afraid they'd nominate this guy.

http://www.cnn.com/

You were dealthy afraid they would nominate an experienced, level headed money manager who could manage the economy? Wow.

I hope you're not pulling for McCain who admitted “doesn’t really understand economics (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_admits_he_doesn_t_really_understand_economi cs)”.. thats a direct quote btw

[Telefrog]

You were dealthy afraid they would nominate an experienced, level headed money manager who could manage the economy? Wow.

I hope you're not pulling for McCain who admitted “doesn’t really understand economics (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_admits_he_doesn_t_really_understand_economi cs)”.. thats a direct quote btw

I'm not pulling for McCain, just to be clear, but apparently Romney's experienced, level-headedness didn't help him manage his own campaign.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm not pulling for McCain, just to be clear, but apparently Romney's experienced, level-headedness didn't help him manage his own campaign.

Or maybe its the unbalanced mind of Americans who don't know what they want in a president.

[Telefrog]

Or maybe its the unbalanced mind of Americans who don't know what they want in a president.

Oh, they apparently know, at least on the Republican side. :D

[Schnoogs]

I was deathly afraid they'd nominate this guy.

I fell out of my chair on this one...

You're not one of those people that wraps themselves in bubblewrap and lies in bed all day because the world is simply too scary a place to go out into?

[baggle]

Luckily for Americans, presidents have very little effect on the economy outside of tax cuts and pushing through laws about some industry or another that might encourage it or panic it.

It's the board of the Federal Reserve that actually makes policy decisions about interest rates, bonds, inflation control, etc.

So no matter who gets the presidency, they still don't get to control all of that stuff.

[torrefaction]

You were dealthy afraid they would nominate an experienced, level headed money manager who could manage the economy? Wow.

I hope you're not pulling for McCain who admitted “doesn’t really understand economics (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_admits_he_doesn_t_really_understand_economi cs)”.. thats a direct quote btw

I'm not pulling for McCain. But I live in South Florida, so I know just how idiotic Romney's stance on immigration is. I just don't like the guy, he's a negative son of a bitch in his campaign, and his condescending comments and laughter at Ron Paul for commenting on foreign policy affecting Muslims extremist views is just ignorant.

Honestly, I don't know who I'll vote for. But I knew I'd vote for Hillary over Romney, and I'm glad I don't have to make that call.

[torrefaction]

I fell out of my chair on this one...

You're not one of those people that wraps themselves in bubblewrap and lies in bed all day because the world is simply too scary a place to go out into?

Either this was a light hearted joke poking fun at the use of an intensifier to express my dislike my candidate, or you've become an idiot.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm not pulling for McCain. But I live in South Florida, so I know just how idiotic Romney's stance on immigration is. I just don't like the guy, he's a negative son of a bitch in his campaign, and his condescending comments and laughter at Ron Paul for commenting on foreign policy affecting Muslims extremist views is just ignorant.

Honestly, I don't know who I'll vote for. But I knew I'd vote for Hillary over Romney, and I'm glad I don't have to make that call.

Yeh that whole "immigration" stance has been going on for years. Not really a priority for me up in the N. East. Same goes for all arguments against flip flopping. EVERYONE flip flops. Its not a negative trait. Neither is religion.

[baggle]

I'm not pulling for McCain. But I live in South Florida, so I know just how idiotic Romney's stance on immigration is. I just don't like the guy, he's a negative son of a bitch in his campaign, and his condescending comments and laughter at Ron Paul for commenting on foreign policy affecting Muslims extremist views is just ignorant.

Honestly, I don't know who I'll vote for. But I knew I'd vote for Hillary over Romney, and I'm glad I don't have to make that call.

Amen, brother. I have the same feeling over here in California. I just don't understand how somebody who has no first-hand knowledge of the immigration situation at all can make blanket statements like he is going to deport 30 or 40 million American residents, 10% of the US population. At least McCain is from the southwest, knows first-hand about immigration, and doesn't just say what people want to hear about it.

Plus the fact that Romney seems like a pompous, privileged, rich boy douchebag, and I just don't dig that.

[torrefaction]

Yeh that whole "immigration" stance has been going on for years. Not really a priority for me up in the N. East. Same goes for all arguments against flip flopping. EVERYONE flip flops. Its not a negative trait. Neither is religion.

I could care less about his flip flopping, if the position he flops to makes sense and he can back up his change in philosophy. He can't so it comes across as pandering.

His religion is a complete non-issue to me. I'd prefer an athiest or agnostic President, to be totally honest, so I have issues with ALL the candidates on religion. I'm just tired of the influence of organized religion in the government.

But he is completely out of touch with regards to immigration, and he showed that in the debates.

[51|RandoM]

Yeh that whole "immigration" stance has been going on for years. Not really a priority for me up in the N. East.

That is a very short-sighted view. Illegal immigration is an important issue in every region of the country, simply because of the tax dollars that are spent on any/all programs involved with the process.

[Dukefrukem]

I could care less about his flip flopping, if the position he flops to makes sense and he can back up his change in philosophy. He can't so it comes across as pandering.

His religion is a complete non-issue to me. I'd prefer an athiest or agnostic President, to be totally honest, so I have issues with ALL the candidates on religion. I'm just tired of the influence of organized religion in the government.

But he is completely out of touch with regards to immigration, and he showed that in the debates.

But of course no one payed attention to immigration when Bush and Kerry were running. or Gore and Bush. But NOW its an issue.

That is a very short-sighted view. Illegal immigration is an important issue in every region of the country, simply because of the tax dollars that are spent on any/all programs involved with the process.

my point was no one cared about it 4 years ago. Now all ofa sudden someone comes out with a plan while the other doesnt have one and POOF. Its the biggest (and only) issue to debate against.

[torrefaction]

But of course no one payed attention to immigration when Bush and Kerry were running. or Gore and Bush. But NOW its an issue.

Gee...as problems change and the scope of issues morphs, the issues are different from campaign to campaign?

Do you have no historical perspective on politics?

[51|RandoM]

my point was no one cared about it 4 years ago. Now all ofa sudden someone comes out with a plan while the other doesnt have one and POOF. Its the biggest (and only) issue to debate against.

Eh, that is just the politics of a campaign race in action.

[Voodoo]

But he is completely out of touch with regards to immigration, and he showed that in the debates.

Strange. He always came off to me to be pro legal immigrant and anti illegal immigrant. Maybe I missed something?

[Dukefrukem]

Gee...as problems change and the scope of issues morphs, the issues are different from campaign to campaign?

Do you have no historical perspective on politics?

Eh, that is just the politics of a campaign race in action.



No I understand. But people don't. Let me ask you;

What is more important to you right now. Your Job, or Illegal Immigrants?

[torrefaction]

my point was no one cared about it 4 years ago. Now all ofa sudden someone comes out with a plan while the other doesnt have one and POOF. Its the biggest (and only) issue to debate against.

It's not the only issue, but it's a big one. And he has a plan. His plan is to kick everyone out. That pretty much shows a complete failure to understand the complexity of the issue.

And the last thing we need is a another idiot in the white house.

[dbh1973]

Obama - he's an agent for change.

[Dukefrukem]

It's not the only issue, but it's a big one. And he has a plan. His plan is to kick everyone out. That pretty much shows a complete failure to understand the complexity of the issue.

And the last thing we need is a another idiot in the white house.

The fact that you would even come close to comparing Mit to George is frightening.

[torrefaction]

No I understand. But people don't. Let me ask you;

What is more important to you right now. Your Job, or Illegal Immigrants?

Illegal immigrants affect my job. Having them pay taxes eases the deficit and drain on the medical system. This alleviates investor concerns in American's stability. In turn, the economy gets a boost from a bolstered medical sector and investor confidence.

See how that works?

[torrefaction]

Obama - he's an agent for change.

Which is the only goddamn thing he says, over and over... The reality is his policies are very similar to Clinton's, but not nearly as well thought out. Nor is he able to verbalize them as well, which is a huge failing for a politician, IMHO.

[Dukefrukem]

Illegal immigrants affect my job. Having them pay taxes eases the deficit and drain on the medical system. This alleviates investor concerns in American's stability. In turn, the economy gets a boost from a bolstered medical sector and investor confidence.

See how that works?

Fail. You wont have a job if an inexperienced president is elected. So what comes first??? See how THAT works? In case you haven't noticed, we're almost reaching a regression. Why do you think this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7148582/)happened?? Do you see how low the dollar value is reaching??

[IrishWhiskey]

But of course no one payed attention to immigration when Bush and Kerry were running. or Gore and Bush. But NOW its an issue.

my point was no one cared about it 4 years ago. Now all ofa sudden someone comes out with a plan while the other doesnt have one and POOF. Its the biggest (and only) issue to debate against.I'm not sure what you mean. People did care about it four years ago, as they did 2 years ago, 6 years ago, and coincidentally, in the months prior to the election every single time. The reason we are hearing more about it now than usual, its because its a source of conflict in the Republican primary, one of the issues where John McCain is more liberal than the base

[torrefaction]

Fail. You wont have a job if an inexperienced president is elected. So what comes first??? See how THAT works?

Did you just call McCain inexperienced? Because he's the front runner now. None of the front runners for either party are inexperienced, and you're buying into the bullshit if you're falling for that crap. There are valid reasons to dislike each candidate, but don't dislike them for stupid reasons.

[Voodoo]

Illegal immigrants affect my job. Having them pay taxes eases the deficit and drain on the medical system. This alleviates investor concerns in American's stability. In turn, the economy gets a boost from a bolstered medical sector and investor confidence.

See how that works?

When an illegal immigrant becomes legal, the benefit of abusing them is lost and the businesses that take advantage of this know that. Secondly, what do you do about the people that have waited 10+ years to become legal immigrants and have paid well over $5K to do so? Should they be expecting a refund?

[Dukefrukem]

When an illegal immigrant becomes legal, the benefit of abusing them is lost and the businesses that take advantage of this know that. Secondly, what do you do about the people that have waited 10+ years to become legal immigrants and have paid well over $5K to do so? Should they be expecting a refund?

This is something else people don't understand. Just like stem cell research.

[baggle]

Inexperienced? If I recall the numbers for years of elected experience correctly, they are: McCain - 25 years of politics, Romney - 14 years, Obama - 12 years, Hillary - 8 years.

[torrefaction]

When an illegal immigrant becomes legal, the benefit of abusing them is lost and the businesses that take advantage of this know that. Secondly, what do you do about the people that have waited 10+ years to become legal immigrants and have paid well over $5K to do so? Should they be expecting a refund?

I don't totally understand which side of this you're on. So I'm for a path to citizenship, with a hefty fine. Incidentally (and ironically, since I mostly dislike Giulani) the number Giulani threw out ($5,000), always seemed about right to me. Also, they would be at the back of the line for citizenship. And we should be working to deport those who are committing crimes while here illegally, and securing our borders so it's not a problem in the future.

And paid over 5k, in what, legal costs? No, they should not expect a refund. They should understand that the costs of dealing with immigration in a free country sometimes are slightly unfair, and the only thing we can do is create a sane plan to keep the medical industry solvent in border areas, and stop the abuses of our system by non-paxing immigrants. Roads cost money too, and so do schools.

[Heretic Machine]

Until you find some way to (reliably) block immigrants from slipping into our borders, the best thing you can do is minimize their negative impact, and try to derive some benefit besides cheap lawn care. If anyone has any good ideas about how to keep them out, I'm all ears, because I have no fucking idea how you would go about doing such a thing.

[joruussuun]

You guys are seriously now posting too fast for me to keep track... slow it down!

[Voodoo]

This is something else people don't understand. Just like stem cell research.

Illegal/Legal Immigration into a country isn't even in the same area as stem cell research.

[IrishWhiskey]

Illegal/Legal Immigration into a country isn't even in the same area as stem cell research.Well.... it is if we start allowing immigrants in so we can harvest their stem cells.

[torrefaction]

Until you find some way to (reliably) block immigrants from slipping into our borders, the best thing you can do is minimize their negative impact, and try to derive some benefit besides cheap lawn care. If anyone has any good ideas about how to keep them out, I'm all ears, because I have no fucking idea how you would go about doing such a thing.

Again, McCain and Giulani's plan here is sane. A fence using technology to identify border crossings instead of a pure wall is a fairly logistical approach. Create funnel areas by using real walls, use technology to alert local patrols, and video to identify problem areas. This is a problem that can be, for the most part (Not entirely, solved. It just takes time and investment to do so.

[Telefrog]

Fail. You wont have a job if an inexperienced president is elected. So what comes first???

Hunh? Your logic makes zero sense, even as a sarcastic rebuttal.

I seem to recall holding a pretty good job throughout all the presidents in my working age lifetime.

[Dukefrukem]

Illegal/Legal Immigration into a country isn't even in the same area as stem cell research.

Sorry for not explaining. I was referring voting to government fun stem cell research that doesn't involved killing the embryo. Its the same marketing ploy candidates run to trick the voting public into thinking that its bad, when the research itself is quite good for mankind. Its the same thing here with Illegal Immigrants and what you posted.

[iHap]

This forum is full of ass'

[Dukefrukem]

Hunh? Your logic makes zero sense, even as a sarcastic rebuttal.

I seem to recall holding a pretty good job throughout all the presidents in my working age lifetime.

So what? I'm talking about today's economy. What part of my 'you should worry about yourself before other' post don't you understand?

[torrefaction]

So what? I'm talking about today's economy. What part of my 'you should worry about yourself before other' post don't you understand?

The part that implies that only Romney is capable of dealing with the economy. The part that implies that immigration is not directly tied to the economy.

Oh, and the part that doesn't make any sense.

[Telefrog]

So what? I'm talking about today's economy. What part of my 'you should worry about yourself before other' post don't you understand?

Who the Hell knows what you're saying? Since you didn't actually say 'you should worry about yourself before other' but instead chose to frame it in an obscure sarcastic zinger, how the heck was anybody supposed to know?

I worry about my family and myself before others, but that doesn't mean I ignore all the other stuff.

[Voodoo]

I don't totally understand which side of this you're on. So I'm for a path to citizenship, with a hefty fine. Incidentally (and ironically, since I mostly dislike Giulani) the number Giulani threw out ($5,000), always seemed about right to me. Also, they would be at the back of the line for citizenship. And we should be working to deport those who are committing crimes while here illegally, and securing our borders so it's not a problem in the future.

And paid over 5k, in what, legal costs? No, they should not expect a refund. They should understand that the costs of dealing with immigration in a free country sometimes are slightly unfair, and the only thing we can do is create a sane plan to keep the medical industry solvent in border areas, and stop the abuses of our system by non-paxing immigrants. Roads cost money too, and so do schools.

What side I am on? I had no idea this was a contest which resulted in a winner.

I appreciate your example regarding Guilani. I don't believe the solution comes from securing the borders though. We'd better serve ourselves and those that make the journey to eliminate the reason they attempt the journey in the first place. The US needs a much more pronounced effort in Mexico (for example) to solve the problem there so that their only savior isn't to attempt a death-defying journey to get to the US.

There isn't anything unfair with legal immigration to the USA. It is actually extremely structured. Some of that is legal costs, yes. Other is requirements necessary to be met to become a legal citizen. I guess you could equate it to a hefty fine that would be put on a similarly positioned illegal immigrant.

And while I do agree that money would be gotten from the ability to tax now legal priorly illegal immigrants, this would also have to assume they would be working. See, once an illegal immigrant becomes legal, they have to follow employment laws. Once they go against another legal immigrant on a level playing field, it will normalize and the ultimate solution you propose may be just result in a much more pronounced welfare state.

[Dukefrukem]

The part that implies that only Romney is capable of dealing with the economy. The part that implies that immigration is not directly tied to the economy.

Oh, and the part that doesn't make any sense.

Cute, but no.

I never said immigration doesn't affect the economy. I also said Romney isn't the only one capable of dealing with it. It's my opinion that he has the most experience when asked upon to deal with critical situations. THe US economy is in a critical situation. I also think you can't sit there and complain that illegal immigrants affect how much money you take in after taxes when you wont have a job to earn money if the economyfalls on its face. You think about step 1 before step 2. Not visa versa.

Did i clear everything up?

Who the Hell knows what you're saying? Since you didn't actually say 'you should worry about yourself before other' but instead chose to frame it in an obscure sarcastic zinger, how the heck was anybody supposed to know?

I worry about my family and myself before others, but that doesn't mean I ignore all the other stuff.


if you're following along its not that hard.

[IrishWhiskey]

Cute, but no.

I never said immigration doesn't affect the economy. I also said Romney isn't the only one capable of dealing with it. It's my opinion that he has the most experience when asked upon to deal with critical situations. THe US economy is in a critical situation. I also think you can't sit there and complain that illegal immigrants affect how much money you take in after taxes when you wont have a job to earn money if the economyfalls on its face. You think about step 1 before step 2. Not visa versa.

Did i clear everything up?Uh, not really. Are you suggesting Romney (who by the way has zero chance at the nomination) is better experienced at immigration than McCain? The border state Senator who led several efforts at immigration reform? And why would Romney be so much better at the economy? As I recall our last President was a "business experience" guy as well.

[torrefaction]

What side I am on? I had no idea this was a contest which resulted in a winner.

Well, it partly seemed like you were calling me out, and partly like you were agreeing with me. That was more just confusion on how you replied than anything else.


I appreciate your example regarding Guilani. I don't believe the solution comes from securing the borders though. We'd better serve ourselves and those that make the journey to eliminate the reason they attempt the journey in the first place. The US needs a much more pronounced effort in Mexico (for example) to solve the problem there so that their only savior isn't to attempt a death-defying journey to get to the US.


I don't disagree entirely. But I do think secure borders are in our best interests in terms of national security, and it could only help the immigration problem. I think helping your neighbors helps you, so I'd agree we should be working to lift Mexico from poverty.


There isn't anything unfair with legal immigration to the USA. It is actually extremely structured. Some of that is legal costs, yes. Other is requirements necessary to be met to become a legal citizen. I guess you could equate it to a hefty fine that would be put on a similarly positioned illegal immigrant.


I don't agree really, mostly in terms of families. It is slightly unfair to legal immigrants, but reasonably so, and I see no sane alternative. The speed at which we process applications, however, is nothing short of appalling. One of the things I didn't mention was the requirement to read/write English, which I view as a good thing for a path to citizenship as an illegal.


And while I do agree that money would be gotten from the ability to tax now legal priorly illegal immigrants, this would also have to assume they would be working. See, once an illegal immigrant becomes legal, they have to follow employment laws. Once they go against another legal immigrant on a level playing field, it will normalize.

Supposedly, the majority of illegals aren't making significantly less, or under minimum wage. The problem is labor supply, according to the business'. If this is really the case, then I'd be happy to see this situation occur for multiple reasons. As of now, the money typically paid to illegals goes untaxed and sent back to Mexico. Not a good situation for our economy. I'd be more than happy to normalize the playing field, and allow for a solution which solves the labor supply problems.

[torrefaction]

Uh, not really. Are you suggesting Romney (who by the way has zero chance at the nomination) is better experienced at immigration than McCain? The border state Senator who led several efforts at immigration reform? And why would Romney be so much better at the economy? As I recall our last President was a "business experience" guy as well.

This is my confusion. He isn't making sense, and is acting like Romney being better/having more experience is just a "fact". The real fact is he's woefully inadequate in terms of straight up experience compared to McCain. This is why Romney framed his campaign as the only candidate who can beat Obama. Specifically because he DOESN'T have as much experience.

Also, McCain is on the appropriatons committee. I'd hardly say that isn't financial experience.

[Dukefrukem]

Uh, not really. Are you suggesting Romney (who by the way has zero chance at the nomination) is better experienced at immigration than McCain? The border state Senator who led several efforts at immigration reform? And why would Romney be so much better at the economy? As I recall our last President was a "business experience" guy as well.

No. I'm saying Romney is better experienced at managing money, considering the fact that McCain admits he knows nothing about the economy!! (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/can-this-be-true/)

[Dukefrukem]

This is my confusion. He isn't making sense, and is acting like Romney being better/having more experience is just a "fact". The real fact is he's woefully inadequate in terms of straight up experience compared to McCain. This is why Romney framed his campaign as the only candidate who can beat Obama. Specifically because he DOESN'T have as much experience.

Also, McCain is on the appropriatons committee. I'd hardly say that isn't financial experience.

versus someone who says he...“doesn’t really understand economics” (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/can-this-be-true/)

absolutely!