US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-18-2008, 11:46 PM   #166
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Well then, what do you think of the messages in that video saying that Republicans don't care about AIDS (despite the current president doing more for AIDS worldwide than any other), breast cancer, and the other ridiculous claims in those two videos? What do you think of that dopey mother, who seems unaware that her son, when grown, may choose to join the military and want to serve in Iraq? Do you think videos like this (remember, organizations like MoveOn are producing similar ads and videos by the dozens) are honest? Do they help? These videos are laughable. I really don't understand how the actors kept a straight face. Even they must have known what nonsense they were creating.


i'm eagerly awaiting your post decrying the Swift Boat ads from the 2004 election!
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-19-2008, 02:51 AM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,445
Local Time: 11:11 PM
Sounds like a bunch of "Talking Heads" in here on both sides, I for one am glad that I can't hear you speak though. I for one whether a Dem or Republican wins would just like to see a President that is not just a Talking Head and can do their best to bring some respect back to a country that is seriously lacking respect on the world wide scene.

A president that believes in cooperation rather than corruption would be a start. Every President since I have been alive has been corrupt, and that is sad. Innovation, integrity, respect, these are all things that the next president needs to have at the forefront of their plans in order to make politics relevant again.
__________________

__________________
Yahweh is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 02:57 AM   #168
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
how does one respond to a post designed to incite and antagonize without withering sarcasm?
It's not my job to tell people how to stay calm. The reason I wasn't singling out anyone before is because it's obvious that the pathetic My-tribe-good!-Your-tribe-bad! mentality our politics are saturated with is at fever pitch during election season, and the campaign threads tend to reflect that dynamic from beginning to end; it's not just the 'usual' problem of one or two people being rude (though there's plenty of that). If you--I mean 'you' in a general sense here--start out smirking Gotcha! or shrilly inflating the significance of whatever story you're posting, then Surprise Surprise!, yes, people are gonna get withering, because they know hyperbole when they see it, and especially if they already disagree with you anyway, they'll be itching to take you down a couple notches too. Likewise, if you opt to get withering and let whoever you're responding to know just how worthless you think their thoughts are, then Surprise Surprise!, yep, they're gonna get their noses out of joint, because they'll notice you're not nearly so hard on your own kind, and especially when multiple people reply like that to them at once, they'll feel resentful that the patience granted to others isn't extended to them.

This forum generally works best when there's some actual idea or problem being examined, but these campaign threads often fail to make it past the polemical blasts level, when they even make it that far. Of course staying as calm and nonadversarial and objective as possible isn't by itself a solution to that, but it's certainly a prerequisite. Look for points you can build on in the post you're responding to, not just its flaws. You're here to discuss political issues, not to grab The Enemy by the jugular and take him down in defense of your team. Leave that kind of pointless crap to the losers whose silly rants we all see every day in the Reader Comments section of most any election article online.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 07:35 AM   #169
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 06:11 PM

There's no justification for that, none at all. I think it's more than a judgment call by a few volunteers, when you read the background info in the article it seems obvious that these events involve concerted efforts by both campaigns to create a certain "look" and to avoid same. And that is a well known fact already, how these things are orchestrated. So I find it hard to believe that they did that on their own for their own motivations. Or maybe some of his supporters and volunteers aren't as high and open minded and without prejudice as they purport themselves to be. They're even ignorant about what a headscarf is, according to what they said. It's hardly the same as a "baseball".
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 10:09 AM   #170
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
There is no one here that has put more faith in polls than you. You claimed that the new polls showing McCain 6 points behind after Obama won the nomination would only grow larger as time went on, and would never get any closer than that. But, 3 days later, Obama's lead was cut in half.

In addition, you should take anything from Quinnipiac University polling with a grain of salt.

McCain has always been his own person with views different from Bush but has NEVER seperated himself from Bush on the necessity of removing Saddam from power. Unlike Obama, he is never going to claim that the world would be a safer or better place with Saddam still in power in Iraq. He also supports only withdrawing from Iraq when conditions on the ground warrent it, not because of a silly campaign promise or simply yanking troops out without any consideration for the damage that could cause.

Ironically, you hear more about Obama labling McCain as Bush than you do about McCain distinguishing himself from Bush. When Obama actually gets into specifics, something he rarely does, he talks about the past, while McCain talks about the future.

McCain has a long history of working with Democrats in the Senate, but as the past two years of shown and certainly the Reagan/Bush Sr. years showed, the President does not need for his party to have a majority in the House and Senate to get what he wants.
I don't think a single thing written in this post is true. Makes it difficult to open up dialogue, you know?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 01:56 PM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:11 PM
[q]"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice."

They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism," - Barack Obama[/q]



__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-19-2008, 04:09 PM   #172
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
[q]"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice."

They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism," - Barack Obama[/q]



If Barack Obama knew anything about the history of US Foreign Policy, US National Security, he would know that the policy decisions of the Bush administration are far away from being the most disastrous of Foreign Policy decisions in recent history.

Thousands of members of Al Quada all across the world have been captured or killed since 9/11. So the idea that no one responsible for 9/11 has been brought to justice is simply a statement that shows Obama's dishonesty or his total ignorance of the issue.

I've got news for you Obama, foreign policy and national security are a lot more complex and involve a variety of risks and problems that often require simultanious action. You don't have the luxury of simply solving one problem at a time.

In order to better educate yourself, you should sit down with former CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks. In doing so, you would learn that the United States increased the number of troops in Afghanistan as it went to war in Iraq. None of this taking the eye of the ball dung.

It was not hype that Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions and had failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. It was not hype what Saddam had already done to the region, 4 invasions and attacks on neighbors in a area of the world critical to the planets economy and energy. Its not hype that the United States had to send over 500,000 troops to the region to remove his troops from Kuwait in 1991, and had to send another 100,000 troops to Kuwait in 1994 simply because he moved two Republican guard divisions to the border. Bill Clinton was not hyping anything the multiple times he took military action against Saddam, when he stated in clear terms that Saddam was both a threat to the region and the world, and devoted the United States to a policy of regime change in Iraq. It was not hype that Saddam retained all of the necessary technical and scientific capacity to restart any weapons program he wanted at any time regardless of whether he had actually disposed of all the previous weapons he built as many have alleged but have never proven.

The only thing misleading and foolish is the idea that the world would be safer today if Saddam were still in power in Iraq which is the policy you support and favor given your opposition to the only effective means of removing Saddam from power.

Bush removed the Taliban and Saddam from power in Afghanistan and Iraq and in doing so has removed two terrible threats from the world. Persian Gulf Oil supply vital to the planets energy needs has never been more safe and secure. The occupation of Afghanistan has been the most successful foreign occupation in Afghanistan's history. Thousands of Al Quada terrorist in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed or captured. Both countries are rebuilding themselves and have reached new levels of development exceeding where they were prior to the invasions in many different area's. No terrorist has been able to launch a successful attack on the United States since 9/11. Yes, a few of them have been able to make video tapes inside Pakistan which seems to be your primary concern when it comes to US security as opposed to actual terrorist attacks, actions, leaders and capabilities that really do threaten or harm US security.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 04:26 PM   #173
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:11 PM
Quote:
Obama could win vote, lose election

Harry Siegel Wed Jun 18, 9:35 PM ET

Until 2000, it hadn’t happened in more than 100 years, but plugged-in observers from both parties see a distinct possibility of Barack Obama winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College — and with it the presidency — to John McCain.


Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11.

One possible result: Even as the national mood moves left, the 2004 map largely holds. Obama’s 32 new electoral votes from Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia are offset by 21 new electoral votes for McCain in Michigan and New Hampshire — and despite a 2- or 3-point popular vote victory for Obama, America wakes up on Jan. 20 to a President McCain.

According to Tad Devine, who served as the chief political consultant for Al Gore in 2000 and as a senior adviser to John F. Kerry in 2004, “it certainly is a possibility. Not a likelihood, but it is a real possibility.”


I hope this happens

and I hope it happens big

not by 500,000 votes - like it did in 2000

but by several million, I'd like to see the next president have 5- 7 million less votes than the loser

I absolutely HATE the electoral college and want to see it obliterated
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 04:57 PM   #174
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:11 PM
Quote:
Commentary: Obama's Flip-Flop on Public Financing

Sam Donaldson on What Motivated Obama's Switch

by SAM DONALDSON

June 19, 2008—

The following is a commentary by ABC News' Sam Donaldson. Click here to view a video version of Sam's latest essay

Senator Obama has announced he will opt out of public financing for the general election. He says he will "forgo" more than $80 million in public funds and go it alone.

How was that decision made?

This reporter obtained a transcript of the meeting during which the Obama team made the decision.

Someone said, "We want to do this but we've got a problem last September you wrote that you would aggressively pursue an agreement with your Republican opponent for public financing. And then last February, when Tim Russert asked you why you wouldn't keep your word on that, you said you would sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair for both sides."

"Yes," says someone else, "but you didn't really promise to do it, just to 'pursue an agreement,' and let's face it, if we're free to raise a ton of money above the public financing limit we can bury McCain with more television ads than any candidate has ever been able to run in the history of presidential politics."

"Okay," says someone else. "But we've got to word the announcement in a way that makes it sound like we are actually taking the high ground in this matter. That we are the ones fighting against the big money in politics."

Well of course, I have no such transcript, I don't know what they said to each other, but I do know what Sen. Obama said on his Web site about this.

He said it was not an easy decision because he supports a robust system of public financing of elections & but the system as it exists today is broken and his opponents are masters of gaming the broken system.

Therefore, said Sen. Obama, he wants to declare his independence from such a broken system and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.

All I can say is, here's to the high ground and here's to change ain't it great?


How does this square with what Obama said to Tim Russert?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 09:50 PM   #175
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:11 AM
^ That's been brought up in here several times, the expedient about-face on public financing. I think realistically how much that matters will come down to how high a priority voters place on campaign finance issues at the ballot box.



Obama is correct about the safe-havens; pretty much every attempted or completed al-Qaeda attack in Europe or Africa since 2004 has been traced to the Afghan-Pak border zone (and General McNeill made a similar point at his DoD press conference after relinquishing ISF command a couple weeks back: "[M]y view is [that the 50% increase in cross-border attacks since last spring is] directly attributable to the lack of pressure on the other side of the border"). No surprises there--the increasing Talibanization of FATA/NWFP, despite a series of "peace agreements" between Islamabad and the rebels, is now such that Peshawar itself is under threat of siege; Islamabad is politically in shambles; and General Kayani, apparently not the compliant successor to Musharraf Washington had hoped for, hasn't shown up for the 'Tripartate Committee' meetings between the Pakistani, Afghani and NATO military heads in months. It's not that there hasn't been "diplomacy" or adequate financial support; Negroponte's been to Pakistan multiple times this year alone, then there's the $11+ million we've contributed since 9/11 for GWOT purposes (most of which has apparently wound up going to Kashmir). But the lack of facilitation of regional coordination, the continued neglect of the Kashmir issue, the ill-advised continued loyalty to Musharraf, and yes, the inadequate troop numbers in Afghanistan--especially for reconstruction and training (McNeill said 400,000 is "what you'd really need," acknowledging in the same breath that to even hope for that would be "absurd")...all of those will need to change. I have yet to hear either candidate say anything about the situation that indicates a solid grasp of its complexities, though.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 09:58 PM   #176
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 03:11 PM
I don't like that he's changed his mind about it ... but that doesn't mean I'm going to switch teams.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 10:10 PM   #177
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
I think realistically how much that matters will come down to how high a priority voters place on campaign finance issues at the ballot box.
I think this is true, and to be honest, campaign finance always "pops up" on the radar but never seems to be THAT important with voters...

To be honest I can understand both sides of this issue.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-19-2008, 10:16 PM   #178
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
I don't like that he's changed his mind about it ... but that doesn't mean I'm going to switch teams.
I respect your response

thanks for not just trying to sweep it under the carpet.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 10:21 PM   #179
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 03:11 PM
I have to say I agree with BVS that it's probably not going to be high on a list of concerns for a lot of voters.

And to be honest, I'm never shocked when a politician says one thing and does another. Isn't that what they do? If he changed his mind on something I really cared about, I might have a different response, but at least in this election, it's very unlikely that it would make me not vote for him.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 10:23 PM   #180
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
^ That's been brought up in here several times, the expedient about-face on public financing. I think realistically how much that matters will come down to how high a priority voters place on campaign finance issues at the ballot box.
really ?

I don't think it is about how high a priority voters place on campaign finance at all.


If Obama had always said he would choose not to accept public financing
> but only money from actual people that support him people would not care that he was not taking tax payers money, they would have probably been impressed.


I think what it comes down to, is that he is going back on his word.

The bloom is off, Obama really is not that "breath of fresh air".
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com