US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 47 - 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 07-17-2008, 02:59 PM   #691
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
maybe you should run this by the McCain campaign:




as well as Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen.
It is true that if the United States continues to restrict the use of National Guard Brigades as well as some not being deployable because of lack of equipment, that the requirement for both conflicts fall almost entirely on the active army combat brigades and active Marine combat brigades making increasing forces in one theater difficult without decreasing forces in the other theater. In addition, the military typically likes to have 2 brigades resting and training for every 1 brigade deployed over the long term, but can operate at a 1 to 1 ratio or if need be deploy the entire force.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are long extended conflicts which is why there is a need for pacing the deployment schedual and the only reason that Mike Mullen says he does not have other forces to reach for without first reducing force levels in Iraq, is because of the restrictions currently imposed on using the National Guard, the readiness level of certain National Guard Brigades, and the fact that some Active Brigades are carrying out important training that has been neglected over the past few years because of the deployment rate to Iraq.

Quote:
so, altogether now: McCain is following Obama on Afghanistan, and yet without any troops because he's against pulling any out of Iraq (or is he? he's not quite sure how to spin this surge thing). so ... save us NATO?
Here is the key distinction that shows that is not the case:

Bush, McCain and the US military do support increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, but unlike Obama, they are not willing to do so at the expense of losing or reversing the progress that has been made in Iraq over the past 18 months. The decision to possibly send units that were supposed to go to Iraq in 2009 to Afghanistan instead, is because of the sustainable progress they feel has been made on the ground in Iraq as a result of the Surge that Obama opposed and said would actually increase violence.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 03:18 PM   #692
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:36 AM
[QUOTE=Irvine511;5300085]
Quote:


are you going to continue with this? even after all the bru-ha-ha over Obama "refining" his plans? have you read McCain's recent statements on the need for a "surge" in Afghanistan? and how he's now decided that perhaps conditions have suddenly improved enough so that he can withdraw troops? which is exactly what Obama wants to do?

The Bush administration, McCain, and the US military have consistently for the past 5 years always been for sending more troops into Afghanistan, provided that it did not detract from the mission in Iraq. Obama has wanted to send troops to Afghanistan regardless of its impact on Iraq.

The Bush administration by the way has enlarged the number of US troops in Iraq 10 fold since 2001. The number of non-US NATO troops has gone up at an even greater rate.


Quote:
Obama has been saying for a year that more troops are needed in Afghanistan. McCain responded (until a few days ago) that this wasn't true and that it was Iraq that was more important, it was Iraq that was the central battle ground in the war on terror.
In 2007, over 5,000 people in Iraq were killed by Al Quada, double the number that were killed in Afghanistan by both the Taliban and Al Quada according to the US military.

Iraq has been the central front in the war against terrorism just based on the number of attacks and casualty levels. But as casualty levels have dropped in Iraq because of the Surge, and the growing capabilitiy of Iraqi forces, it has created the possibility that the United States could withdraw forces earlier than had been thought. General Petraeus told Congress in September 2007 that if progress continued or sped up, that by the summer of 2008 he might consider reducing force levels in Iraq below the non-surge level, but only if conditions on the ground warrented it.

Quote:
the difference is that they are following Obama's position on Afghanistan, and yet McCain's plan is utterly unfeasible -- he wants to surge in Afghanistan without reducing US presence in Iraq all while balancing the budget by 2013.
Which once again is false because McCain has never said he is against withdrawing US troops from Iraq to either come home or go to Afghanistan provided that conditions on the ground would allow it.

OBAMA: For increasing troops on the ground in Afghanistan regardless of the impact on Iraq.


MCCAIN: For increasing troops on the ground in Afghanistan if first conditions on the ground in Iraq can allow a withdrawal to begin without it impacting the progress that has been made.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 04:10 PM   #693
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:36 AM
Tie Vote? Obama-McCain 'Doomsday Scenario'

Presidential Election Could Result in 269-269 Electoral Vote Tie

By JENNIFER PARKER


WASHINGTON, July 17, 2008 —

Predicting the outcome of a presidential election is dangerous sport, but some political junkies are playing the game, running the numbers and coming up with a November surprise: a possible tie between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain.

Let's call it the "doomsday scenario," and while it's highly unlikely, it is a mathematical possibility.

"Given how close it's been in the last couple years, there are some reasonable scenarios that you could get to a tie," said John Fortier, a political scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College." "It's not the most likely scenario, but the states can add up that way where you have nobody getting to 270."

Under the sometimes wild and woolly American system of democracy, a presidential candidate must achieve at least 270 votes in the 538-member electoral college to win the White House.

If, for example, Obama wins all the states Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., won in 2004, and picks up Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, McCain and Obama would each win 269 electoral college votes -- locking the presidential election in a tie.


"It is implausible, but given what has happened in the last two elections you cannot thoroughly dismiss the implausible," said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Under the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, if one candidate does not get 270 votes, the decision gets kicked to the House of Representatives, where each state gets a vote -- a formula that would likely guarantee an Obama victory.

"Each state delegation would have one vote and whoever won a plurality of that state's delegation would get that state's vote," said Stephen Wayne, a presidential scholar at Georgetown University.

That could get tricky, especially in states where Republican and Democratic members split the state evenly.

House Decides President in 'Doomsday Scenario'

If the election is kicked to the House, Obama or McCain would have to control a majority of the 50 state delegations to win the White House. The newly elected and re-elected House members would vote in any doomsday scenario, Fortier said.

Currently, the Democrats hold a 26-21 lead among state delegations in the House, with three states split down the middle: Arizona, Kansas and Mississippi.

The Democrats are expected to pick up even more House seats in November, which suggests Obama would coast to victory.

If neither presidential candidate gets a 26-state delegation majority in the House, then all eyes will be on the Senate, which picks the vice president in any doomsday scenario.

"The House simply must do it, but if there's no president-elect by the time the president has to take office in January, then the vice president-elect has to assume the duties of the office Jan. 20," said Walter Berns, an electoral college specialist at the American Enterprise Institute.

"The vice president could serve all four years as president unless they broke that deadlock in the House along the way," Fortier said.

Nancy Pelosi for President?

But what if there was a tied electoral vote, neither presidential candidate could get a 26-state delegation majority in the House, and the Senate deadlocked on the vice presidential pick?

Then, Fortier said, the Presidential Succession Act would kick in.

"That would be the speaker of the House," Fortier said, " So the acting president would be Rep. Nancy Pelosi."

If Congress never decides on the president or the vice president, the speaker of the House could serve all four years as president, Fortier said.

Farfetched as it may seem, an electoral vote tie has happened before.

The 1800 presidential election resulted in a tied electoral vote between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House ultimately decided in Jefferson's favor, which is why it's Jefferson's likeness you see on Mount Rushmore and on the nickel instead of Burr's.

That presidential election hiccup led to the 12th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says the House picks the president and the Senate decides the vice president.

Congress again intervened in disputed elections in 1824, and in 1876, which was ultimately decided by a special electoral commission.

Say What?! 'Doomsday' Possible but Unlikely

There is a 0.48 percent chance of an electoral tie, according to Nate Silver, who runs the FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right Web site that has run the numbers on various election-night scenarios.

That's about a one-in-200 chance of the doomsday scenario actually happening.

"It's still a possibility this year," said Nathan Gonzales, political director of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "It's unlikely but it could happen."

Before the 2004 election, The Washington Post reported that a computer analysis found no fewer than 33 combinations in which 11 battleground states could divide to produce a 269 to 269 electoral tie.

It's hard to imagine an election closer than 2000, where former Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote, but President Bush won a majority of electoral college votes.

But November's presidential election is gearing up to be closer than expected. Despite public unease with the war in Iraq, an economy in turmoil, and an unpopular Republican president, Obama leads McCain by only 3 percentage points among likely voters, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Campaigns Fight for Battleground States

The electoral vote numbers game is why the campaigns spend millions of dollars on television ads and get-out-the-vote organization in key battleground states.

Florida, the state that ultimately decided the 2000 election, has 27 electoral votes up for grabs -- the biggest electoral prize of the battleground states. Next is Pennsylvania with 21 electoral votes, Ohio with 20 electoral votes and Michigan with 17 votes.

The presidential and vice presidential candidate who win the popular vote get all the electoral college votes every state except Nebraska and Maine, which allocate their electoral votes proportionally.

With more than three months to go before Americans go to the polls, political junkies are running the electoral vote numbers, as are the campaigns, all trying to figure out which state will hold the key to the White House.

"We've identified 14 battleground states where the candidates and the campaigns are going to devote the most resources and spend the most time," said ABC News political director David Chalian.

Key battleground states include Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

"The three toughest blue states that the Obama folks have to defend are going to be Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire," Chalian said. "Those are the three targets for the McCain campaign to try to flip red."

November Election a 'Toss Up'

Political analysts say many of the key battleground states are repeats from 2004, but there are some new states where either candidate could make a move.

"You still have to look at Ohio, Florida and the three states that flipped between the two parties which would be New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico," said Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report. "But I think this year some of the newer battlegrounds are Colorado, Nevada, and we could see Michigan come into play."

The Cook Political Report, a respected election handicapper, sees the November election as a toss-up, with McCain currently holding a 240 to 219 electoral vote edge.

"What we're looking at is a very, very narrow group of states with 79 electoral votes up for grabs," Duffy said.

"There are not an infinite number of scenarios, but there are certainly many, many possibilities," she said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 04:28 PM   #694
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:36 AM
I keep saying how much I hate our election process, all of it!!!!

After the 2000 debacle.

I did quite a bit of studying of the different scenarios.

I don't like the way that article is written, from an Obama-centric point of view.

It does not matter whose favor it plays out in.

The very concept that each state would get one vote however it is determined.

Is asinine !!


The least populated 26 states, that would be 52% of the 50 states, could choose the next President?

And those 26 small States would have what per cent of the 307,000,000? population of the country ?


And how do we even know those State delegations would even represent the will of the Presidential Voters of those states?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 04:59 PM   #695
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 04:36 AM
The entire electoral college system makes no sense to me to begin with.

I guess you could argue that there might be a small handful of states this year which will receive national attention and the candidates' money because they have been upgraded to battleground status.

So what - the other 80% are still irrelevant.

Has anyone seen any interesting/reasonable proposals for changes to the current system?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 05:09 PM   #696
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:36 AM
It would be equally insane and deterimental to go with the popular vote. The small states get no attention. This system works. Battle ground states change. And yes, that may mean at points in time the small states could elect the president. The system works.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 05:23 PM   #697
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 04:36 AM
I guess from my POV the system totally doesn't work and is nonsensical.

I am not sure the popular vote is the best alternative, that's why I was wondering if anyone had heard of any other proposals.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 05:33 PM   #698
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
It would be equally insane and deterimental to go with the popular vote. The small states get no attention.
What do you mean by this? That smaller states don't get campaigned hard?

I actually see where this could be an advantage, it could actually lead to a more informed vote rather than just this commercial vs that commercial.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 05:54 PM   #699
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
It would be equally insane and deterimental to go with the popular vote. The small states get no attention. This system works. Battle ground states change. And yes, that may mean at points in time the small states could elect the president. The system works.
My friend,

This is the "conventional wisdom" that we have been told since we were school children.

Just about every thing you have stated is wrong..


If you can step outside of everything you have always believed and argued.

I believe you will be able to see this.

Believe me.
I am speaking as one that used to make those very same arguments.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 07:18 PM   #700
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:

Obama Hits the Gym, With Multiple Repetitions

July 17, 2008 10:38 AM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: While Obama spent 91 minutes at a campaign event yesterday, the Illinois Senator spent a total of 188 minutes in the gym yesterday – making three separate stops to Chicago gyms over the course of one day.

The presumptive nominee started his Tuesday with a short morning work out at the gym of his friend and longtime aide Mike Signator’s apartment building.

After flying to Indiana for a campaign event, and doing a round of local TV interviews, the Senator returned to his home in Illinois where he spent the afternoon hitting two more local area gyms for the duration of the day. Obama first visited Signator’s gym again, returning home briefly and then going to East Bank Club, a downtown gym which Obama regularly plays basketball.

Senator Obama has been known for his strict work out regimen – rarely missing a day in the gym even with a busy campaign schedule. But for reporters following Senator Obama as he strolled in and out of gyms six times over the course of one day - his multiple visits raised a few eyebrows – with even a campaign aide cracking a smile as the third gym stop of the day was announced.

Obama left the East Bank Club at 9 pm last night. A mere 11 hours later he was back in the gym again on Thursday morning.

Gee,

I can't remember when we had a President (or hopeful) that was more concerned about his leisure time physical activities.

leisure time physical activities = mountain biking and golfing

the more things Change

the more
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 07:27 PM   #701
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Pure addictive personality psychology.

He's obviously struggling with staying off the cigarettes, gyms are the replacement.

Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt smoked for years, frequently lighting up in TV interviews and smoking where it is illegal to do so, and he's still alive at 90.

It's a terrible tragedy for the health fascists. They really can't stand it. They wish he would die, so then they could say: "SEE! WE TOLD YOU SO!!"
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 07:31 PM   #702
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Pure addictive personality psychology.

He's obviously struggling with staying off the cigarettes, gyms are the replacement.
that is why they created internet porn

for the addictive types

I guess if Bob Dole gave McCain some pills
McCain would have not problem getting on the internets.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 07:34 PM   #703
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
that is why they created internet porn

for the addictive types

I guess if Bob Dole gave McCain some pills
McCain would have not problem getting on the internets.
Presidential candidates can't view internet porn.

It's sick and unChristian.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 07:51 PM   #704
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Gee,

I can't remember when we had a President (or hopeful) that was more concerned about his leisure time physical activities.

leisure time physical activities = mountain biking and golfing

the more things Change

the more
Yeah, he should be hunting, golfing, or pretending he's a cowboy...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-17-2008, 08:18 PM   #705
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Yeah, he should be hunting, golfing, or pretending he's a cowboy...


__________________

__________________
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 04:36 AM.


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