2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Hey, McCain - who've you been palling around with in your past?

In 1985, McCain traveled to Chile for a friendly meeting with Chile's military ruler, General Augusto Pinochet, one of the world's most notorious violators of human rights credited with killing more than 3,000 civilians and jailing tens of thousands of others.

John Dinges: McCain's Private Visit With Chilean Dictator Pinochet Revealed For First Time

Talk about your glass houses. So violence by a member of a radical group who committed acts of violence in America is a horrible, horrible thing*, but apparently a government committing horrible acts of violence against its own people is okay. Or something.



*Totally not saying it's not, despite my snark. Lest someone accuse me of palling around with the Weather Underground or something.

If Ahmadinejad's finance minster (whoever that would be) decided to ask help from Chicago libertarians on how to fix the economy and bow out of power without a shot fired that would be a huge victory for Obama. It would also be a HUGE precondition for Ahmadinejad to want to bow out of power.

If you want to attack America in regards to Pinochet you would have to point out that they didn't invade Chile to depose him and liked the idea of communists being wiped out, and didn't try to send him to a world court. If America helped Allende and deposed Pinochet then Allende's crimes would be attributable to the U.S.

Allende was like Chavez is now. If Venezuela goes through a rightist revolution to push out Chavez and the U.S. stopped the rightists to help the elected Chavez, that would have to be the action of America today to make Naomi Klein happy I guess. But then America would be helping the communist Chavez. You can't win.

[BVS]

[corianderstem]

I actually meant it as a jab toward all the chiding over Obama and who he's associated himself with in the past.

This just shows that McCain has associated himself with some questionable characters in the past as well.

[indra]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

I actually meant it as a jab toward all the chiding over Obama and who he's associated himself with in the past.

This just shows that McCain has associated himself with some questionable characters in the past as well.

But McCain's a maverick! Mavericks are allowed to do shit like that without question. You should know that.

[corianderstem]

I forgot. The closer Election Day gets, the more election information flies out of my head.

Gosh, I sure hope I remember who I want to vote for, come November 4th.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

This coming from you is quite hilarious... The most fair minded of us have admitted that this crisis came from all spectums of life. You of all people being called out more than once for using biased and factually incorrect sources should think twice about pointing fingers...

Is Obama going to push the removal of the Community Reinvestment Act? Wouldn't Wall Street, who bundled bad loans need the government to force banks to create those loans in the first place?

I want to know what Democrats are going to do so it doesn't happen again. If we don't eliminate subprime loans how will regulation affect this? You can't give a loan to a poor person without that being a risk to investors. They are going to have to remove this kind of lending or else more investor money (or taxpayer money) will go after bad.

Yes I used bad sources on homosexual culture and I'm bad on finding sources on the internet related to social policies and social groups because I haven't delved as deeply in those subjects as others on this board. Because of my ignorance of social debates I'll just pass on them to spare other people. You'll notice my posts on economics are quite large and numerous.

I'm much better on economics and there are better sources on the internet for economics. Economics is also has a track record that can be followed easier where failures can be found. People are either for or against gay marriage. In economics all people, (except suicidal people), aren't averse to getting wealthy, but they differ on how government is involved. Homosexual marriage is based on values that people hold and is measured differently than economics. I'll leave it to diamond and Irvine to argue about gay marriage. I'll also stay out of any abortion threads.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I'll leave it to diamond ... to argue about gay marriage.

[U2democrat]

I'm awake at 6:30 am on a Saturday...about to see Biden

[anitram]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us...hp&oref=slogin

For the last 21 months, she has followed the odyssey of his presidential campaign like a spectator on a faraway balcony.

She underwent a corneal transplant to see him on television. She reluctantly agreed to film a political advertisement when he urgently needed to reassure voters about his distinctive American roots. She told him during one of their frequent telephone conversations that it might not hurt if he smiled a bit more.

And on Friday, Senator Barack Obama spent the day here saying goodbye.

At the Punahou Circle Apartments, a place of his own childhood, Madelyn Dunham, his grandmother, lay gravely ill. For weeks, Mr. Obama has talked to doctors and tracked her condition. When she was released from the hospital last week after surgery to repair a broken hip, he received word that he should not wait until after the election to make what he believes is most likely a final visit.

...

“One of the things I wanted to make sure of is that I had a chance to sit down with her and talk to her,” Mr. Obama said Friday on the ABC News television program “Good Morning America.” “She’s still alert and she’s still got all her faculties, and I want to make sure that — that I don’t miss that opportunity right now.”

“She is getting a sense of long-deserved recognition at — towards the end of her life,” he added.

As Mr. Obama flew west across six time zones on his way here, he stayed in the secluded front cabin of his campaign plane. He read, slept and briefly talked with a handful of aides who came along. The knot in his red tie was loosened as he walked down the aisle of the plane to stretch his legs, but he kept his distance from a small group of reporters who accompanied him.

...

In only one campaign commercial, made during the primary race, can Mrs. Dunham be heard speaking. Her osteoporosis was advanced, and she hunched so severely that it was hard for filmmakers to capture her spirit and words of support for her grandson.

In August, as he prepared to accept the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama delivered a long-distance message to her in a televised speech.

“Thank you to my grandmother, who helped raise me and is sitting in Hawaii somewhere right now because she can’t travel, but who poured everything she had into me and who helped me become the man I am today,” Mr. Obama said. “Tonight is for her.”

Heckuva job, diamond.

Your "sources" have no shame. Choosing to peddle them unfortunately says something about you too that you may not want people to know.

[A_Wanderer]

Fucking hacks, I can't see why anybody would vote for the big government, torturous bastards that intervene in peoples lives for political gain.

Vote a third party that makes the GOP loose people.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Are you telling me that the hammering in the media about McCain/Pain being a continuation of Bush and that Bush is responsible for the meltdown isn't apparent to you? Democrats love it because it resonates with lots of voters despite being false.

BTW Scott McLellan is not a democrat strategy but a Scott McLellan strategy for himself.

sirmactv.com

Well, if anyone has paid attention to the policies and voting record of John McCain on during the past 8 years, it's pretty clear that at least 90% of the time he'll be a continuation of Bush. That's a little too high for me. They're readily available, for any voter who's actually concerned enough to take a look. Of course, with the intellect of the majority of the American electorate, that's not too high.

[toscano]

How sad is for the drudgery report that the day after their screaming headline is a McCain supporter hoax, that the next day their screaming headline is a quote from "joe the plumber" ?? Apparently he is 'scared for america', I'll hand it to the guy, he's milking his 15 minutes a la william hung

[cydewaze]

Originally Posted by U2isthebest

Well, if anyone has paid attention to the policies and voting record of John McCain on during the past 8 years, it's pretty clear that at least 90% of the time he'll be a continuation of Bush. That's a little too high for me.

Here's the thing. Right now, a vast majority of the people in the country feel like you do, which is why Obama is doing so well. People do not want another four years that are 90% the same as the last eight.

McCain knows this, so he's trying to pretend he'll be different. Not because he wants to be (and most likely has no desire to be or intention of being). Not because he will be (and most likely will not be). But because it's what he perceives the public wants. If he thought the public wanted four more years of Bush, he'd be bragging about that 90% in every speech. He's basically molding himself into what he thinks will get him elected.

Fortunately, it looks like most people have just enough sense to see through that, so they won't fall for it, and he won't get those votes. Meanwhile he's alienating the people who thought the last eight years were just fine, so he's risking those votes too.

IMO he should have never tried to run as the anti-Bush. He should have run his own campaign, and rather than tell us why he wasn't Bush, he should have told us who he was. And I mean who he really was, not this plastic version of who he thinks we want him to be.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by cydewaze

Here's the thing. Right now, a vast majority of the people in the country feel like you do, which is why Obama is doing so well. People do not want another four years that are 90% the same as the last eight.

McCain knows this, so he's trying to pretend he'll be different. Not because he wants to be (and most likely has no desire to be or intention of being). Not because he will be (and most likely will not be). But because it's what he perceives the public wants. If he thought the public wanted four more years of Bush, he'd be bragging about that 90% in every speech. He's basically molding himself into what he thinks will get him elected.

Fortunately, it looks like most people have just enough sense to see through that, so they won't fall for it, and he won't get those votes. Meanwhile he's alienating the people who thought the last eight years were just fine, so he's risking those votes too.

IMO he should have never tried to run as the anti-Bush. He should have run his own campaign, and rather than tell us why he wasn't Bush, he should have told us who he was. And I mean who he really was, not this plastic version of who he thinks we want him to be.

Brilliantly said. I do think that the absolute incompetency and failure of the Republican party in the past 8 years has fostered a situation that has forced McCain to spend most of his time in a strange marriage of offense and defense trying to show how much he's not like Bush and the major Republican leaders at the helm of the current sinking ship of our government and economy. The grand majority of Americans are simply fed up, and rightly so, with the Republican policies and deceit that led us to this point. McCain has no chance of winning if he simply tries to be different. His voting record and policy support of the past 8 years (save for a few areas) has been nearly identical to whatever Bush supported. The areas where he broke away were good, and he should be commended for that, but a 10% change isn't going to cut it. He knows that, his campaign masterminds know it, the Republican leaders know it, and most of all, we the people know it. The only chance McCain has at this point, which seems to be slipping further away because of his disastrous campaign, is to try to drill in the American public's head that he's Bush's opposite and to use whatever fear tactics and lies he can to make the electorate afraid of Obama. As we're now seeing, the American people aren't as stupid, as McCain bet on, and that strategy is backfiring. Does he have a shot in hell? Sure, but barring a major turn-around, McCain can only blame his likely loss of the presidency at his own selling of his soul to win.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by U2isthebest

Well, if anyone has paid attention to the policies and voting record of John McCain on during the past 8 years, it's pretty clear that at least 90% of the time he'll be a continuation of Bush. That's a little too high for me. They're readily available, for any voter who's actually concerned enough to take a look. Of course, with the intellect of the majority of the American electorate, that's not too high.

Some of what Bush did was good including criticizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On the war McCain will happily side with Bush, but he also disagreed with him on the tactics of fighting for some ground and after winning pulling back to have to retake it again. McCain was right on the surge and Bush didn't get it until the slow attrition and slow progress became too obvious to ignore.

Most people are going with Obama because they think they are going to get tax cuts (despite Barney Franks comments) and the Republican party is solely responsible for the financial mess. So yes I come to the conclusion that the intellect is not there in the general voter but I get to that point from the conservative angle.

I'm all for updating regulations for these new financial instruments, but we all know that redistributionism is going to be implemented mainly by democrats and this crisis is being used to justify it. Look at Waxman's opinions on Paul Krugman (neo-Keynesian) and the Nobel prize and you know where it's going. Even Greenspan in practice was a major Keynesian with his push for ultra low interest rates. No wonder people got into enormous consumer debt so quickly, and others used that debt to gamble on the stock market.

Now some conservatives don't mind some people on the right flocking to Obama because they feel the Republican party abandoned their base and would like them to jump ship to the democrats so the next 4 years will create ammo for fiscal conservatives to make a comeback. The ammo being a lack of deficit control and increased taxes beyond what was promised.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Of course the "...." is the important context that is left out. Nice try Diemen!

You must be in training to make left wing documentaries. I wish you all success.

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Some of what Bush did was good including criticizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On the war McCain will happily side with Bush, but he also disagreed with him on the tactics of fighting for some ground and after winning pulling back to have to retake it again. McCain was right on the surge and Bush didn't get it until the slow attrition and slow progress became too obvious to ignore.

Most people are going with Obama because they think they are going to get tax cuts (despite Barney Franks comments) and the Republican party is solely responsible for the financial mess. So yes I come to the conclusion that the intellect is not there in the general voter but I get to that point from the conservative angle.

I'm all for updating regulations for these new financial instruments, but we all know that redistributionism is going to be implemented mainly by democrats and this crisis is being used to justify it. Look at Waxman's opinions on Paul Krugman (neo-Keynesian) and the Nobel prize and you know where it's going. Even Greenspan in practice was a major Keynesian with his push for ultra low interest rates. No wonder people got into enormous consumer debt so quickly, and others used that debt to gamble on the stock market.

Now some conservatives don't mind some people on the right flocking to Obama because they feel the Republican party abandoned their base and would like them to jump ship to the democrats so the next 4 years will create ammo for fiscal conservatives to make a comeback. The ammo being a lack of deficit control and increased taxes beyond what was promised.

There's really no point in debating this. We have fundamental differences in our views on how the world works. I will say that I find it ridiculous to give Bush even the tiniest bit of credit for anything he did to the financial systems of this country.

[martha]

You are so funny. You really must only read the conservative sources for everything.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Some of what Bush did was good including criticizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Criticism don't mean shit.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Most people are going with Obama because they think they are going to get tax cuts

Um, NO. You don't really know why people are voting for Obama at all, do you? No one I know who's voting for him, and that's nearly all of the people I know, has said "Jeepers! I know Obama's going to cut my taxes, so I'm voting for him!11!"

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

The ammo being a lack of deficit control and increased taxes beyond what was promised.

This is just funny. "Lack of deficit control." It's just funny. You haven't seen any information about the deficit since your pal Georgie took over, have you?

[ntalwar]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Most people are going with Obama because they think they are going to get tax cuts (despite Barney Franks comments) and the Republican party is solely responsible for the financial mess.

What polls indicate that tax cuts are the number one campaign issue? The economy as a whole is.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I'm all for updating regulations for these new financial instruments, but we all know that redistributionism is going to be implemented mainly by democrats and this crisis is being used to justify it.

There has already been a redistribution of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street - why is that acceptable?

[purpleoscar]

[QUOTE=ntalwar;5563096]What polls indicate that tax cuts are the number one campaign issue? The economy as a whole is.

Originally Posted by ntalwar

There has already been a redistribution of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street - why is that acceptable?

Obama's idea of 95% of the population getting tax cuts are quite popular and it is what many think will help the economy. This is also why some Republican voters prefer him to McCain. I think they are mistaken because of the social security element of his claim, but that's another discussion for later if an when Obama wins.

In regards to distribution to Wall Street from Main Street (bail out) I'm not in agreement with congress or Bush. I don't like the bail out because I think it doesn't do much. Aren't they asking for more money now? When will it end?

AIG example.
AIG may need more cash due to restructuring - AOL Money Canada

Also it creates a moral hazard. If gambling on the stock market leads to losses but those losses are bailed out by the taxpayer then future gambling will be looked at as not so risky because companies can expect the tax payer to always bail them out.

I essentially agree with you that the economy as a whole is the main issue of the election but I went into more detail of the root causes and I'll list all I can think of for issues:

- low interest rates for a long time that allowed people to get into huge debt. Yes it's partially the public's fault for giving into consumer debt and greed for flipping securities and assets with the belief the market would always go up. Yet politcians usually avoid blaming those people knowing they may lose votes from them. I think Palin talked about living within your own means, and Obama made a comment of Bush saying "let's go shopping". Yet it's still too vague to make any dent. I certainly hope people limit their shopping to something reasonable, but will they?

- lack of regulations for new financial instruments. When debt is created it should be disallowed to be sold in portions to other people via bundled securities that include biased Standard and Poor ratings. Only prideful libertarians would defend zero regulation.

- subprime loans. If people don't have a downpayment and they don't have enough income so mortgage payments are only 30% of their pay then they should look for smaller accomodations or rent until they can save for a bigger downpayment to lower the overall mortgage payments.

Capitalism fails temporarily because of people incurring too much debt (boom) and have to pay it back later (bust). Yet capitalism recovers, if it's allowed to. That's why I tell people to save as much as you can, especially during a boom, so they can handle the cycles better. I also urge to avoid the tax and spend attitude of the government because it just makes it harder for people to save who still have jobs during the recession. That savings creates new jobs and the recovery in the future. The faster the savings the faster the recovery. Savings also creates independence so less people have to rely on the taxpayer and more people will have a nest egg for retirement.

I think McCain's policies of reviewing all programs to find waste areas to cut will help resist the urge to raise taxes and that is a better way of handling the natural recession. The only way to avoid booms and busts would be if all people were rational and not emotional and nobody took on debt they couldn't handle, but that would be a perfect system. I think perfect systems don't exist. Everytime there is a crisis we need to add on what we learned and not revert to failed redistribution policies of the past. Eg. New Deal, Great Society. These systems invented in the 30's and 60's were supposed to eliminate poverty but they didn't. As long as somebody can take their handout and snort cocaine with it the choice factor in peoples decisions will be the main motivator for their success or failure. I mean isn't that what we are all arguing about? How much of a role is there for government? The appropriate solution is somewhere between the extremes of Marxism on the left and Libertarianism on the right.