US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #7 - Page 35 - 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 08-28-2008, 01:52 PM   #681
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
But judgement is directly influenced by intelligence, and all you have to do is listen to W and Obama speak to know that Obama has 10x the intelligence, 10x the intellect, 10x the ability to think, of W.
I did respond to this last night

I said I agree, that is why after 4 years of Presidential experience
W was the worst President ever.

( I did not vote for him in 2000 or 2004 or ever. )

Experience (poor performance), bad judgment, low intelligence = WORST PRESIDENT

Carter is an intelligent man. He was an average/ many say below average President. He did have executive experience having been, Governor of Georgia (b4 the russins invaded).


I do expect Obama to win.

My concern is that he will be a one termer like Carter.
And the country will put more GOP back in the Senate and House.
And then in 2012, we will get 8 more years of Bush (Jeb!! )
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 02:08 PM   #682
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I did respond to this last night

I said I agree, that is why after 4 years of Presidential experience
W was the worst President ever.

( I did not vote for him in 2000 or 2004 or ever. )

Experience (poor performance), bad judgment, low intelligence = WORST PRESIDENT

Carter is an intelligent man. He was an average/ many say below average President. He did have executive experience having been, Governor of Georgia (b4 the russins invaded).


I do expect Obama to win.

My concern is that he will be a one termer like Carter.
And the country will put more GOP back in the Senate and House.
And then in 2012, we will get 8 more years of Bush (Jeb!! )

I absolutely agree with everything you said about President Bush. I was 12 when he got elected, and I could tell he was a complete moron. People who are shocked that he turned out to be such a terrible president clearly weren't paying attention to anything he said or did during the 2000 campaign. As for Carter, I would definitely say he was just an average president, but I think he (along with Clinton) have done the most good for the world since leaving office. I also think Carter has FAR superior intelligence to W. My question is, why do you feel that Obama would be a one-term president? After all, any president could end up being a one-term; no one is guaranteed 2 terms when elected. That's not unique to Obama. If you're concerned about having a Republican in the White House, it would be a pretty big gamble to vote for one.
__________________

U2isthebest is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 02:34 PM   #683
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I did respond to this last night

I said I agree, that is why after 4 years of Presidential experience
W was the worst President ever.

( I did not vote for him in 2000 or 2004 or ever. )

Experience (poor performance), bad judgment, low intelligence = WORST PRESIDENT

Carter is an intelligent man. He was an average/ many say below average President. He did have executive experience having been, Governor of Georgia (b4 the russins invaded).


I do expect Obama to win.

My concern is that he will be a one termer like Carter.
And the country will put more GOP back in the Senate and House.
And then in 2012, we will get 8 more years of Bush (Jeb!! )



you realize that Republicans (in general) don't make these calculations.

they line up and vote. we're going to see a positively North Korean "our Dear Leader" convention next week.

i think it has much to do with liberal vs. conservative acceptance of authoritarianism.

but this is why they win elections. they make very rational decisions. they don't outthink their vote.

that's why they win.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:22 PM   #684
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:25 PM
I am not a big fan of Dick Morris (could be because I think Clinton was a good President and Morris is constantly attacking the Clintons)

but he makes very good sense, here

Quote:
August 28, 2008
Dems’s Big Blunder and McCain’s Big Chance
By Dick Morris

Many political campaigns run against the wrong candidate. The opportunity to pick on a vulnerable target is so tempting that they are lured into attacking someone who isn't running.

In 1992, the Republicans unleashed their convention barrage at Hillary Clinton and left Bill unscathed. In 1996, Dole still ran against Clinton the liberal and ignored the changes in his political positioning. Campaigns go after the flaming red cape, so glittering a target, and leave the matador alone.

That's what the Democratic convention has been doing in Denver. They are so anxious to run against Bush, their animosity is so pent up, that they persist in running against a man who is not seeking a third term. In speech after speech, the Democrats knock the Bush record and then add, lamely, that GOP candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is the same as Bush. Or they call the McCain candidacy Bush's third term. It was no accident �" or Freudian slip �" when vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) spoke of John Bush instead of George in his litany of attacks.

This pattern of shooting at the decoy, not the duck, gives McCain a bold strategic opportunity. He can nullify the impact of the entire Democratic convention simply by distancing himself from Bush.

The truth is, of course, that McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senators. (When Obama's people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.

The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:

• McCain fought for campaign finance reform �" McCain-Feingold �" that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.

• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.

• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.

• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.

• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.

• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.

• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.

• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).


Remember that McCain ran against Bush in 2000. McCain's Republican advisers need to realize that they won the primary and that they do not need to cotton to the delegates at their convention or to appease the Bush White House. The more they respond to Obama's and Biden's attacks on Bush by saying "It ain't me, babe," the more he will moot the entire purpose of the Democratic convention. It is a rare opportunity to nullify the entire Democratic line of attack and McCain should seize on it.
deep is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:27 PM   #685
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
I'm not sure he wants to highlight this given his irrational flip flop in this regard given the current economic situation.
anitram is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:31 PM   #686
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Romneys attacks were all from the Right. Romney became the darling of the more conservative Right.
Well, if we have Obama running ads saying this guy is not a true-blue conservative ?

So, what votes are in play? Moderates, independents, Reagan Democrats, some PUMAs?
I'm assuming this will be a good start:

Quote:
Here are the Romney campaign's top 10 episodes of "the McCain way" of rage and fury. Only the heading for each is shown below; the details and list of references are provided in the full memo, which is available at the Boston Herald:

1. Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And Screamed, "F*ck You!" At Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
2. In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. George W. Bush To Bill Clinton.
3. Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) an "A**hole," Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, "I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger."
4. Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A "F*cking Jerk."
5. In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A "Scuffle" With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor.
6. Sen. McCain Accused Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Of the "Most Egregious Incident" Of Corruption He Had Seen In The Senate.
7. Sen. McCain Attacked Christian Leaders And Republicans In A Blistering Speech During The 2000 Campaign.
8. Sen. McCain Attacked Vice President Cheney.
9. Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer.
10. Sen. McCain "Publicly Abused" Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).
anitram is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:31 PM   #687
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
but he makes very good sense, here


but he would then lose the Republican "base" were he to follow this advice.

it's a delicate balance McCain has to walk, which is why they've tried their hardest -- and with some success -- to make this election between whether or not you believe Obama is "ready" to be president or not.

they know that McCain cannot run on his record and win.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:32 PM   #688
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 05:25 PM
There have been times when McCain has broken with Bush, and he's been far more willing, in the past, to work bipartisan on issues. However, he's done a reversal since getting the nomination, and all of these issues John McCain Revealed : McCain And Bush where he's voted with Bush worry me.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:34 PM   #689
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'm assuming this will be a good start:


let's note that the Obama people haven't used this stuff. maybe they should.

the Bushies in 2000 had no problems suggesting that McCain was an unstable psychopath with anger management issues who might just as well shoot up a McDonalds as pass legislation.

kind of makes the whole "STFU you cunt" stuff more believable.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:38 PM   #690
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
let's note that the Obama people haven't used this stuff. maybe they should.

the Bushies in 2000 had no problems suggesting that McCain was an unstable psychopath with anger management issues who might just as well shoot up a McDonalds as pass legislation.

kind of makes the whole "STFU you cunt" stuff more believable.
Like I said last night, maybe, just maybe, Obama, his campaign, and the Democrats are trying to prove that an election can be won while taking the high road, while being honorable, without having to stoop to the level of Rovian tactics.
namkcuR is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:39 PM   #691
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I except this 100 %.

and these are legitimate concerns that I share.

Why it is not a deal breaker for me?
Here are a few more dealbreakers for me:

Quote:
John McCain has received a 0% rating from Naral Pro-Choice America over his past eight years in the Senate. In his career in the House and Senate, John McCain has cast 130 votes on womens’ choice, 125 of which oppose women’s choice. Source: NARAL

His website states, "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench." Source: JohnMcCain.com

John McCain has voted against family planning, against access to women’s clinics, and even against funding for teen-pregnancy prevention. He supports abstinence-only education, even though studies show that it only increases pregnancy and puts teens at greater risk for disease. Source: NPR, February 2, 2008, available at NPR.org

John McCain voted to shut down the Title X family-planning program, which provide millions of women with breast cancer screenings and birth control. Source: Huffington Post

John McCain voted against a bill that funded sex education, provided access to emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy, increased funding to family planning services, and expanded teen-pregnancy-prevention programs. Source: OnTheIssues.org

John McCain strongly supports abstinence-only education in schools, despite extensive research demonstrating that it increases teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease rates. Source: San Francisco Gate, February 16, 2007, available at sfgate.com

John McCain opposes fair pay for women. He thinks it is fine for employers to pay women less than men for equal work. In 2008 he refused to vote for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which allows women to receive equal pay for equal qualifications to a man. John McCain said that instead of fair pay for equal work, women need more "education and training." Source: Huffington Post.

In 1990, John McCain also voted against a bill that would have strengthened civil rights in the workplace and banned discrimination on the base of sex. Source: Senate.gov
anitram is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:49 PM   #692
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
let's note that the Obama people haven't used this stuff. maybe they should.
seriously

look at those 10 examples

Quote:
Here are the Romney campaign's top 10 episodes of "the McCain way"

1. Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And Screamed, "F*ck You!" At Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
2. In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. George W. Bush To Bill Clinton.
3. Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) an "A**hole," Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, "I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger."
4. Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A "F*cking Jerk."
5. In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A "Scuffle" With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor.
6. Sen. McCain Accused Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Of the "Most Egregious Incident" Of Corruption He Had Seen In The Senate.
7. Sen. McCain Attacked Christian Leaders And Republicans In A Blistering Speech During The 2000 Campaign.
8. Sen. McCain Attacked Vice President Cheney.

9. Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer.
10. Sen. McCain "Publicly Abused" Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).
if Obama uses them

who wins ?

what votes are up for grabs ?


Moderates,
independents,
Reagan Democrats,
some PUMAs?

McCain cursing out a bunch of hard core conservatives
this is a bad thing?

seems like a true maverick to me.
deep is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:51 PM   #693
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post

seems like a true maverick to me.
Seems like another frat boy who hasn't learned proper adult decorum to me.

Has the world not had enough of that?
anitram is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 03:52 PM   #694
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post

seems like a true maverick to me.


or a sell out.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 04:17 PM   #695
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Anyway, the Obama campaign is in trouble at this point.

They seemingly haven't seen much uplift in the polls from the combined VP announcement, Hilary's endorsement and the Democrats' conference.

Of course, there is still much to play for.

The Bounce is finally starting to show up in the polls. Just two days ago, McCain jumped ahead in the Gallup poll for the first time since May. Yesterday, he was only down by 1 point, but today, Obama is now leading 48% to 42% or by 6 points. The poll is impacted by the first two nights of the convention and part of the 3rd night. The entire impact of the convention won't be seen in the polls until Saturday though.

The Republican Party is predicting a 15 point bounce for Obama from the convention. With today's Gallup poll, he is nearly half way there.


Gallup Daily: Obama Moves Ahead, 48% to 42%
Strongbow is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 04:20 PM   #696
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:25 PM
The election occurs in November. Two months later, I turn 18. Two weeks after that, a new president is put into place. And then just seven months after that, I'll be off to college.

Depending on who that president is, I may or may not be able to pay for that college education.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 04:23 PM   #697
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Depending on who that president is, I may or may not be able to pay for that college education.
To be perfectly honest

I don't think it matters all that much. At least not for the immediate future, which is what pertains to you.
anitram is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 04:25 PM   #698
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:25 PM
How long do you believe it will take for policies to take effect?
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 04:30 PM   #699
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
The election occurs in November. Two months later, I turn 18. Two weeks after that, a new president is put into place. And then just seven months after that, I'll be off to college.

Depending on who that president is, I may or may not be able to pay for that college education.

I went to college in the 70s.
and most of my friends that went to State Colleges got through without all this unbearable debt.

I don't understand why young people today have so much debt.
deep is offline  
Old 08-28-2008, 04:31 PM   #700
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Well the first thing is pushing this through Congress - we'll see.

Secondly, they can only really regulate state schools effectively. If you are particularly ambitious and have your eyes set on a place like Harvard or Yale, you're going to be paying the going market rate regardless. The public v. private sphere is what has made America the undisputed educational leader in the world. Yes, you have places like Oxbridge, which are right at the top, but by and large, most of the top academic institutions in the world are in the US. The amount of money and endowment value of a private university like Harvard cannot be matched by public international faculties, and this has attracted a lot of the top talent. I think things are evening out a bit and some of the Bush's anti-science stance has certainly helped research institutes abroad flourish. But still, your private schools are mostly what makes you the envy of the world, but they are also places that are out of the reach of the middle class at this point (save for full or nearly full scholarships).

So whatever is done by the government is only going to be a partial solution at best.
__________________

anitram 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 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×