• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF Interim Thread of 2008 Early Voting (THE FINAL COUNTDOWN: T MINUS 2 DAYS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nabs said:
2wexkbd.gif
Click to expand...

:lol :lol
 
Warren Buffett better be in Obama's show on Wednesday explaining why a middle class tax cut isn't socialism to the retarded among us..
 
Earthstrike said:
The whole of the McCain campaign seems to be predicated on this notion that Obama being elected will cause America to be destroyed in some manner. Doesn't this kind of campaigning come across as a double-edged sword. Won't the observance of the lack of the ruining of america only make arguments against Obama harder when he runs again in 2012? "This is exactly what they said about me last time. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now".

I mean seriously, there is absolutely no foresight in this kind of campaigning.
Click to expand...
McCain won't be running in 2012, I doubt they care all that much about who will.
 
Mecha_Infantry said:
A question, i am far from knowledgeable on taxes and stuff

But is cutting taxes good? What will that mean for the government and the USA, someone explain it to me in simple terms please!

Vickie the realitor
this the that
Click to expand...

Lower taxes in a vaccum is always good.

Less revenue when we need to pay for things, like our crumbling infrastructure, huge military, or a more effective health care system, then lower revenues could be detrimental to our progress as a nation.

What's never been true though, and you hear from a lot of conservatives, is that dropping taxes increases revenue. This isn't true, Bush's own economists don't agree with that. Here's a pretty good article on how good economic theory was turned into this dumb as a nail talking point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/opinion/06bartlett.html
 
God these people at the Palin thing are SOOOOO retarded :lol

For those who aren't watching:

P: You guyyyzzz Barack is going to take your moneyz and throw it out the window!
Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

P: Barack is baaad, he's gonna take your moneyz and give it to poor people (hint: black people! noooz)
Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOO

*after a few minutes*

Crowd: GET A BRAIN MORANS GET A BRAIN MORANS GET A BRAIN MORANS

P: Meeee and John McCain are gonna cut your xxx tax
Crowd: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

P: Barack is going to take your moneeeeyz and stuff
Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

P: We're gonna cut your xxx tax, and your xxx tax and we're gonna cut xxx tax
Crowd: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

P: Barack is bad mmkay? He's gonna tax ya'llz by like 1000%
Crowd: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Yep and that's pretty much it.
 
typhonsentra said:
TIPP (Not a credible poll but still): -0.7
Rasmussen: -2
Zogby (Reuters/CSPAN): -.5

The only two which have a 3 point shift are ABC with their likely voter model (Only 2 among registered voters) and DK which has him up by 8. Where the hell did you get that average from? And to say it's not an 8 point race anymore? ABC has him at 7 and Kos has him at 8. Normally I agree with Cheebs's pessimism but this is too much even for me.
Click to expand...
Kos shifted three points, from +11 to +8. They had a daily sample of +14 drop off, replaced with a +5, the lowest one so far. Probably just an odd day. Today the polls show a shift toward McCain that everyone was expecting, but we've seen these before and they've always corrected. Give it a few days to see where we're at.
 
Thunder Monkey said:
Where's Bams at today?
Click to expand...
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/election_central_morning_round_193.php

TPM said:
Obama In Ohio And Pennsylvania; Biden In North Carolina And Florida
Barack Obama is holding a 12:30 p.m. ET rally in Canton, Ohio, at which he will roll out his "closing argument" stump speech, followed by a 3 p.m. ET rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Joe Biden is holding a 10 a.m. ET rally in Greenville, North Carolina, a 2:15 p.m. ET rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, and a 7:30 p.m. ET rally in New Port Richey, Florida.
Click to expand...
 
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html

Obama Campaign Responds To "Redistribution" Comments From 2001 said:
In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says. "Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It’s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign."

Burton continues: "In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama’s point – and what he called a tragedy – was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.

"As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up – not from the corridors of Washington," Burton says. "He worked in struggling communities to improve the economic situation of people on the South Side of Chicago, who lost their jobs when the steel plants closed. And he’s worked as a legislator to provide tax relief and health care to middle-class families. And so Obama’s point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process."
Click to expand...
 
Nabs said:
that was it?! (mccain speech)

"My Friends, that's a dangerous threesome" (Obama/Pelosi/Reid)
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, that's one of the better arguments against Obama. Also, a liberal Supermajority could scare moderates.... and if McCain were really a maverick, he'd stump for a divided government as a check and balance, and could point to 2000-2006 for the reasons why.

But he'd never do that.
 
Thanks for the run down on the tax thing guys..I thought it was pretty straight forward like you guys explained it, but the way they were going on about it seemed like an increase in tax was from HELLZ
 
Bishman said:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html
Click to expand...

Burton continues: "In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama’s point – and what he called a tragedy – was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.​

So basically, Obama is against the so called "legislating from the bench"?
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Am I wrong to think that if that did happen before 2012 it would bury the GOP for decades by highlighting how dumb it's candidate is/was?
Click to expand...

By the time McCain died he would have imparted all his wisdom to Palin much like Yoda did to Luke Skywalker. Go eat it liberals.
 
oh gosh, i just changed the channel for a SECOND. fnc is talking about the youtube clip and calling him a radical and all this shit. *changes*
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Believe it or not, that's one of the better arguments against Obama. A liberal Supermajority could scare moderates.... and if McCain were really a maverick, he'd stump for a divided government as a check and balance, and could point to 2000-2006 for the reasons why.

But he'd never do that.
Click to expand...
I think that's only relevent once Democratic excess bears itself out.

The argument now is basically "sure you're voting Democratic because you want them to change things, so I'll make sure that none of that gets done!"
 
Stoney Mason said:
By the time McCain died he would have imparted all his wisdom to Palin much like Yoda did to Luke Skywalker. Go eat it liberals.
Click to expand...
Palin wouldn't have used some fancy targeting computer either, she would've AIMED WITH HER GUT.
 
CharlieDigital said:
So basically, Obama is against the so called "legislating from the bench"?
Click to expand...

This is what I am thinking. If Obama had any radical views about the judicial branch, I am pretty sure we would have heard about them by now.

The term 'judicial activism' is such a loaded term, most of the conservatives who throw it around wouldn't even know it if they saw it. Half the time when a conservative rants about it, they are actually decrying what is technically a very conservative decision. :lol

Obama will certainly appoint more liberal judges than Bush did, but I think its pretty clear he will appoint highly qualified and serious judges. Beyond that, there's not a whole lot to worry about in terms of any President's judicial philosophy.
 
Old or Not still another Hit: Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Largest Newspaper Endorses O-face:D

The top newspaper in the home state of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has endorsed Democratic candidate Barack Obama for president.

Alaska's largest-circulation paper, the Anchorage Daily News, said state governor Mrs Palin was "too risky" to be one step away from the presidency.

In an editorial it says her nomination "captivated" Alaskans but that must not "overwhelm all other judgment".

The focus should be on John McCain, it said, calling him the "wrong choice".
Click to expand...

The newspaper said many Alaskans were "proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage".

It also described Mrs Palin as a "force to be reckoned with".

"Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake," the editorial reads.

However, it says that Republican presidential candidate John McCain has "stumbled and fumbled badly" in dealing with the economic crisis.

"[John McCain] embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years", it says.
Click to expand...
 
Mecha_Infantry said:
A question, i am far from knowledgeable on taxes and stuff

But is cutting taxes good? What will that mean for the government and the USA, someone explain it to me in simple terms please!

Vickie the realitor
this the that
Click to expand...

In simple terms?

You have a job and you make $50,000 a year. You have $185,000 in credit card debt that's accruing interest. Your current annual household expenditures are about $60,000 a year, on top of that.

Cutting taxes would be the equivalent of taking a lower paying job (less income) and then saying you'll cut expenses to pay down that $185,000 credit card debt. Not mathematically impossible, but in the real world? You still have basic needs that you have to pay for; those numbers can't work unless the debt is adjusted or you file for bankruptcy.
__________________

So the next logical question is "So why is Obama proposing spending increases? How does that make sense?"

Well, think about it: you have this mountain of debt and sure, you need to cut spending in some areas, but if your income is at $50,000 a year with interest accruing all the while on that debt and some basic necessities for living, it's going to be a loooong time before that debt is paid down.

So what can you do? Cut expenses where you don't need them. Maybe you shouldn't be leasing that Mercedes S class, now should you? More importantly, you may decide to invest in education and complete a graduate degree. Yeah, you'll accrue additional debt as you take weekend and night courses, but after you graduate, you'll likely make more money.

Let's use the school system as an example. Say you are a teacher. $50,000 is on the high end of teacher salaries but an administrator can make upwards of three times that. So yeah, you'll have to take on a student loan and go further into debt, but if the investment pays off, you'll make $150,000. All of a sudden, paying off that credit card debt doesn't seem too implausible.
 
lawblob said:
The term 'judicial activism' is such a loaded term, most of the conservatives who throw it around wouldn't even know it if they saw it.
Click to expand...

Facts say the right wing judges are the ones activist-ing the most.

They don't care for facts.
 
I'd been making the argument a few times that at least in the near future, Republicans were going to respond to what looks like a devastating defeat by doubling-down on the crazy, not pulling back. Here's Rush Limbaugh:

Rush Limbaugh Explains It all
26 Oct 2008 03:03 pm

This Rush Limbaugh monologue is a fascinating document, and should be required reading for anyone seeking to understand one of the most powerful conservative narratives emerging around the looming GOP debacle. For Rush, there are only two kinds of people in Republican Party: True conservatives like him, and "moderate Republicans." The latter is an ideologically-inclusive category: You can be pro-choice or pro-life, David Frum or Colin Powell, a Rockefeller Republican or a Sam's Club conservative; indeed, the only real requirement for moderate-Republican status is the belief that the Republican Party needs to reach out to voters who don't agree with, well, Rush Limbaugh on every jot and tittle of what conservatism is and ought to be. And this inclusive definition allows Limbaugh to shape a narrative of the '08 election in which "moderate Republicans" can shoulder more or less all the blame for what's gone wrong:

I wish to reach around and pat myself on the back. Way back during the Republican primaries ... we were told Ty the Republican Party hierarchy that the only chance the Republican Party had (by the way, we were told this also by some of the intellectualoids in our own conservative media) to win was to attract Democrats and moderates; and that the era of Reagan was over, and we had to somehow find a way to become stewards of a Big Government but smarter that gives money away to the Wal-Mart middle class so that they, too, will feel comfortable with us and like us and vote for us.

In that sense, it was said the only opportunity this party has to regain power is John McCain. Only John McCain can get moderates and independents and Democrats to join the Republican Party, "and we can't win," these intellectualoids said, "if that didn't happen." Well, the latest moderate Republican to abandon his party is William Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who today endorsed the Most Merciful Lord Barack Obama. He joins moderate Republican Colin Powell. He joins former Bush press spokesman Scott McClellan. He joins a number of Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska ...

Now, I wish to ask all of you influential pseudointellectual conservative media types who have also abandoned McCain and want to go vote for Obama (and you know who you are without my having to mention your name) what happened to your precious theory? What the hell happened to your theory that only John McCain could enlarge this party, that we had to get moderates and independents? How the hell is it that moderate Republicans are fleeing their own party and we are not attracting other moderates and independents?

... When I saw the Weld thing today I smiled and I fired off a note to all my buddies and I said, "Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! How can this be? How can this be? This is the kind of guy that our candidate was supposed to be attracting, and we were supposed to be getting all these moderates from the Democrat Party," and we will, by the way. We're going to get some rank and file, average American Democrats that are going to vote for McCain. But these hoity-toity bourgeoisie... Well, they're not the bourgeoisie, but... Well, they are in a sense. They're following their own self-interests, so I say fine. They have just admitted that Republican Party "big tent" philosophy didn't work. It was their philosophy; it was their idea. These are the people, once they steered the party to where it is, they are the ones that abandoned it.​

The logic is so airtight it's suffocating. John McCain is a moderate Republican. Some people - the party establishment and the "intellectualoids" - said that only someone like McCain would stand a chance of winning the Presidency in 2008, given the state of the GOP brand. But here we are in October, and John McCain is losing - and worse, some of his fellow moderate Republicans are defecting to Obama. Therefore, not only are all the people who urged the GOP to nominate McCain discredited, but so is anybody else who disagrees with Rush Limbaugh about the future direction of the GOP. Moderate Republicanism had its chance this year, and it failed. The big-tent approach was tried and found wanting. Next time, they'll listen to Rush if they want to win. And so forth.

Take a step back, of course, and the whole argument collapses. (McCain's substance-free campaign discredits more reformist visions of conservatism how, exactly? The defection of Bill Weld, blueblood extraordinaire, is supposed to undercut the idea that the GOP should be trying to appeal to middle-class Wal-Mart shoppers? McCain is still going to win the "rank and file, average American Democrats" - it's only the "hoity-toity" types who are jumping ship? etc.) But read quickly (or delivered with Rush's customary brio), it has a certain surface plausibility - just enough, I suspect, to be persuasive to the many, many conservatives eager to be convinced that the '08 outcome had everything to do with John McCain's heresies and the treason of the Beltway elites, and nothing whatsoever to do with them.
Click to expand...
 
CharlieDigital said:
In simple terms?

Let's use the school system as an example. Say you are a teacher. $50,000 is on the high end of teacher salaries but an administrator can make upwards of three times that. So yeah, you'll have to take on a student loan and go further into debt, but if the investment pays off, you'll make $150,000. All of a sudden, paying off that credit card debt doesn't seem too implausible.
Click to expand...

What you're basically saying is that you have to spend money to make money sometimes, and that is absolutely true.
 
I really hope some people somewhere jumps on this fruitfly thing. It just speaks volumes on her real nature. judgement and intelligence.
 
mckmas8808 said:
What did he say?
Click to expand...

read the replies under mine. it's nothing dramatic, since he had nothing to argue about... it was just hilarious to see him flustered. he was screaming about obamas suits, and told him to sell his plane and take a bus the rest of the week. "if you're really a person of the people as you say, you'd do this..." and then i think he called him a hypocrite, or said if he wasn't one he'd sell it.. :lol
 
Whoo Viewing-AGE get!

Hasselbeck is so stupidhot. The first thing she brought up about her rally was the retarded flagpin accessory/wardrobe thing. Saying that she wished people would get to the issues and she only talked about it because she wanted to put the issue to rest. YES, IF I WERE TO EVER WANT AN ISSUE TO DIE DOWN THE FIRST THING I WOULD DO IS BRING IT UP ON THE VIEW.
 
mamacint said:
I'd been making the argument a few times that at least in the near future, Republicans were going to respond to what looks like a devastating defeat by doubling-down on the crazy, not pulling back. Here's Rush Limbaugh:
Click to expand...
This is the same rhetoric Limbaugh and other conservative pundits have been using to push the Republicans further and further rightward for the past fifteen plus years: Assign credit for every success to the right, blame every failure on the moderates. May they reap what they sow.
 
ViperVisor said:
Facts say the right wing judges are the ones activist-ing the most.

They don't care for facts.
Click to expand...

Im' not sure if that is actually true, I would like to see a study on that.

I think generally conservative judges try to have 'narrow' decisions in which they seek to limit the precedent they set by keeping the scope of the rule, test or principle announced in their decision to a narrow set of facts. Liberal judges, on the other hand, are more fond of 'fact sensitive inquiries' which allow judges in general more freedom in tailoring decisions to the specifics of the case, etc.

Both philosophies have problems, IMO. Conservative judicial philosophy has the tendency to minimize the effectiveness of the judiciary. Conservative judges often run down the rabbit hole in such a way that they end up making a lot of 'pointless decisions,' meaning they will announce a rule or test or decision that is so tightly defined that it serves no practical benefit aside from the specific case at hand. So you end up ironically wasting judicial resources with conservative judges, because they will decide cases so narrowly that they don't answer the basic question that brought the case in front of them to begin with, and the same type of case will get litigated again and again..

Liberal judges have the opposite problem. They are fond of announcing broad & sweeping rules that lower court judges can use in future decisions of similar issue. The problem they run into at the appellate level is that by the time their decisions are interpreted at the lower court levels, their broad logic and tests can end up getting manipulated by lower judges and lawyers and applied to situations they don't technically apply to.

Anyways, the whole 'activist judge' argument is infuriating because it rarely means anything. Its just a way to attack a judge whenever he or she does something somebody don't agree with.
 
Nabs said:
read the replies under mine. it's nothing dramatic, since he had nothing to argue about... it was just hilarious to see him flustered. he was screaming about obamas suits, and told him to sell his plane and take a bus the rest of the week. "if you're really a person of the people as you say, you'd do this..." and then i think he called him a hypocrite, or said if he wasn't one he'd sell it.. :lol
Click to expand...

Not his plane to sell.
 
Just finished watching Biden's speech today. Biden's speeches bring out the wrestling fan in me.
Two things he said today:

"I know Barack Obama, and Barack Obama has a spine made out of STEEL!"

"When you're down GET UP! GET UP! Let's take this country BACK. GET UP!"

(The second one is a classic of his-- LOVE IT!)
 
The thing Obama has benefited the most from his large lead has been the fact that he has no need to attack. He has an arsenal of things he can pull out if need be if things get too close for comfort. McCain saying "paying more taxes is a good thing" , Palin fruit fly idiocy, etc.

Obama has just been doing his thing and letting shit go left and right because he has had 0 need to.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Believe it or not, that's one of the better arguments against Obama. Also, a liberal Supermajority could scare moderates.... and if McCain were really a maverick, he'd stump for a divided government as a check and balance, and could point to 2000-2006 for the reasons why.

But he'd never do that.
Click to expand...


Campaigning for a divided government is political suicide. People still remember the acrimonious state of Bush Sr. and the Congress. "Gridlock" is a word demonized more than "liberal" or "neocon". It's political poison when people feel there needs to be major change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Godzilla Minus Zero | Teaser Trailer
31
372
jason10mm replied
  • Poll
Godzilla fans what do you prefer... Shin or Minus One
32
360
Trilobit replied
What is the easiest way to retire early now?
2
52
828
jason10mm replied
Audible April SALE-abration 2026 (Live in the US for the next 7 days)
Event 
2
276
AJUMP23 replied
Good Omens | Final Season | Official Trailer
6
164
Grenseal replied
Top Bottom