U.S. Presidential Election 2008

One would like to hope they are. Considering the kind of standoffs the current government has pulled the American public into. It's hard not being skeptical.

You Have The Ability To Look Into Things On Your Own You don't have to believe it, but you can certainly place doubt in his intentions. Your prerogative.

Observation: Conquistador, you think you have debunked people, when really you haven't. It's becoming more accepted knowledge around here that you take people's words and twist them around and use them against them, then declare yourself "winner". If you want to call that debunking, go ahead.

...moving right along, for those who have had enough of this Conquistador/KK/eurovol/me crap over the last few days...

Seeing as I can't vote in the US, that in a sense disqualifies me from being an "Obamaite". I would like to see him win, yes, but I'm really just on the sidelines.

If the political campaigning climate in the states wasn't so based on negativity and attacks, one would be more open to listen to these sources, but in an effort to win a 2 horse race, information presented is going to more often than not be biased in some direction or another, thereby making all "sources" a bit suspect. Nobody has yet answered my question of "is there a news organisation in the US that is considered unbiased / neutral?"

In the end, you guys in the US have a coin toss. You could do a detailed analysis of the mass distribution of the coin to see how its angular momentum will play out, analyze which way the wind is blowing at that moment, measure the strength of the flipper's thumb, and other such factors that will influence the coin's trajectory and rotation, or you could call the side of the coin you would just like to win, because all the analysis in the world can't account for chaos' role in it. All the policy analysis and platform details are nothing if the guy flip-flops on it once he's in office.

I'm highly skeptical the media provides unbiased info, so sadly "gut feelings" go a long way. (60% of people from somewhere said that at some time in some survey from a reliable source.)

Now please. Pounce. Debunk. Do what you gotta do.

Funny enough horseshoe, this election was not suppose to take an ugly turn. Both sides had said, they would run a positive campaign (and for the most part..despite some slight digs here and there) they had. It was not negativity in your face all the time and on the tube. I think once McCain saw his popularity floundering, he really saw no choice but to hit back on the public perception of Barack, and he has done so.

As for the media ... there are independent outlets that will do their own research and expose the other story that mainstream media will not/cannot, due to time constraints, editing, etc. There are too many to mention, in fact hundreds of super sleuths online, but one thing is for sure, you cannot trust just ONE media source to provide you with the information to make an informed decision.

It's no different than any other country. In that way, we are united.

Yes, but what country has so blatant biases as FOX? I don't even know how they can call themselves news.

"Barack Obama went to a school!" (it sounds scarier when you use the Arab word for school... no shit, this was a headline a year or two ago)

I don't mind the blantant biases, at least I know what I'm dealing with and can take it with a grain of salt. Even though I am aware that a biased public will just see it as a confirmation. As to why THEY exist? Easy, to influence the public and to sway public opinion. Not to mention because they receive talking points from the current White House, it enables Bush & co. to malipulate the news coverage first.

My humble opinion: Fox News probably only exists because of the blatant biases the other networks opened up a market niche for Murdoch (benefactor of the Simpsons and lesser cultural gems who seems to have absolutely no political axes to grind whatsoever) to fill.

I'd almost rather have at least one cartoon parody of the news holding forth among the demonstrably biased others (including the partly taxpayer-financed PBS and NPR ... which in fairness produce great stuff) than our host country's version where every news outlet is a 24-hour '68er channel ... supported by forced "donations" to the great german GEZ bi-annual "telethon".

Fox News is to the US as Bild Zeitung is to Germany (or the Torygraph in the UK). Discuss.

Fox News probably only exists because of the blatant biases the other networks opened up a market niche for Murdoch

You hit the nail on the head with that part of your statement. I wouls argue that PBS are just the news wing of the DNC. CNN not too far behind them as well. It's enjoyable to watch a network that has a diferent opinion than the "Drive by Media" to quote Rush. The left wing press is the best advertisement for Fox.

Wow. Drive by media? FOX's goons, Rush included, are masters of the ill-conceived sound byte.

PBS broadcasts a wide range of programs, many of which are requested by their viewers. But yes, I would guess Rick Steves, nerd about Europe, probably votes Democrat.

Don't you mean of the people who watch it? The ignorant sheeple that they are.

BTW, Bush & Co and Iraq are negotiating a time-line for withdrawal of all US combat troops.

I sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh on AFN because it often coincides with my short drive time, and whilst he can be a bit much at times (he has a tendency to steamroller fair-minded callers who might not necessarily agree with his mindset), he's clearly well prepared and engaging, and I'm often left wondering why our host country doesn't have at least a few dissenting voices over the airwaves.

Actually, Jon Stewart has a partial answer ... and I think that the overcompensation for that has left everyone here a bit limp when it comes to covering and/or making some serious decisions on retirement, healthcare, flexibility in the workplace, etc.

I personally support grassroots local NPR-affiliated efforts because they've been the background music of my entire life. God bless online streaming.

Not to gloat eurovol, but Obama did flip on offshore drilling as well, as I predicted. So have your fun with withdrawal, Both sides do what is politically expedient.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...oil.barackobama

Sorry, forgot the Flip Flop link. Here it is.

You can only say that he should have stuck to his guns if you think that his beliefs are firm in the first place.

And while some have doubts, others have confidence, which is why this is a tight race.

What is sad about the American public is that they truly can be the population of 'instant gratification'. By not reading the fine print is why I can understand someone arguing that that is the reason the Housing crisis hit as hard as it did. Because people are not reading the disclaimer. Quote is from the same article.


Indeed, it will make not immediate difference, but it will add a measure of compromise that will help expedite the mission of making America Green friendly. A candidate has to weigh his powers to lead a movement against the current trends to maintain the status quo.

This is the



Not just requested .. but also paid for by private donations and trusts. I knew that if network television got on my nerves with the sensationalism and drama, I could always turn to channel 13 and get a good dose of the Arts, Literature, the Sciences, Nature... It is the only truly family friendly channel, at least the way I knew it, in NY and NJ.

The list is extensive, but Arte is a good example of a ridiculously biased channel, and no one bats an eyelid. Bear in mind that Fox News is private and therefore not financed by taxpayer money, unlike the MSM public channels in Europe which are. By the way, if you don't want to watch it, don't - that's what I just don't get when people complain about Fox.


Makes sense coming from the most unbiased user on the site.

Perhaps slightly OT, but as somebody who watches Arte occasionally (for example, currently enjoying the series "Die wilden Seventies"), I'd be interested to hear what you mean by this, preferably with some examples.

When you've got a character like Cohn-Bendit moderating debates on a regular basis, you know something isn't right. Not to mention the numerous "documentaries" on international relations which are invariably Michael Moore-type material tarted up to make it look more intellectual.

Like perhaps the person posted this (perhaps he is the typical non-US Obama supporter)?

Are the US Obama supporters proud of your disgraceful comment, horseshoe?


Yes, sorry to disappoint you, but I have debunked a lot of people, including you. What you deem accepted knowledge is only the same blind Obama-following sheep mimicking the rubbish posted by eurovol. Also, it is a misrepresentation to say "I declare myself the winner". Then again, seeing your hateful anti-US comments, I am not surprised in the least you would continue to slander me. Observation: you are wrong about me, as usual, and Obama supporters are delusional and/or dishonest.
´


At least you go about 1 mm towards admitting your own role in promoting the exchanges with your numerous off-topic personal attacks.

As for Fox News and the Obama school story- here is all my Google search has found so far:


If someone has something else published or reported by Fox on the madrassa claim (and, yes, most of us know by now that it's the Arabic word for school, both secular and religious ones) please post it. What I have found so far (the article cited here) cites a secondary source as to a purported HRC campaign strategy.

Once again, you have refused to answer the question. How in the world would the privatization of Social Security mean SSI, i.e., need-based government disability payments would get "privatized", let alone the fact there will anyhow be no privatization?

Arte? Biased?
I haven't watched TV for a number of years but their Germany produced material comes from ARD which tries to reach a balance within a mainstream political framework.

I haven't refused to answer, you're missing the point.
Participants on Social Security receive one check btwn the 1st and the 5th every month. Social Security uses a complicated method to calculate how much you receive based on the working credits you've put into the system (if you are receiving retirement benefits). There is also Survivors benefits, Medicare, Dependant benefits and Disability, all covered under SS. How McCain plans to separate the distribution of benefits/or portion thereof of SS recipents or employee payroll is of no consequence to me. I will not support any notion of privatizing SS in whole/or part. Got it. Great.
Now there's a good flow happening here and you're just...

Although it's good to know where you stand, your concern is about where John McCain stands. He says he is not for privatization. As for those who are, you either don't understand their position, or don't care. Also, keep in mind that no privatization plan would have applied to either today's retirees or those retiring in the near future (usually defined as those over 40 or 45).

Discussion of privatizing Social Security has only been in reference to the retirement benefits, not disability, and certainly not Medicare, which is financed by its own payroll tax. As for survivors benefits and dependent benefits, there are already some limitations on collecting them (and in the Social Security system, they too are dependent on lifetime earnings) and dependents' benefits for children could be paid via SSI (and means-tested, as is already the case for disability under SSI). These are things that can be addressed in any partial or full privatization scheme to ensure no one is disadvantaged.

With regards to McCain, you simply made assumptions from his 2004 comments, and assumed the worst without having any details. That would not be fair to the candidate even if he were supporting privatization in 2008.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._issues_growing
http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/...-obama-fatigue/

Rice as Obama's VP ?

Spending time with family..is the surest way to recoup

I wish Rice would be McCain's VP, but her ties to Bush would hurt McCain this year, and she's repeatedly said she's not interested. I'd love to see her run for president at some point.

Wanna know the mood of the country? This will give you a big hint because it happened in Tennessee in the most hillbilly of Republican districts.

Roe beats Davis in Rublican Primary




At the other end of the State in Memphis, racial politics were rejected as Dems (in a majority black district) elected the white guy over the black gal that ran an ad linking the white guy to the KKK.

There is hope for Tennessee yet and these signs should make Republicans more nervous than they currently are.

After reading the article, one wonders how good the first-term incumbent's constituent services were, and it's well known that is a difference-maker for politicians. Also, this line of thinking, eurovol, sees the drilling issue as a potent one.

The white guy is Jewish, so an attempt to link him to the KKK (which was founded in Tennessee) was an especially disgusting thing to do.

Unless the national polling changes, I see TN as a fairly safe state for the Republicans (and it needs to be for McCain to win). Even a favored site of eurovol's sees TN as safe for McCain.

If a Bush cabinet member was put on the Obama ticket, it would absolutely enrage grass-roots Democrats (except for Norm Mineta, who is a Democrat).

One last point on Social Secuity I did not make in my previous post- AFAIK, plans for partial or complete privatization of the retirement portion of Social Security would be optional, i.e., people below a certain age (40 or 45) would have to opt out, otherwise they would stay in the traditional system.

(true or not) I have this image of Rice whipping McCain into line. I would vote for that.

Would you be voting the person, the gender or just to see McCain getting whipped?

No, that is you twisting things once again. Your mind is not nearly as open as you like to think it is. What I see is Republicans using Republican issues to demonize each other in accordance with the national mood that is favoring Democrats and that is a bad sign for Republicans. As for the second, when a Dem tried to use a Repug tactic that was as recently as two years ago successful, it was soundly rejected!

Why don't you stick to portraying your own thoughts instead of attacking and misrepresenting the thoughts and opinions of others. Try posting something that isn't always a rebuttal of words you have twisted. Hell, just refrain from rebuttal posts altogether. This psychotic need to rebuke every post is a sickness.

What's so great about Rice?

No curry would be complete without rice.

Since on these political threads you never agree with people who don't have the pro-Obama or pro-liberal viewpoint, my observation is that your mind is fact not open, which would anyhow be a given since you are the president of a Democrats Abroad chapter. Funny how you call me giving my opinion "twisting" but not when you give your opinion in rebuttal, even when you clearly misrepresent what I posted. Time for you to look in the mirror.

It was a Republican primary, so Republican candidates are inevitably going to "out-Republican" one another in a strong Republican district where the primary is usually more hotly contested than the general election , no matter whether the national climate favors Democrats or not, thus it's, IMHO, non-sequitir.

As for what you deem a "Republican tactic" I have never heard of an instance where a Republican campaign tried to link an opponent to the KKK, which was the tactic used by the Democrat against Steve Cohen. Please don't try to pretend that Democrats don't play the race card.

I will rebut you and others where I feel it's necessary because of what was posted, e.g, what I feel is serious disinformation, such as your claims about the 1980s "windfall" tax, and you and other Obama supporters frequently misrepresent my posts and engage in personal attacks and slander against me, thus necessitating rebuttals from me. How about taking your own advice and refrain from rebutting me and (additionally) refrain from defamatory personal attacks which anyhow violate TT forum rules. Obama supporters don't shrink from rebuttals, either, so let's stick to the topic of the thread.

LOL .. thanks for my second really good laugh today!
"All of the above"

You know, you're right. Silly me.

Here is a recent example of a Democratic attempt to tie a Republican to the KKK:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker...-gop-to-the-kkk

Seems to be similar to the vicious attack against Cohen.

As for the example of Byrd that you point out, there are a number of problems with your claim.

AFAIK, Byrd was actually a member of the KKK as a young man (fortunately he saw the light and got out) and that was pointed out within the context of criticism of the 2007 fundraising (i.e., not campaign since 2007 was not an election year) letter on his behalf by an African-American. Furthermore, the blog which you cite is not a campaign site, and do you have any evidence that posting was done by anyone connected to a Republican campaign? Not likely, so it was probably done by a private citizen. So much for your claim, eurovol.

Making them similar to the politicians of every society since the inception of electoral government

yes, but in other societies with multi-party systems, if the current government-leading party doesn't have a majority, the other parties can call a vote of no confidence, thereby triggering an election. this happened in canada not long ago.

in the us you don't have that, so you're stuck for 4 years with the same guy, same party.

There are simply more checks and balances in multi-party governments, and despite their pursuit of power, they are often limited in many ways (esp. in minority governments), requiring cooperation from other parties.

so, due to limited power, they will actually work on things like "integrity", "honesty" and building a good rep for the party.

I feel I'm a great "Mann auf der Strasse" when it comes to american politics, thereby representative of a typical voter, victim of the popularity contest. And from my impressions (possibly a victim of a propaganda war), it seems to me that Republicans are generally ok with america's poorest suffering, the rich getting richer, and always have their finger on the trigger. Always worrying about security. And don't forget - you gotta believe in Jesus.

So is that true, or have all the left-wing media done their job? If it is true, the Conquistadors out there should understand why I don't side with republicans, no matter what their smaller policy details are.

Horseshoe, the US has LOTS of checks and balances, is not a parliamentary democracy, and while you are "stuck" with the same President for four years, Congressional elections are every two years, plus the President and at least one chamber of Congress are often from separate parties. Midterm Congressional elections are often seen as referendums on the sitting President.

so by your arguments the only way to be open minded is to have no opinions at all and just agree with everyone?

surely it is possible to hold an opinion but respect and even understand where one's opponents are coming from - something eurovol does as well as many of the other people posting to this thread from the left and right.

except, that is, for you . . .

You constantly insult people with deeply patronising responses, nasty asides and twist their words to make them look ridiculous. Is it any wonder that some of us have started responding to your odious postings in kind?

The idea of having elections called at arbitrary times seems very odd to me. 4 or 8 years was intended to allow the president to have some level of job security. Allowing elections whenever the wind changes seems like you would be forced to follow the polls rather than have some conviction or integrity. Of course, some people only want "change" no matter the cost.


Again, you have to keep your coalition together, so a very small unvested minority could hold the party hostage. Seems like (even more) chaos.


I don't think the Republicans have those ideas in their party platform AFAIK. I would think of them more as "even playing field" and "personal responsibility". Small government and lower taxes. Also, national defense is something actually in our constitution as a job of the federal government (although no mention of universal healthcare).

As for religion, it is not a requirement and the Republicans take all types. There are logcabin republicans and jewish republicans. Having a (mainstream) religion may often give voters some insight into your background WRT morality, ethics etc. Obviously, this doesn't always hold true as churchy people also sin.

Will Edwards' infidelity hurt Obama?

In a word, NO. Elizabeth may get a prominent speaking role at the Convention (possibly keynote). It is what I would do if I were planning the Convention.

Dems are probably glad you aren't planning their convention I don't follow Edwards too much, but I thought his wife was not very political or outspoken.

So I guess Edwards is out of the VP running. On the McCain side, there is talk of Lieberman. How many Republicans are on BHO's short list?

I personally would love to see Condi get it. She speaks five languages and is a concert pianist... Amazing!

Elizabeth Edwards can speak quite well and she has a story of courage to tell. As for the cheating husband imagery, Hillary might not like it, but a lot of Hillary's support came from those in the same boat. At least the Dems cheat with members of the opposite sex and that are of age.

Famous Condi Quotes:




Seems she is pretty talented at playing stupid and lying too.

IMHO, if either McCain or Obama puts a member of the other major party (or in Lieberman's case one who caucuses with the other major party) it would be a huge mistake. People such as Lieberman or Chuck Hagel (Republican Senator from Nebraska) may be appealing for their position on Iraq or defense issues in general, but the overall mosaic of their political positions are primarily at odds with the base of the prospective nominating party, i.e., the other major party.

IMHO, the best VP pick for Obama is Evan Bayh, a senator from Indiana, and for McCain, I think Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is the best choice.

What about Frank Richmond, Gerry Studds or Mel Reynolds, eurovol?

Not always true on the democrat side. Studds, McGreevey, and Frank are some examples.

But I know, it cuts both ways. Dems and Republicans:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit.../congress.htmst

There is an amazing amount of sleeping around in politics! Maybe it would have been a more exciting career choice?

No exwives for BHO (yet). I wonder if he is fully vetted? HRC probably did a better job than the Republicans could...

Americans have become greatly desensitized to divorce, but adultery is always a good scandal. And it depends on the circumstances.

Sitting president + intern or underling seems wrong to me. A friend explained it away as "powerful men have needs, like Kennedy" ???

What's up with this?

I read about that somewhere. She stuck her rear out and basically asked the president to smack it. Instead, he used the back of his hand on the small of her back.

I know I was surprised the first time someone smacked my ass playing volleyball. Atheletes like to do that in the states I guess.

Scandal! Impeach!

Back on topic: But how is this relevant to the BHO / McCain issue? Will Bush / Edwards scandals significantly influence the election? Will Michelle Obams speaking at the convention be interesting? Will she tell us how she is now proud of her country? Who will the Republicans put up?