U.S. Presidential Election 2008

Charlie Brown I am not!

well, you are actively promoting the evangelical christian in this election...

No all Christians are bad, in fact I work with one, but we call him Chris for short.

He sure does...

All jokes aside, I have differentiated. My reference to a Marxist was directed at MT, who AFAIK, has never denied that he is a Marxist.

With regards to FC, you are spot on, but I think eurovol is somewhat further to the left and BTC somewhat further to the right than you have placed them.

As for you, I currently think you are a limousine liberal rather than a real Trotskyite- and a megamillionaire real estate speculator.

No, I believe in playing by the rules and not posting some bogus ass bullshit claiming Hillary won the popular vote. Oh, and Italy sucks and deserves a red card for every time they lay down claiming some bogus ass injury!

Bitte?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkGuGwUISgU

A pragmatic libetarian who thinks that a lot of what Marx said was right, opposed to Stalinist state capitalism. At the same time with differences to the Leninist idea of "the party", particuarly how it relates to the contemporary (European) working class. A healthy contempt for the ruling class whowever they choose to pose as. A fair dose of liberation politics (who wouldn't shag Podolski?) and a love of the good times.

My bogus bullshit stats showing that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote come from Real Clear Politics...

Carefully chosen to show what you want it to. The headline figures are:

Obama: 17,535,458 48.1%
Clinton: 17,493,836 48.0%

From here.

creataive obama song has me hooked and i aint even a seppo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA-451XMsuY

BBC: Gore (finally) backs Obama for presidency

Clinton won the overall popular vote and I realize that O'Bama's supporters, who have been arrogantly pontificating to everyone for months about "democracy" and the "people" are a little embarrassed that they won a landslide victory () due to a technicality, but that's the way it is.

I have to admit that an article that I read saying that the Messiah's strategists think that they can pull it off even without states like Ohio and Florida made me smile - these people are more out of touch with reality that I thought. I am confidently saving my I-told-you-so's for November.

Jules, you're getting annoying with this popular vote thing. Apply some logic and/or drop it. Nobody cares, here or in the states.

My post was merely a response to someone else saying that O'Bama's supporter-in-chief naively "believes in elections". I was just pointing out that it depends on how convenient the results are.

The talk about the popular vote is "annoying"?? You bet it is! Tell me something I don't know! Don't worry about it, I'll drop it and let you and your ilk go back to living in La La Land where Obama magically wins the election cuz he's just this amazing, infallible übercandidate who can do no wrong.

So, I guess NObama is now up to what? 490lbs?

Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy

You have got to be kidding me! NObama, what are you thinking? Nobody could make this shit up!

@BadBob: If the analogy is a bit above your head, try banging your head on the monitor for awhile, after a couple of hours you might even learn something

McCain wants to lift ban on offshore drilling

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/17/mcc...ergy/index.html

Obama - "Obama said a windfall profits tax would ease the burden of energy costs on working families. He also wants to invest in affordable, renewable energy sources"

I am undecided about the upcoming election, but I fail to see how having a windfall profits tax that will be passed onto consumers can be called an energy policy, unless the design is to get consumers to pay for the investments in affordable, renewable energy sources. Oil companies are for profit companies. Why would they pay this tax out of their own pockets? I think a better solution would be to offer tax incentives or grants to companies to invest in renewable energy.

Considering the high cost of oil these days why not allow offshore drilling, then taking some of the profits and invest in renewable energy sources and pay off the national debt? If the federal government has the authority to allow drilling then they should be able to earn a buck and put it to good use. For those concerned about the US deficit and debt here is a great opportunity to sell something the world wants at a high USD price to pay down USD denominated debt.

The energy issue will require critical logical thinking, not politics as usual. Not having an energy policy since the last energy crisis has put us here today. Republicans and Democrats alike need to grow up and make adult decisions. Time for tough love. The nation needs it.

He is just too old: McCain

I agree that this has become a major issue. And it could be seriously damaging to Obama unless he can get a coherent plan out to the people.

FOX has been hammering away at this issue for the past weeks, and it's now what a lot of people on the fence are talking about (naturally they don't want them talking about the war, etc.). My dad was ranting about it just the other night, how the Dems in congress are blocking drilling in ANWR and offshore, and that people are now having to "decide between filling their table with food or filling their tank with gas" (surely a concept straight from FOX). And what does Obama want to do? Raise taxes! I'm guessing the windfall profit tax wasn't covered in depth.

It's not just FOX. Here is CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/...ref=videosearch

If the US doesn't drill in the Gulf of Mexico, everyone else will. US laws don't apply in these waters. Obama better see the light. This single issue has the potential to bury the Democrats in the election now that Iraq has taken a back seat. How can a candidate defend a policy of not drilling off your own shores while China and Cuba will? The US needs to develop this area and then sell the oil to developing nations like China and India using the proceeds to develop renewable energy sources (Planning for the future) and to pay off US Debt.

Boy o boy, what would the US have been like without all the oil and gold stolen from Mexico?

In a different position, like every other country in the world that has ever gained territory through war or treaty.

Sorry, the gold was already stolen by the Europeans.

Funny how the Windfall Profits Tax was introduced in 1980 under Carter, but Reagan left it going until 1988 and it becomes a demon Dem tax.

It was probably only repealed to help Bush I get elected just as its implementation helped Reagan. More Repug soundbite policy that makes no sense whatsoever.

A sound energy policy is going to take some time to develop and it will come so just be a bit more patient. Obama and the Dems plan will be orders of magnitude better than that of Bush, the guy who couldn't find oil in Texas, and Cheney, the guy who wanted Iraq's oil as part of his plan.

Yeah, but people are outraged, OUTRAGED I TELLS YA, at the price of gas in the states (even though it's still considerably less than the price of petrol here), and the media is whipping them into a frenzied state.

When one candidate comes out during this media blitz saying that the other candidate is holding the US back from lower gas prices, and wants the US to continue to depend on foreign oil--whether it's only 1/20th of the story or not--it is particularly damaging.

Actually when you take into account the relative cost its about the same here and the states seeing as we get paid in Euros.

and FOX news is going to make it seem like the election hinges on whatever snake-oil Fox is peddling...nevermind
Drilling in Alaska is not going to reduce the price of oil back to less than $1/gallon, The problem is that the dollar is really not worth that much anymore
McCain will look like an idiot if he pushes this story, and what little support he has will fade away, you cannot win an election by just appealing to the Bubbas.

Indeed. You win general elections by not being able to win over huge voting blocs within your own party during the primary process!

or Obama will look like an idiot when he defends a law that will not allow US companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico while China and Cuba can.

Remember, part of the Democratic platform is to stop the outsourcing of US jobs and the energy independence of the US. This issue encompasses both and it will cause a lot of grief for them.

Simply drilling for more oil in fragile environments is not the solution either! That is simply appealing to simpleton logic of the electorate. That is one of the problems that needs to be addressed by a real and manageable energy policy.

@JW - you seem to be very opposed to the caucuses, up to the point of totally ignoring their contribution to Obama's victory. Why? Even Ms. Clinton is not so extreme, it is part of the process. The fact is, the popular vote was fairly close, I would say statistically about even. In which case, any other criteria is OK to tip the balance. The fact that Obama has brought in a bunch of new voters, has a solvent war chest, and has the moral high ground on the war issue are all good plusses. That he has no track record is somewhat of a problem, but given the low level of prior presidents, I cannot take this too seriously. Hillary would have been good, but you have to accept the result as it stands...its over. why keep bringing this issue up??

The politics of fuel are very very fragile and dangerous for either candidate: in times of stability candidates can talk about green technologies, conserving fuel resources and taxing consumers.

But when prices are volatile and rising, it is ordinary consumers that face the hit. Suddenly, candidates with even sensible policies can be demonised and face soaring unpopularity.

this happened back in the late 90s in the UK. Britain had adopted a fuel escalator tax that would provide fair taxation that discouraged over consumption.

However, when international fuel costs started to rise and it started to hit consumers, these escalator taxes became the target of a rather cynical campaign of fuelk blockades that almost brought the country to its knees and sent the approval rates for the government plummeting. It was only alleviated when the government abandoned the fuel escalator completely.

Both Obama and McCain have to tread very carefully here as both have the potential to be hoist by this issue.

I am large, I contain multitudes

I disagree. Opening closed area to new drilling is improving access to resources and at least attempting to reduce the dependence on foreign oil. There's something tangible about that, which says a step forward and a real attempt to increase output.

The windfall profit tax does appeal to lower elements of the electorate. The oil companies are making records profits at your (the little guy) expense. I will tax their high profits (a punishment for their unbridles drive for profit) and use the money to help offset your (the little guy) energy expenses (free money from the government, see I'm giving you something for nothing).

That's what I call an appeal to the simpletons.

Disagree all you want, but the goal is to decrease dependence on oil period. You simply want a band-aid solution to a tangible problem. That is not solving the energy problem, that is just appealing to the simpletons that think further destruction of the environment to reduce cost is acceptable. It is thinking like that that stopped the process in its tracks in the 80's under Reagan. Just think of where we would be today if we had continued on the track that Carter had set in the late 70's. We can no longer trade short term profits against long term sustainability. Short sightedness and easy sounding knee jerk solutions can no longer be acceptable in a real comprehensive energy policy.

It's more than that. Those big mean oil companies will just raise prices to offset that "windfall profit tax", paid for by - you guessed it - those simpletons. Remember, those oil companies are in it for a profit.

The only real solution involves both increased domestic production, whose profits can be used to invest in alternative energy / renewable energy sources for the future. Any policy that doesn't include both is just fantasy regardless of party or candidate. It is time for tough decisions. As Obama slams McCain for switching his position he better watch out because reality will force him to switch/modify his. The world is not stagnate, which requires changing energy policies. As also witnessed by each candidate modifying his stance on Iraq since beginning their campaigns.

Sorry to disagree. But the drop in oil prices caused consumers to modify their behavior. If you want to blame Reagan then you at least should share the blame with those Democratically controlled congresses under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush, and President Clinton.

there is an article from Slate
McCain's Brain How might the senator's mind deteriorate over the next eight years?



Actually, the article is rather light on criticism, and did not mention the fact that McCain will have asymtotically increasing health problems as he ages, which might be OK for a CEO, but is problematic for a political leader who schedules his summits months in advance.

No I don't. It was Reagan that stopped the Breeder Reactor and Fusion Reactor projects at ORNL. The graphite pebble reactor was half way completed when Reagan froze the funds and the thing just set there as a tribute to Reagan's stupidity as the weeds overgrew it. It was Reagan that removed the CAFE standards and refused to subsidize any more alternative energy research or conversion projects. Instead, he dumped the money into the military that bought overpriced ashtrays and hammers and a ridiculous Star Wars project.

Euro, if I remember correctly - you voted for Reagan - Twice! This windfall profit-thingy is a Jimmy Carter disaster being resurrected by Messiah NObama. And who wants to return to the Malaise Days of Jimmy Carter? I mean anyone besides NObama.

Reagan let the thing go on for the 8 years he was in office, while Carter had it for only 8 months. Why is that? Because it worked. Reagan only stopped it because Bush I was running for office. Of course, that screwed up Bush I's second term because he had to raise taxes to make up for the short fall. Reagan left Bush I a mess to deal with and clean up.

Euro, as I recall - you voted for Bush I - too!

So why are you voting for NObama and his stupid windfall-thingy...it didn't work in the '70's and now NObama wants to go back to the same failed Carter policies? There's nothing new about about NObama...he is the same old shit. A second Jimmy Carter...in more ways than one. And one Jimmy Carter is more than enough!

The youthful mistake of voting for Reagan (Bush I was a fairly decent guy actually albeit totally out of touch) comes no where close to the mistake you made of voting for Bush II even only once and twice just means you are going to go to hell for that sin!

You really are a moran. Carter introduced the Windfall tax in 1980. Reagan, elected in 1980, ended it in 1988. IT WORKED and even the Reps God Reagan kept it until '88 election year politics caused its demise.

I'm sure the rest of the world would love to return to the benevolent world of the Carter presidency.

You mean like Iran??? Yeah, I bet they would!

The Congressional Research Service has analysed that the windfall profit tax brought in $80 billion in extra revenues for the United States government, which was far less than the projected $393 billion. Also, domestic oil production by oil producers was said to be lowered.

Such a tax - of course to Democrats raising taxes is always the only solution to any problem - lowers domestic oil production because the oil companies, instead of investing the money in discovering and developing new sources (which would lower prices by increasing supply), have to pay it out to the government. The government says it will give it to the people (in order to buy their votes). Then there is no money left for investment (and demand and prices remain high). Moran! This is Economics 101.

The oil companies outsourced just like every other company because it was and still* is cheaper overseas. The Windfall tax didn't cause them to outsource, their bottom lines did that. Now US based refineries are facing the same problems and are being outsourced. Economy 201 trumps your simpleton views.

* the fall of the dollar is the real problem right now, but Bush needs it to be weak for his stupid priorities and lack of any real economic plan other than cutting taxes on the rich in the highly discredited trickle down theory.