# Where Mayors become VP



## Chris (Sep 5, 2008)




----------



## Xaios (Sep 5, 2008)

I'll be honest, this thread smells of kneejerk diatribe. Chris, you can do better.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 5, 2008)

In what sense is it kneejerk? My local Burger King is probably bigger than that place. Campus administrators in the UW probably have more responsibilities than the current mayor of Wasilia. My city's urban area population is over three times that of Alaska. The Seattle greater metropolitan area is more than five. And Seattle is one of the smaller cities in the nation (compare with LA, New York, etc.)

Going by experience, the governor of every state but Rhode Island probably has more, and led more people. The same for the mayors of several cities.


----------



## Chris (Sep 5, 2008)

Xaios said:


> I'll be honest, this thread smells of kneejerk diatribe. Chris, you can do better.



Those words you keep saying... I do not think they mean.. What you think they mean.

[action=Chris]thinks you need to investigate the meanings of the words "kneejerk" and "diatribe".[/action]


----------



## MorbidTravis (Sep 5, 2008)

Xaios said:


> I'll be honest, this thread smells of kneejerk diatribe. Chris, you can do better.



in english please.


----------



## ohio_eric (Sep 5, 2008)

Allow me to try and put the size of Wasilla Alaska into perspective. If the entire population of the town, and I'm using the biggest number I have seen, travelled to Columbus, Ohio, a city with more people than the entire state of Alaska, and they were all to take a seat in Ohio Stadium. There would still be room for over 95,000 more people.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 5, 2008)

Now that I think about it, Rudy Guiliani is probably going WTF.


----------



## Xaios (Sep 6, 2008)

For the record, I'm well aware of the meanings of these terms, and they do make sense.


----------



## ohio_eric (Sep 6, 2008)

So Palin's lack of experience and coming a relatively sparsely populated state and a very small city doesn't concern you at all?


----------



## noodles (Sep 6, 2008)

wasilla, alaska - Google Maps

You can't even zoom to the last to notches. She was head of the PTA? What, did the other eight members show up all the time? How many eligible voters do you think live in that town? Do they count wolves? Wait, maybe they did, and she almost lost because they all voted for the other candidate. I bet that is why she wants to kill wolves.


----------



## Scott (Sep 6, 2008)

I'm from a town of 3500 people. It's because of people like all of you that our Mayor Billy-Joe will never become Prime Minister 



Yes, that's his real name.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 6, 2008)

Scott said:


> I'm from a town of 3500 people. It's because of people like all of you that our Mayor Billy-Joe will never become Prime Minister
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's his real name.



 i was unaware the Enterprise had 3500 people on it


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 6, 2008)

I've said it before, the Dem that lost the Governorship to her must have been a heroin addict or something worse. Does anyone know who he was or why he lost?


----------



## Popsyche (Sep 6, 2008)

Xaios said:


> I'll be honest, this thread smells of kneejerk diatribe. Chris, you can do better.



Rob, How so?

The Burger King reference looks accurate. In that picture, do I see a drive thru window?


----------



## Scali (Sep 6, 2008)

Chris said:


> Those words you keep saying... I do not think they mean.. What you think they mean.


 
Princess Bride fan?


----------



## kristallin (Sep 6, 2008)

Josh Lawson said:


> I've said it before, the Dem that lost the Governorship to her must have been a heroin addict or something worse. Does anyone know who he was or why he lost?



My theory is he was an old white-haired fat guy. People vote with their eyes in this country, I remember following the '04 campaign on BBC World, and these people in the Bible Belt were proclaiming they were voting Bush because "he got a nice smile."


----------



## Toshiro (Sep 6, 2008)

snopes.com: A Note to All by Anne Kilkenny


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 6, 2008)

Toshiro said:


> snopes.com: A Note to All by Anne Kilkenny


There is already a thread starting with this letter. It is good to see that Snopes (an awesome fact checking resource) confirmed it's authenticity.


----------



## Toshiro (Sep 6, 2008)

Josh Lawson said:


> There is already a thread starting with this letter. It is good to see that Snopes (an awesome fact checking resource) confirmed it's authenticity.



I've been actually trying to avoid the political threads, Oops.


----------



## damigu (Sep 6, 2008)

i fail to see how "lack of experience" is a valid argument against palin, when obama suffers from the same ailment.


(no, my comment is not indicative of who i am supporting at all--so please don't make assumptions about me based on that. i just find it amusing/ridiculous that one camp is arguing it's own flaw against the other.)


----------



## Brendan G (Sep 6, 2008)

damigu said:


> i fail to see how "lack of experience" is a valid argument against palin, when obama suffers from the same ailment.
> 
> 
> (no, my comment is not indicative of who i am supporting at all--so please don't make assumptions about me based on that. i just find it amusing/ridiculous that one camp is arguing it's own flaw against the other.)


Well the fact that McCain criticized Obama for being inexperienced then picked someone who was inexperienced herself to become vice president is hypocritical.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 6, 2008)

i fail to see how "lack of experience" is a valid argument against obama, when palin suffers from the same ailment.

Obama: Columbia University
Palin: Hawaii Pacific / North Idaho
Obama: Harvard (majored in law, graduated magna cum laude)
Palin: University of Idaho, majored in journalism with a minor in pol-sci
Obama: First black president of the Harvard Law Review
Palin: Miss Wasilia, runner up in Miss Alaska, Miss Congeniality
Obama: Community Organizer
Palin: Sports reporter
Obama: Professor of Constitutional Law @ Columbia
Palin: Wasilia City Council
Obama: Smoked marijuana, inhaled because "that was the point"
Palin: Smoked marijuana, says she "didn't like it"
Obama: US Senator since 2004
Palin: Governor of Alaska since 2002

Palin: Built an Ice Rink in a town of 5,500 that went $14,000,000 over budget (700%)
Palin: Approved the biggest budget in the history of Alaska, $2bn more than the previous
Palin: Gives everyone in Alaska $1200 in oil revenues simply for existing, AKA, socialism for retards
Palin: "I can't decide if I'm ready for the job until someone tells me what exactly the Vice President does."
Palin: Supported the Bridge to Nowhere, then flip-flopped and took the credit for killing it
Palin: Iraq is a task from God
Palin: Anthropogenic global warming does not exist

Seriously, what the fuck.


----------



## damigu (Sep 6, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Seriously, what the fuck.



please don't feed me propaganda. at work, i got an email that did exactly the same thing with a different set of facts to demonstrate how palin's lack-of-experience was superior to obama's.

it doesn't change the fact that neither of them have much experience, so attacking one on that platform in support of the other just doesn't hold water.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Sep 6, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> i fail to see how "lack of experience" is a valid argument against obama, when palin suffers from the same ailment.
> 
> Obama: Columbia University
> Palin: Hawaii Pacific / North Idaho
> ...



Please, someone please explain to me what the hell this has to do with _anything_? 

Otherwise great facts though.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 6, 2008)

damigu said:


> please don't feed me propaganda. at work, i got an email that did exactly the same thing with a different set of facts to demonstrate how palin's lack-of-experience was superior to obama's.
> 
> it doesn't change the fact that neither of them have much experience, so attacking one on that platform in support of the other just doesn't hold water.



Propaganda? Look it up. That's a summary of their education and political careers. If you think something as straight forward as that is anti-Palin propaganda, then that says something.



> Please, someone please explain to me what the hell this has to do with anything?



Simple. Obama has the balls to come out and say that he used to smoke weed without hiding behind some "I didn't inhale" or "I didn't like it" bullshit.


----------



## Lee (Sep 6, 2008)

Don't forget to add to your Palin list "Suing the Bush administration over placing polar bears on the endangered species list"


----------



## damigu (Sep 6, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Propaganda? Look it up. That's a summary of their education and political careers. If you think something as straight forward as that is anti-Palin propaganda, then that says something.
> 
> Simple. Obama has the balls to come out and say that he used to smoke weed without hiding behind some "I didn't inhale" or "I didn't like it" bullshit.



yes, propaganda. i will repeat: what you provided is *A* set of facts, but not *ALL* facts relevant to the matter. i got an email at work that also was all straight forward facts, but the picture it painted made palin look better.
so either what you stated *IS* propaganda spin by statement of selective facts, or else the universe is about to implode because 2 separate chain emails exist that both state facts that lead to contradictory conclusions! 

as for not liking marijuana, i've tried it on multiple occasions and i don't like it either. not everyone likes getting stoned. so she might be just being honest.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Sep 6, 2008)

Palin wasn't the governor of Alaska since 2002. She was lieutenant governor in 2002.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 6, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> Well the fact that McCain criticized Obama for being inexperienced then picked someone who was inexperienced herself to become *vice president* is hypocritical.



Uh...if she's running for VP, and is qualified *enough*for the position, then what's the issue?

I think the fact that Obama can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?

I don't see how the whole "experience" card can even be played to judge one over the other. What, is Biden just going to be Obama's "on the job trainer"? And THAT'S ok? Yeah, worked GREAT for the Bush administration, right!? Let's have everyone else influence him to do what THEY want, then things will get better, right? Oh, wait...no...we'll be MORE fucked than we are now.

I think there are alot more important things to consider on either side, like what they've SAID and what they're SAYING. Who gives a shit if she was the governor of a small town or a major city? Isn't what her vision and goals for office are more important? It's a stupid, STUPID argument, in my opinion.

I for one will not be voting for either of these idiots and their little pets. And if Obama DOES win, I hope he's too stupid to get ANYTHING done while he's in office, then maybe he won't fuck anything ELSE up when he takes over this piece of shit government.


----------



## Lee (Sep 6, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> Uh...if she's running for VP, and is qualified *enough*for the position, then what's the issue?
> 
> I think the fact that Obama can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?





Since there are no requirements, that's why there's the debate. It's the second highest office in the land, and someone that doesn't have a lot of experience can easily be brought under scrutiny for such. 

What's sad about your second point is that he's written most of his greatest speeches himself (Eg: his speech on race, his acceptance speech are two that come to mind), and speaking of teleprompters, tell Sarah Palin to go work on her new-clear portfolio.


----------



## Brendan G (Sep 6, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> Uh...if she's running for VP, and is qualified *enough*for the position, then what's the issue?
> 
> I think the fact that Obama can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?
> 
> ...


There are many problems with both candidates, let's just leave it at that.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 6, 2008)

WTF ever. I could WRITE great speeches too if I had time and a good thesaurus, but actually TALKING to people is a different story. Which, he CAN'T do, as proven several times, without having it all drawn up for him. 

Obama is a tool, and McCain is an even bigger tool, I can't WAIT for this next term to be over...maybe someone will step up that's worth a shit.


----------



## damigu (Sep 6, 2008)

Brendan G said:


> There are many problems with both candidates, let's just leave it at that.



but at the same time, the available options now are still better than what we had 4 and 8 years ago.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 6, 2008)

damigu said:


> yes, propaganda. i will repeat: what you provided is *A* set of facts, but not *ALL* facts relevant to the matter. i got an email at work that also was all straight forward facts, but the picture it painted made palin look better.
> so either what you stated *IS* propaganda spin by statement of selective facts, or else the universe is about to implode because 2 separate chain emails exist that both state facts that lead to contradictory conclusions!
> 
> as for not liking marijuana, i've tried it on multiple occasions and i don't like it either. not everyone likes getting stoned. so she might be just being honest.



No, that is her entire political career. And I left out Obama working for a law firm while serving as Prof. at Columbia. Except I've apparently overestimated Palin's career, because:



> Palin wasn't the governor of Alaska since 2002. She was lieutenant governor in 2002.



is almost right. She made an unsuccessful bid for Lt. Governor (came in 2nd). She became Governor in 2006.

If that is not a near complete summary of her qualifications, then what, pray tell, would you include? She served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for less than a year. She was a director of the Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc. 527 group for two years. That is literally everything.


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 6, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> No, that is her entire political career. And I left out Obama working for a law firm while serving as Prof. at Columbia. Except I've apparently overestimated Palin's career, because:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ted Stevens is a proven lying thieving pile of shit. That is why Palin is not really listing this on her resume of exalted deeds.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 6, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> Uh...if she's running for VP, and is qualified *enough*for the position, then what's the issue?



McCain dies or is otherwise incapacitated, she's your president.



> I don't see how the whole "experience" card can even be played to judge one over the other. What, is Biden just going to be Obama's "on the job trainer"? And THAT'S ok? Yeah, worked GREAT for the Bush administration, right!? Let's have everyone else influence him to do what THEY want, then things will get better, right? Oh, wait...no...we'll be MORE fucked than we are now.



Oh. Well I should currently be a tenured professor, right? Because experience doesn't matter.



> I think there are alot more important things to consider on either side, like what they've SAID and what they're SAYING. Who gives a shit if she was the governor of a small town or a major city? Isn't what her vision and goals for office are more important? It's a stupid, STUPID argument, in my opinion.



1) Mayor.
2) Carter said a lot of things. How much did he get done?
3) Palin is basically unknown. She has not spent the last 18 months laying out to the nation what she will do.



> I for one will not be voting for either of these idiots and their little pets. And if Obama DOES win, I hope he's too stupid to get ANYTHING done while he's in office, then maybe he won't fuck anything ELSE up when he takes over this piece of shit government.



Go ahead. Makes everyone else's vote count more.



> WTF ever. I could WRITE great speeches too if I had time and a good thesaurus, but actually TALKING to people is a different story. Which, he CAN'T do, as proven several times, without having it all drawn up for him.



Hubris, much? Why exactly aren't you a top political speech writer? And where exactly has Obama shown an inability to talk to people?



> Obama is a tool, and McCain is an even bigger tool, I can't WAIT for this next term to be over...maybe someone will step up that's worth a shit.



Right, because screw policy, "he's a tool" says everything.


----------



## Scali (Sep 7, 2008)

You guys have no idea how silly this all looks to a foreigner 

Aside from that, the Dutch political system is completely different, I have a hard time to take that Democrat/Republican stuff seriously, because to me it feels like there's so little substance to the agendas of either party, and it's all focused on superficial things (great move getting a former beauty queen running for Vice President, the cuteness-factor will get a lot of votes!).


----------



## ZeroSignal (Sep 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> You guys have no idea how silly this all looks to a foreigner
> 
> Aside from that, the Dutch political system is completely different, I have a hard time to take that Democrat/Republican stuff seriously, because to me it feels like there's so little substance to the agendas of either party, and it's all focused on superficial things (great move getting a former beauty queen running for Vice President, the cuteness-factor will get a lot of votes!).



Yeah, same here. As if a dual party system could possibly be fair.


----------



## Papa Shank (Sep 7, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Yeah, same here. As if a dual party system could possibly be fair.


Thankfully that's not the case in Scotland, still think the UK as a whole is either Labour or Tory...

But back on issue with this Palin vs Obama lark. Personally, and _I'm not going to explain myself_, but from what I've seen people would be very foolish to vote McCain and Palin. Obama appears to be a more rounded candidate, I'd also suggest that perhaps he has more of the right kind of experiences and attitude which McCain or Palin lack.

Besides that, McCain is god awful at giving speeches and I wouldn't trust Palin to do the right thing rather than simply what she wants to do.


----------



## Scali (Sep 7, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Yeah, same here. As if a dual party system could possibly be fair.


 
Yea, over here I'd pick the party that best represents what I believe in.
Over there you'd have to pick the lesser of the two evils, because chances are that neither really represents what you believe in (other than the fact that they are both right-wing basically. I suppose one is just even more right-wing than the other. The rest are commies and must die ).
I probably just wouldn't vote at all, so this entire campaign-business is just wasted on me.


----------



## damigu (Sep 7, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Yeah, same here. As if a dual party system could possibly be fair.



america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!

75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.

when ross perot ran as an independent a few elections ago, he got about 9% of the vote (again, with only a 25% turnout of the eligible voting population), and that's very significant.


----------



## Matt Crooks (Sep 7, 2008)

damigu said:


> america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!
> 
> 75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.
> 
> when ross perot ran as an independent a few elections ago, he got about 9% of the vote (again, with only a 25% turnout of the eligible voting population), and that's very significant.



Sources for your numbers please.


----------



## Nick (Sep 7, 2008)

noodles said:


> She was head of the PTA?



which is exactly how she comes across in her speeches lol


----------



## Toshiro (Sep 7, 2008)

damigu said:


> america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!
> 
> 75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.
> 
> when ross perot ran as an independent a few elections ago, he got about 9% of the vote (again, with only a 25% turnout of the eligible voting population), and that's very significant.



Electoral College (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Popular vote does not win the election. It would take something pretty serious for a 3rd party to win in the US presidential race.


----------



## damigu (Sep 7, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> Sources for your numbers please.



good point, thank you. i was going by numbers of the whole population but neglected that many are children below the eligible age.

all the same, most elections don't even have a 50% turnout among eligible voters. the last election had a higher turnout due to the extreme division in the country. this one might, too. but there's still enough people *NOT* voting that they could potentially elect someone entirely different.

(vote counts are easily accessible public info--i shouldn't have to give sources on something you see with your own eyes every 4 years as election results come in)



Toshiro said:


> Electoral College (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> Popular vote does not win the election. It would take something pretty serious for a 3rd party to win in the US presidential race.



it takes something pretty serious for any party to win any presidential election. 
contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the electoral college isn't just a group of random schmoes voting for whomever they please. your vote actually PICKS which group of electors your state uses (allied by party), and it is exceedingly rare for electors to go contrary to the state's popular vote (almost all states' electors have to vote as a single unit so even if there's a dissenter, he or she is forced to vote with the other electors).
if the popular vote for president was for a 3rd party, the electors would almost certainly vote for that 3rd party.

if the electoral college is an unfair representation of the population, then so is congress--because it's the number of number of senators and representatives that determines how many electors a state has. states' right have to be represented, too, not just the overall population's.


----------



## Toshiro (Sep 8, 2008)

damigu said:


> it takes something pretty serious for any party to win any presidential election.
> contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the electoral college isn't just a group of random schmoes voting for whomever they please. your vote actually PICKS which group of electors your state uses (allied by party), and it is exceedingly rare for electors to go contrary to the state's popular vote (almost all states' electors have to vote as a single unit so even if there's a dissenter, he or she is forced to vote with the other electors).
> if the popular vote for president was for a 3rd party, the electors would almost certainly vote for that 3rd party.
> 
> if the electoral college is an unfair representation of the population, then so is congress--because it's the number of number of senators and representatives that determines how many electors a state has. states' right have to be represented, too, not just the overall population's.



You're missing the point, Perot didn't get any EC votes.



Wikipedia said:


> In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election.



You can vote 3rd party if you want, but it's like writing Mickey Mouse on the ballot, IMO. It's equally likely that the masses of people who don't vote aren't doing it because of the candidates, but because they just don't give a shit and don't want jury duty.


----------



## Naren (Sep 8, 2008)

Toshiro said:


> You can vote 3rd party if you want, but it's like writing Mickey Mouse on the ballot, IMO. It's equally likely that the masses of people who don't vote aren't doing it because of the candidates, but because they just don't give a shit and don't want jury duty.







damigu said:


> (vote counts are easily accessible public info--i shouldn't have to give sources on something you see with your own eyes every 4 years as election results come in)



Then maybe you should do your math again because presidential elections always have well over 50% turnout rates. Sometimes much higher. If you're only talking about local elections, you may get a smaller percentage like 40% or whatever, but political elections have never once had as low as the election rates you're suggesting.

So, unless you have actual proof where you're getting these suggestions... because what I see with my own eyes is quite a bit higher than 25% or 50%.


----------



## Drew (Sep 8, 2008)

damigu said:


> it takes something pretty serious for any party to win any presidential election.
> contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, the electoral college isn't just a group of random schmoes voting for whomever they please. your vote actually PICKS which group of electors your state uses (allied by party), and it is exceedingly rare for electors to go contrary to the state's popular vote (almost all states' electors have to vote as a single unit so even if there's a dissenter, he or she is forced to vote with the other electors).
> if the popular vote for president was for a 3rd party, the electors would almost certainly vote for that 3rd party.
> 
> if the electoral college is an unfair representation of the population, then so is congress--because it's the number of number of senators and representatives that determines how many electors a state has. states' right have to be represented, too, not just the overall population's.



Ok, sorry buddy, but your understanding of the electoral college is shaky at best and, as the Dude says, you're out of your element. 

Perot may or may not have gotten 9% of the popular vote - if you can provide a reputable source for that figure, I'll give it to you. However, that figure refers to the overall populat vote, I suspect, which as Toshiro points out has little if not nothing to do with the outcome of a presidential election - in 2000, Gore actually won the popular vote by a think a half percentage point, but because the state-by-state votes played out with Bush winning more states by tight margins and Gore fewer states by wide margins, Bush came out ahead in the Electoral vote (with a little help from the Supreme Court), and won the presidency, even though more Americans wanted Gore to be president. 

So, the popular vote (a term by convention used to refer to the vote of the entire country, not an individual state) has nothing to do with the presidential election, and the vote of individual states has everything to do with it. How many states did Perot win a majority in? 

And to go WAY back to your earlier point, McCain's refrain right up to the moment he picked Palin was "...but is he experienced enough to lead?" Then, he goes and manages to find someone who by any objective measure is LESS experienced than Obama (I'd be very curious to see this email of yours arguing that Palin is more experienced). It doesn't add up.


----------



## Drew (Sep 8, 2008)

damigu said:


> america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!
> 
> 75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.
> 
> when ross perot ran as an independent a few elections ago, he got about 9% of the vote (again, with only a 25% turnout of the eligible voting population), and that's very significant.



This is conspiracy theory BS. As Matt Crooks pointed out and you later admitted, that 25% voter turnout is inaccurate. Even a bad year you typically see more than half of registered voters showing up at the polls, and a year like this it wouldn't shock me if we broke 70%, considering how much is at stake. We do indeed have two major political parties, and in case youhaven't been paying attention for the last 8 years they have VERY different attitudes towards fixing what's wrong with America. And, even if those remaining 30% of voters turned out and voted for, say, Nader, he'd still be the 3rd place finisher.


----------



## Drew (Sep 8, 2008)

Meanwhile, can anyone confirm for certain that that's legit and not a photoshop?


----------



## noodles (Sep 8, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> I think the fact that McCain can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?



Fixed that for you.


----------



## damigu (Sep 8, 2008)

Toshiro said:


> You're missing the point, Perot didn't get any EC votes.





perhaps you should actually learn about something before you attempt to use it as a weapon?

OF COURSE HE DIDN'T GET ANY ELECTORAL VOTES!!
as i said, the electors of a given state *ALL* have to vote for the same party (there's only one or two states that allow their electors to cast individual ballots, based on district populations instead of the state's overall swing). since ross perot did not win the popular vote in any state, it logically follows that he did not win any state's electoral votes.

i brought perot up because his performance clearly demonstrated that a 3rd party has a genuine chance if people get off their asses and vote for who they believed in (even if it wasn't a member of the 2 main parties) instead of using the lame "it would be a wasted vote" excuse. 9% of the vote when less than half of america showed up? that's a big deal.



Drew said:


> And to go WAY back to your earlier point, McCain's refrain right up to the moment he picked Palin was "...but is he experienced enough to lead?"



you might want to re-read my earlier point, then. i never addressed anything mccain or obama has said. nor have i said i support one or the other (in fact, i specifically gave a disclaimer that my words shouldn't be taken as biased toward or against either party--but i guess i expect too much of the internet to think someone will spend 5 extra seconds to read a FULL post instead of just the first line).

i was talking about comments by the supporters of either one using the inexperience platform against the other--it just isn't a valid argument from either side anymore.
if the original thread starter had posted a comment attacking obama's lack of experience, i would have made the same post.


----------



## noodles (Sep 8, 2008)

I think some of you need to calm down a bit before I close this thread.


----------



## damigu (Sep 8, 2008)

Drew said:


> This is conspiracy theory BS. As Matt Crooks pointed out and you later admitted, that 25% voter turnout is inaccurate. Even a bad year you typically see more than half of registered voters showing up at the polls, and a year like this it wouldn't shock me if we broke 70%, considering how much is at stake.



i corrected myself in a later post that it's actually more like 40% or so of eligible people. this last election was over half, but that still leaves a LOT of opinions unaccounted for that could have caused a dramatic change.

i'm not talking about merely registered voters. i'm talking about everyone eligible to register. not every citizen over the 18 is registered--i didn't register to vote until many years into my 20's. i have a couple friends in their 30's who still aren't registered. so counting only registered voters doesn't give an accurate picture of who is and isn't voting among the people who are eligible.


----------



## Drew (Sep 8, 2008)

damigu said:


> you might want to re-read my earlier point, then. i never addressed anything mccain or obama has said. nor have i said i support one or the other (in fact, i specifically gave a disclaimer that my words shouldn't be taken as biased toward or against either party--but i guess i expect too much of the internet to think someone will spend 5 extra seconds to read a FULL post instead of just the first line).
> 
> i was talking about comments by the supporters of either one using the inexperience platform against the other--it just isn't a valid argument from either side anymore.
> if the original thread starter had posted a comment attacking obama's lack of experience, i would have made the same post.



 

TRY not to be a prick. I have a feeling it won't kill you.  

We've gone over the "experience" argument time and time again in the last week. You're only right that it's not valid for "either side" anymore if you make two important (and incorrect) assumptions - that the timing of the claims is irrelevant, and that Palin and Obama are equally inexperienced. Neither is true. 

First, even if we ignore the subject of relative experience, McCain has been questioning that Obama has enough experience to lead for the entire election, ever since it became apparent that he would be the eventual Democratic nominee. Ad after ad concluded "...but does he have the experience to lead?" for literally _months_ now. For McCain to then turn around and pick a vice presidential running mate with no national political experience to speak of, and only 20 months as the governor of the 47th least populous state of the Union is a pretty shocking reversal of his stance on the value of experience. You can argue that Palin's only running for VP while Obama seeks to be President, but I'm not sure how far you can go with that line of attack simply because we're talking about a 72-year-old man who's already been treated for cancer on 5 seperate occasions. 

In passing, I'll briefly call attention to the fact that while Obama supporters have been vocal about Palin's lack of credentials, the Obama camp themselves has been pretty quiet on the issue; the McCain camp, meanwhile, to reiterate, has played the experience card the entire election. 

Second, I also don't buy the fact that Palin and Obama have equivalent amounts of experience. Palin was the mayor of a town of 5,000 for a number of years, and has spent just under two years as the governor of the 47th least populist State. I think rather than the simple facts of the matter (which unless you'd care to post up that email you were talking about, come down squarely in Obama's favor), the context and way they've been delivered is arguably the most telling. Palin claims Obama has "written two memoirs, but has authored no legislation." This is a blatant falsehood - between his days in the Illinois and American senate, he has written or cowritten about 500 bills, many of which have made it into law, and a good number of which he co-wrote with a member of the Republican Party. This also conflicts another claim Palin supporters make, that she has a long history of working across party lines while Obama does not. Meanwhile, a number of her supporters point to her work as the head of the PTA and the Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard as proof of her fitness to lead. Unless we're hoping to have a bake sale to fight Russia, the former has no bearing on even state politics, much less national and international, and it's important to note that while Palin does have domestic control of the National Guard (which happens to number one of the smallest of any American state), she has no authority over them if they're called up to active duty - say, to Iraq. Other popular claims is that Alaska is the closest American state to Russia, so she has a good understanding of what's at stake in international politics.

So, if the best Palin's supporters can lay claim to is that she was the head of the PTA, the mayor of a town of 5,000, and spent less than two years as the governor of one of the least populist states in the nation, and point to her georgraphical location and her work with a small town patent-teacher association, plus a number of blatant falsehoods, as reason she should be president, well, don't you get the sense that we're clutching at straws here?

Again, I'd be much obliged if you could post that email that you claim paints Palin as the more qualified candidate.


----------



## megalex (Sep 8, 2008)

For me its not about palin or obama..This election shouldn't be about experience AT ALL it should be about what party wiped their butts with the constitution of the united states. Our nation would not exist if it wasn't for our constitution. I don't have allegiance to any party but to the constitution and our flag. If any party does ANYTHING against the constitution I will vote against them. Unfortunately both parties have gone against the constitution but one ALOT more than the other the balance is real heavy on the republican side. They have all but destroyed our image as a just and fair society and insist on keeping repeating their mistakes because they are afraid that if they admit to any wrong doing the other party might win. I advice any Republicans to look at their party seriously and try to turn their direction. Unfortunately McCain decided to follow the footsteps of the Bush admin if it wins him the election. He is now for harsh interrogations something i thought would never happen. I had some serious hopes with McCain for the Republican party but I now see that a vote for McCain would be just as bad as voting for Bush. I will take my chances with Obama even though he did not vote against the patriot act or the telecom inmunity rather than hope that McCain reverses his Bush "constitution as a toilette paper" policies. I would like to hear how any american could vote for a party that has taken our country so low.


----------



## damigu (Sep 8, 2008)

Drew said:


> TRY not to be a prick. I have a feeling it won't kill you.



your ad hominem attack is uncalled for. i would hope that a mod would generally display better behavior than that.

or are you suggesting i'm a prick for pointing out that someone didn't even bother reading his own link before erroneously attempting to "school" me with it?



Drew said:


> We've gone over the "experience" argument time and time again in the last week. You're only right that it's not valid for "either side" anymore if you make two important (and incorrect) assumptions - that the timing of the claims is irrelevant, and that Palin and Obama are equally inexperienced. Neither is true.



a/ that is illogical. my comment *can't* make the assumption that timing of the claim is irrelevant, as it would have been pointless to argue palin's own experience before she was chosen.
are mccains actions hypocritical? possibly. but as i keep reiterating, my comment was not geared against or in support of either party so i was trying to stay away from such judgments.

b/ considering that obama and palin are going for two different offices (the only assumption here is that mccain wouldn't die in office if he's elected), i fail to see why their experience SHOULD be equal. people who land in the vice presidential office traditionally have not been as qualified as the presidential candidates before taking their post and gaining the added experience.



Drew said:


> Again, I'd be much obliged if you could post that email that you claim paints Palin as the more qualified candidate.



i will not. it would serve absolutely no purpose. just like the list earlier in this thread, it was a collection of selective facts for the sake of propaganda. by picking and choosing facts, even hitler could be made to sound like a good fellow. reality is more complex than that.

case in point: claiming obama's harvard education makes him more qualified than palin's idaho degree carries positive implications about george w. bush, who has degrees from harvard and yale.
but, again, reality is more complex than that.

(and one more time, i'm not saying anything for or against either party--i'm just demonstrating the big gaps of logic in some of the comments/claims being thrown around here--including the original one that started the thread)


----------



## Drew (Sep 8, 2008)

damigu said:


> your ad hominem attack is uncalled for. i would hope that a mod would generally display better behavior than that.
> 
> or are you suggesting i'm a prick for pointing out that someone didn't even bother reading his own link before erroneously attempting to "school" me with it?



Ok, since obviously you missed this in the slightly flippant tone of my post, let me spell it out a bit more clearly for you. This is a VERY strictly moderated forum. You're posting in a tone and manner that is contrary to forum guidelines, both in general and with specific regard to this forum. I strongly suggest reigning it in a little bit and acting in a more polite manner if you would like to continue to debate in this forum or, for that matter, post anywhere on this board. Have I made myself understood? 

I don't care if you, I, or anyone else in this thread sees eye to eye. I just happen to be charged with the task of ensuring that anyone who DOES disagree does so in a manner that's respectful to the other parties that are participating in this discussion, which for the record you are not.




damigu said:


> i will not. it would serve absolutely no purpose. just like the list earlier in this thread, it was a collection of selective facts for the sake of propaganda. by picking and choosing facts, even hitler could be made to sound like a good fellow. reality is more complex than that.



Sigh. 

That said, I'll debate you on the school bit on two grounds - 

1.) Obama graduated magna cum laude. Palin did not. 
2.) Bush was a legacy at both Harvard and Yale, and I believe was the third generation of Bushes to matriculate at both universities. His family had made substantial contributions to the universities over the years, as well. I'd love to say this has nothing to do with admission decisions, but the sad reality is we both know better. Anyway, Bush also went on to graduate with something like a C+ average at both institutions, well below even cum laude. In other words, about the most he accomplished at either university was merely not failing; drawing a comparison between a top-of-the-class student from humble origins whose family had never attended Harvard and a student whose family had sent several generations and donated heavily, and who even then barely passed, frankly doesn't fly. 

If you want to say that it's elitist to argue that people who were academically sucessful are better fit to govern than people who were not, then that of course is a different story, though one that honestly would be tough to debate at anything other than a case-by-case basis. Though, as you yourself point out, there is George W. Bush as a handy recent example...


----------



## Chris (Sep 8, 2008)

damigu said:


> your ad hominem attack is uncalled for. i would hope that a mod would generally display better behavior than that.



Actually, people who help run this site get a bit more leeway than those with 40 posts who are attempting to criticize them. And Drew's referring to remarks from you like this:



you said:


> perhaps you should actually learn about something before you attempt to use it as a weapon?



If you can't control your tone in this forum, you will be removed from it. You are welcome to debate and make whatever points that you will, but if your style is to get heated and say things like the above to longtime members of my site, those type of smug remarks will end up in the removal of your account here.

Debate on, but do it respectfully.


----------



## CatPancakes (Sep 8, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> Obama is a tool, and McCain is an even bigger tool, I can't WAIT for this next term to be over...maybe someone will step up that's worth a shit.



someone worth a shit did step up, Ron Paul, but the media shot him down...


----------



## D-EJ915 (Sep 8, 2008)

noodles said:


> Fixed that for you.





noodles said:


> I think some of you need to calm down a bit before I close this thread.




As far as the 2-party vs multiparti-ness of the US political system, have you ever heard a political commentator say the world bipartisan? I think that says enough about the sad state of our government and politics these days.


----------



## noodles (Sep 8, 2008)

Jeff, you better watch yourself before I give you a three day nap, ok?


----------



## D-EJ915 (Sep 8, 2008)

noodles said:


> Jeff, you better watch yourself before I give you a three day nap, ok?


All you contribute is a crude attempt at a joke then call someone out who is carrying out a half-decent conversation and now threatening me for calling you out? I thought P&CE was a serious forum, not an outlet for childish humour.

Granted the OP is hardly some serious discussion worthy piece of material, but still the point stands.


----------



## noodles (Sep 8, 2008)

This was the original post:



HotRodded7321 said:


> I think the fact that Obama can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?



Here was my edit:



HotRodded7321 said:


> I think the fact that McCain can't SPEAK for himself without a speech writer is pretty sad. Every time his worthless ass loses eye contact with his teleprompter he sounds like a total moron. Why would I want someone that can't even complete a thought under stress running my country?



How am I wrong, Jeff? McCain's teleprompter troubles are well documented. If it fails on him, he gets completely lost. It took a while for his campaign to get that thing working right. So, I found it ironic that someone was making the complaint about Obama that everyone has been saying about McCain forever.

I guess I just assumed that most astute people would have caught that.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Sep 8, 2008)

noodles said:


> How am I wrong, Jeff? McCain's teleprompter troubles are well documented. If it fails on him, he gets completely lost. It took a while for his campaign to get that thing working right. So, I found it ironic that someone was making the complaint about Obama that everyone has been saying about McCain forever.
> 
> I guess I just assumed that most astute people would have caught that.


I wasn't chastizing your joke or whatever, I was pointing out how you cracked that first post out left field then threaten to close the thread because of some serious discussion. It seemed rather strange, especially since you gave no hint of a serious post in the first one. From all of your posts I have to say I can't read your posts and not think you're being demeaning or critisizing. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.


Critisize...criticize...criticise...how do you spell that anyway, lol.

oh you might find this funny http://www.picturesforsadchildren.com/comics/00000178.gif


----------



## Chris (Sep 8, 2008)

Quiet down, Desecrated.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 9, 2008)

Anonymous neg-rep said:


> You're a jackass. And VERY ill-informed.



To: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/1204118-post36.html

I'm going to assume this is from HotRodded, since there was no name attached. I thought it might be damigu, but it's capitalized. In what sense am I ill-informed?



> america does *NOT* have a dual party system! it's just a myth that the two main parties have convinced everyone into believing!



lol wut?



> 75% of our population doesn't vote, many of them choose not to vote because they falsely believe it is a 2 party system and feel that voting for a 3rd party would be a "wasted vote"--but if just 20% of that 75% turned out on election day, they'd have the power to vote in a 3rd party candidate with a landslide victory.



1) Maybe if you count people under 18. Besides, people who aren't registered to vote probably aren't interested, otherwise... they'd have registered to vote.

United States Elections Project

Not a single State had voter turnout under 50% in '04. Average was 60%.

2) Economics. Ignoring the fact that there is essentially 0 incentive to vote anyways, and thus, the 60% turnout rate would be astounding for a _Homo economicus_, there is even less incentive to vote for a third party. The no-3rd-party thing is a hint of rationalism inside an essentially irrational behavior.

3) A two-party system is an inevitable consequence of a simple plurality, first-past-the-post electoral system. It's called Duverger's law, and it's pol sci 101.



> i brought perot up because his performance clearly demonstrated that a 3rd party has a genuine chance if people get off their asses and vote for who they believed in (even if it wasn't a member of the 2 main parties) instead of using the lame "it would be a wasted vote" excuse. 9% of the vote when less than half of america showed up? that's a big deal.



No, a 3rd party does not have a real chance, and no, that is not an excuse, it's the truth.



> i'm not talking about merely registered voters. i'm talking about everyone eligible to register. not every citizen over the 18 is registered--i didn't register to vote until many years into my 20's. i have a couple friends in their 30's who still aren't registered. so counting only registered voters doesn't give an accurate picture of who is and isn't voting among the people who are eligible.



Your unspoken major premise is that it would be a _good thing_ if we had 100% voter turnout. Defend this, please.



> i will not. it would serve absolutely no purpose. just like the list earlier in this thread, it was a collection of selective facts for the sake of propaganda. by picking and choosing facts, even hitler could be made to sound like a good fellow. reality is more complex than that.



1) Once again, it's easy to make a blatant assertion. If I left something out, bring it up.
2) Say what you will, but Hitler was competent until Parkinson Disease got the best of him. 



Drew said:


> That said, I'll debate you on the school bit on two grounds



Good points, but the third is important as well. Obama studied constitutional law. Palin, journalism with a minor in pol sci.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 9, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> McCain dies or is otherwise incapacitated, she's your president.



And if McCain doesn't, he is....lose-lose. Same goes for Obama and Biden in my opinion.



> Oh. Well I should currently be a tenured professor, right? Because experience doesn't matter.



Oh right...and Obama has so much MORE experience. My entire point being, again, that the experience card shouldn't be played between the two. Neither of them have enough of it if you want to get technical about it. Period.



> 1) Mayor.
> 2) Carter said a lot of things. How much did he get done?
> 3) Palin is basically unknown. She has not spent the last 18 months laying out to the nation what she will do.



1) Ok
2) Don't they ALL...the real question is how many of them said one thing and did the exact opposite once they were elected? There have been MANY presidents that have done more wrong to this country than right.
3) McCain obviously chose her to jump on the "Time for change" bandwagon. If she can't hold her own, that's his mistake and he'll obviously pay for it come November. 
This was a risky move on his part (especially considering the little slip-ups in the media), but strategically, it makes sense. The fact that she is unknown throws the media off guard and allows the party to mold her into whatever she needs to be...in effect saving McCain's ass in what would have been a disaster had he chosen just about anyone else. 
There has been a pretty big increase in interest in McCain since she was brought on-board. And as far as the projections go...they're just about neck and neck at this point, so obviously it worked.





> Go ahead. Makes everyone else's vote count more.



Doesn't really bother me at this point...as I stated previously. Your remark here was useless. Prick.





> Hubris, much? Why exactly aren't you a top political speech writer? And where exactly has Obama shown an inability to talk to people?



1) Et toi?
2) Because speech writers are gay...? Sorry...dunno where you were going with that one, ace....?
3) On national TV, twice. Google it or youtube it. And It's been done by Obama, Palin, AND McCain to date. I don't care about what they write or how long they take to perfect it and make sure everyone will love it. 
I want to see them talk to the people and be sincere about it...if they honestly stand for these things and believe so strongly in them, why can't they speak about them in front of the people they intend to lead without a little tv screen telling them what to say!? Is it REALLY that much to ask for?





> Right, because screw policy, "he's a tool" says everything.



Their policies are almost IDENTICAL....the only thing they each really have going is the "I can do it BETTER!" argument. So what it will really come down to is who wins the media war. And yes, in my personal opinion, they're both assholes and I honestly don't care who wins because I think nothing good will come of it either way.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 9, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> Oh right...and Obama has so much MORE experience. My entire point being, again, that the experience card shouldn't be played between the two. Neither of them have enough of it if you want to get technical about it. Period.



Yes. Obama has enough. He's quickly taken a leadership role in the party.



> 2) Don't they ALL...the real question is how many of them said one thing and did the exact opposite once they were elected? There have been MANY presidents that have done more wrong to this country than right.
> 
> 3)...



The point is that political experience is evident of political ability, and Carter was exceptionally weak (compare with FDR).

Carter: State senate 2 terms, governor of Georgia, VP run
FDR: State senate 2 terms, assistant Sec. of the Navy, VP run, governor of New York 2 terms

Did either of them have enough experience? How about Lincoln?



> 1) Et toi?
> 2) Because speech writers are gay...? Sorry...dunno where you were going with that one, ace....?



Honestly now. You really, _really_ think that a decent thesaurus is all you need? I mean, really?



> I want to see them talk to the people and be sincere about it...if they honestly stand for these things and believe so strongly in them, why can't they speak about them in front of the people they intend to lead without a little tv screen telling them what to say!? Is it REALLY that much to ask for?



So... two gaffes on national television. Big deal. Besides, how about any of the interviews?



> Their policies are almost IDENTICAL....



No.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 9, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Yes. Obama has enough. He's quickly taken a leadership role in the party.



Yeah...with the help of Biden. Who is basically acting as his unofficial "on-the-job trainer". It's almost painfully obvious. So then we can expect another Cheney-Bush type administration? Biden pulling the strings and Obama taking all the hits?



> The point is that political experience is evident of political ability, and Carter was exceptionally weak (compare with FDR or Lincoln, the two strongest).



You still address nothing else you've questioned here...and your point, though valid, is weak and nearly irrelevant.




> Honestly now. You really, _really_ think that a decent thesaurus is all you need? I mean, really?


 
.......pointless. Again.



> So... two gaffes on national television. Big deal. Besides, how about any of the interviews?



Yeah, we'll just give em a mulligan on something that actually COUNTS...or is speaking publicly to your country just NOT important these days?



> No.



Um....YES. Check the headlines...read the stories, do some research. They may be wording it differently and downplaying one another...but YES, they're saying the same thing on almost every major issue.

EDIT: Here's one example of where they both stand. I've also taken the time to read over each entry on both official web sites regarding the issues they have addressed overall as these are obviously not all of them. They're all pretty much the same.

McCain and Obama on the issues - Politics - MSNBC.com


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 9, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> Yeah...with the help of Biden. Who is basically acting as his unofficial "on-the-job trainer". It's almost painfully obvious. So then we can expect another Cheney-Bush type administration? Biden pulling the strings and Obama taking all the hits?



Biden ran too, in case you didn't notice. Obama rose to prominence at the '04 convention, in his senate election, and during the primaries, overtaking Clinton's massive early lead. Or are you saying that Biden was orchestrating the whole thing?



> You still address nothing else you've questioned here...and your point, though valid, is weak and nearly irrelevant.



Well, ok, for example, you say, "the real question is how many of them said one thing and did the exact opposite once they were elected?" I fail to see how that is relevant when talking about experience correlating with the ability to do what they set out to. Or how about the whole point of 3. We don't know enough about Palin to vote her in to office. That has nothing to do with whether it was a smart political move for McCain to pick her.



> .......pointless. Again.



The point is that you seem to think that the most important part of being President is being able to speak with random people extemporaneously and with with conviction, while writing and delivering a speech is both easy and trivial. I doubt it.



> Yeah, we'll just give em a mulligan on something that actually COUNTS...or is speaking publicly to your country just NOT important these days?



I care far more about him having a well formed agenda and the ability to get it done. 



> Um....YES. Check the headlines...read the stories, do some research. They may be wording it differently and downplaying one another...but YES, they're saying the same thing.



Let's take an example. Economics. Obama and McCain seem to be near polar opposite Keynesian/demand side vs supply side theorists. In no significant way are they even close to identical.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 9, 2008)

Read. You are wrong. There may be 2 or 3 differences...but on most major issues, they're EXACTLY the same. It's definitely not 100%, as I said...they are ALMOST identical.

I also edited my last post stating that I took the time to read through their respective official sites. Maybe you should too. Their views on MANY issues are very close to the same, if not identical. 

McCain and Obama on the issues - Politics - MSNBC.com


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 9, 2008)

Well, let's look at the biggest issues.

Abortion
McCain: Opposes abortion rights. Has voted for abortion restrictions permissible under Roe v. Wade, and now says he would seek to overturn that guarantee of abortion rights while being open to a running mate who supports abortion rights. Would not seek constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Obama: Favors abortion rights.

Afghanistan
McCain: Favors unspecified boost in U.S. forces.
Obama: Would add about 7,000 troops to the U.S. force of 36,000, bringing the reinforcements from Iraq. Has threatened unilateral attack on high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan as they become exposed, "if Pakistan cannot or will not act" against them..

Education
McCain: Favors parental choice of schools, including vouchers for private schools when approved by local officials, and right of parents to choose home schooling. More money for community college education.
Obama: Encourage but not require universal pre-kindergarten programs, expand teacher-mentoring programs and reward teachers with higher pay not tied to standardized test scores, in $18 billion plan to be paid for in part by delaying elements of moon and Mars missions. Change No Child Left Behind law "so that we're not just teaching to a test and Crowding out programs like art and music." Tax credit to pay up to $4,000 of college expenses for students who perform 100 hours of community service a year.

Energy
McCain: Favors increased offshore drilling and federal money to help build 45 nuclear power reactors by 2030. Opposes drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed suspending the 18-cent a gallon federal gasoline tax but idea got no traction. Global warming plan would increase energy costs.
Obama: Now would consider limited increase in offshore drilling. Opposes drilling in Arctic reserve. Proposes windfall-profits tax on largest oil companies to pay for energy rebate of up to $1,000. Opposed suspension of the gas tax. Open to tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for short-term relief from high energy costs. Global warming plan would increase energy costs.

Social Security
McCain: "Nothing's off the table" when it comes to saving Social Security.
Obama: Would raise payroll tax on wealthiest by applying it to portion of income over $250,000. Now, payroll tax is applied to income up to $102,000. Rules out raising the retirement age for benefits.

Taxes
McCain: Pledged not to raise taxes, then equivocated, saying nothing can be ruled out in negotiating compromises to keep Social Security solvent. Twice opposed Bush's tax cuts, at first because he said they were tilted to the wealthiest and again because of the unknown costs of Iraq war. Now says those tax cuts, expiring in 2010, should be permanent. Proposes cutting corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Promises balance budget in first term, says that is unlikely in his first year.
Obama: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes. $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. Eliminate tax-filing requirement for older workers making under $50,000. A mortgage-interest credit could be used by lower-income homeowners who do not take the mortgage-interest deduction because they do not itemize their taxes.

Is that near-identical? I don't even think they're similar.


----------



## Scali (Sep 9, 2008)

This thread turned into exactly what I meant.
People are seeing things black-and-white and are only arguing about irrelevant superficial details or just attacking eachother personally like rabid dogs, rather than discussing actual political issues.

Isn't an election all about choosing the person/party to run the country the way you see fit?
Who cares about all this 'experience' nonsense? It's not like they have to run the country by themselves. It's about having a vision for the future of the country, and being commited to making it a reality. Bright minds and standing up for what you believe in, that's what it's about.
If they find themselves in a situation where they don't have any experience, there's an army of advisors to back them up. I don't see the problem really.
We have a very young prime minister ourselves (Jan-Peter Balkenende), who didn't have a lot of experience when he started out either, but he's done an excellent job so far. Then again, he's incredibly intelligent.
Come to think of it, one of the best presidents you ever had was Bill Clinton, and he is very intelligent aswell.

In our political culture we have many political parties, each with their own views, and a 'cabinet' is formed by members of all these parties (the number of votes corresponds to the number of chairs you get). They then have to form a policy to run the country for the next term, based on the points of the agenda of each of these parties. So we always get a compromise of what our voters want.
In your case it's either one or the other, and it's probably not uncommon for a new government to undo some of the decisions that the previous one made, so you'll go back and forth on some issues.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 9, 2008)

Scali said:


> Who cares about all this 'experience' nonsense? It's not like they have to run the country by themselves. It's about having a vision for the future of the country, and being commited to making it a reality. Bright minds and standing up for what you believe in, that's what it's about.
> If they find themselves in a situation where they don't have any experience, there's an army of advisors to back them up. I don't see the problem really.
> We have a very young prime minister ourselves (Jan-Peter Balkenende), who didn't have a lot of experience when he started out either, but he's done an excellent job so far. Then again, he's incredibly intelligent.
> Come to think of it, one of the best presidents you ever had was Bill Clinton, and he is very intelligent aswell.



Two words are all that are needed. Jimmy Carter. George W Bush would work as well, though that's longer. Besides that, no offense, but the Netherlands is smaller than New York. And once again, you need a certain amount of experience in national politics before we can even see how able you are.


----------



## Scali (Sep 9, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Two words are all that are needed. Jimmy Carter. George W Bush would work as well, though that's longer.


 
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here?



Jongpil Yun said:


> Besides that, no offense, but the Netherlands is smaller than New York. And once again, you need a certain amount of experience in national politics before we can even see how able you are.


 
Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? Other than trying to undermine my personal credibility and insult my intelligence and my country.
Which proves my point. You guys attack people directly, you don't discuss issues. "No offence"? Yea right.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 9, 2008)

Scali said:


> Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? Other than trying to undermine my personal credibility and insult my intelligence and my country.
> Which proves my point. You guys attack people directly, you don't discuss issues. "No offence"? Yea right.



I don't see how he's attacking you personally, he's just saying that before he would put his vote to someone he wants to see how they can handle themselves in national politics. He didn't call you an idiot, he just said that your country is smaller than 1 state in his entire country, which I think is a valid point. You're just taking it personally.


----------



## Scali (Sep 9, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I don't see how he's attacking you personally, he's just saying that before he would put his vote to someone he wants to see how they can handle themselves in national politics.


 
Yes, that may well be his opinion, but he wrote it down as an absolute truth as a response to my opinion, as if my opinion was wrong and his was the only possible answer... Without explaining why.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> He didn't call you an idiot, he just said that your country is smaller than 1 state in his entire country, which I think is a valid point. You're just taking it personally.


 
I don't, it's a non-sequitur. Which is ofcourse a fallacy, and as such disrespectful to your discussion partner.
I raise a point, provide arguments and basically he ignores my arguments and discards my view without any proper arguments himself. Apparently because I'm from a smaller country, you don't have to take me seriously (and oh the irony, New York used to be a Dutch colony... You know what the dollar is? The Dutch currency of daalder (a coin of 1.50 guilders)).

Perhaps you Americans should look into how European countries are run. They might be smaller, but a lot of them are run in a much better way on various points, such as economic stability, social security, environmental issues and all that (The Netherlands is certainly part of that, as are Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, to name but a few).
Perhaps it would be nice to be open to a different point of view from time to time, you might pick up a useful thing or two.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 9, 2008)

I don't know if your last paragraph was directed at me, but I feel compelled to just clarify the fact I'm Canadian


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 9, 2008)

Another point to make about the army of advisers stance: you're not electing advisers, you don't know them at all. They could be the biggest douche in the history of mankind, or they might be the shit, who knows? I wouldn't elect someone on that stance.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 9, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Is that near-identical? I don't even think they're similar.




Well, since you're obviously SEVERELY biased in this and choose to remain so regardless, I'd say there's no further arguing with you. I still think you need to weed through the bullshit and look at both sides objectively (if you can bring yourself to do so)...there are MANY similarities to be found between the two on many subjects.

I'll not buy into the experience BS. Contrary to what you THINK it's not a basis to completely rule someone out in any way...or accept them for that matter. Which technically negates it all together.

I also still stick by what I said...I don't have high expectations from either party this time around. I'm sick of these assholes trying to put band-aids on everything instead of getting to the root cause and actually FIXING something while they're in office. But alas, that's politics....I guess?


----------



## Scali (Sep 9, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Another point to make about the army of advisers stance: you're not electing advisers, you don't know them at all. They could be the biggest douche in the history of mankind, or they might be the shit, who knows? I wouldn't elect someone on that stance.


 
Well, you vote for your party, right?
That's what the presidential candidate is: a representative of his political party.
The advisors are also representatives of the political party.
Besides, isn't the presidential candidate already put forward by the political party?

I just don't get why people are focused so much on one person. It's not about the person, it's about what that person and his or her political party stand for (which they are bound to because they are sworn in, right?).
Besides, you say you don't know these advisors... But does that mean you think you know Obama or McCain? I doubt it, really. They're just putting on a show, trying to win as many votes as they can. That's what their job is, running as candidates for their party.


----------



## forelander (Sep 9, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> Well, since you're obviously SEVERELY biased in this and choose to remain so regardless, I'd say there's no further arguing with you. I still think you need to weed through the bullshit and look at both sides objectively (if you can bring yourself to do so)...there are MANY similarities to be found between the two on many subjects.



C'mon dude, first you say they're identical, then you say they're nearly identical, now you're saying JY is biased and there are many similarities. Which is it? Besides, if these similarities are so prevalent, maybe you'd like to actually describe some of them in some kind of detail using your powers of objectivity, which everyone else is apparently lacking. 

I don't have much to contribute to the discussion, but from the outside it looks like you're grasping at straws with some of your arguments.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 9, 2008)

Yeah, but they're out there, trying to let people know of their stance on some issues, or at least bullshitting people enough so they'll vote for them  The advisors however are not. Like someone else said, there's enough about McCain/Palin that's bad enough without bringing experience to the table, but I don't think experience is irrelevant, or the size of where ever they happened to get their political experience.


----------



## Scali (Sep 9, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> I'll not buy into the experience BS. Contrary to what you THINK it's not a basis to completely rule someone out in any way...or accept them for that matter. Which technically negates it all together.


 
Indeed, that's the point I was trying to make. I tried to give an example of an inexperienced politician that did very well in a high-profile job. Ofcourse, you could also find inexperienced people that didn't do very well... or even experienced people that didn't do very well.
It's no guarantee either way.
Some people just have certain skills, wit, charisma or whatever it is, that will give them a bit extra in negotiations, debates and whatnot. Experience has little to do with it.

In fact, in Sarah Palin's case, the mere fact that she doesn't have as much experience and comes from a small town may give her a fresh view on things rather than just going through the motions.

As the wise Johan Cruijff said: Every disadvantage has its advantage.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 9, 2008)

Scali said:


> Well, you vote for your party, right?
> That's what the presidential candidate is: a representative of his political party.
> The advisors are also representatives of the political party.
> Besides, isn't the presidential candidate already put forward by the political party?
> ...



Well put.


----------



## Scali (Sep 9, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Yeah, but they're out there, trying to let people know of their stance on some issues, or at least bullshitting people enough so they'll vote for them  The advisors however are not.


 
I think you're missing the point still.
It's not their personal stance. It's the stance of the political party as a whole. It is what the political party as a whole has agreed on as their official stance to present to the outside world, and all members of the party will do so (on record anyway).

So the advisors are defending the same stance and beliefs as the president himself, I just meant that they are there to assist him when he so requires. Most of the time I'm sure he'll do fine by himself however.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 9, 2008)

I'm sure ANYONE'S personal agenda/beliefs are going to come into play when they're given that much power. I'm pretty out of my element here and I could be way wrong, but I doubt all people in a political party are of the same mind on a lot of issues.


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 9, 2008)

forelander said:


> C'mon dude, first you say they're identical, then you say they're nearly identical, now you're saying JY is biased and there are many similarities. Which is it? Besides, if these similarities are so prevalent, maybe you'd like to actually describe some of them in some kind of detail using your powers of objectivity, which everyone else is apparently lacking.
> 
> I don't have much to contribute to the discussion, but from the outside it looks like you're grasping at straws with some of your arguments.



And he's not? Read them yourself on both candidates official websites if you think I'm "grasping at straws". I'm not changing my original views on this, I'm just tired of re-iterating it 90 different ways to a stubborn prick that doesn't understand how to look at things for what they ARE and not as they are WRITTEN...so I decided to be civil in my last remarks to him and bow out of this without escalating it any further. I feel I've still left him reason to actually go take a look for himself without being an ass about it rather than tell him he's flat-out wrong.

And in case you can't tell from reading his previous posts....he IS biased...VERY biased. It's actually his opinion or none, on ANY subject from what I've seen of his posts in general...not even just in this thread. I'm not grasping at straws here...I'm just tired of arguing with someone that can't EVER be wrong. It's annoying and pointless.

Oh, and I never said people in general weren't looking at this objectively...I said HE was not looking at things objectively. I only see them this way because I'm not for or against either party, so I don't see a reason to be on any particular "side" in this whole argument.


----------



## forelander (Sep 9, 2008)

HotRodded7321 said:


> And in case you can't tell from reading his previous posts....he IS biased...VERY biased. It's actually his opinion or none, on ANY subject from what I've seen of his posts in general...not even just in this thread. I'm not grasping at straws here...I'm just tired of arguing with someone that can't EVER be wrong. It's annoying and pointless.



To be honest, that's kind of your own fault since all the information he used came from a site that you provided. And he quoted them directly, without offering paraphrasing or his own interpretation, for the most part. 

There are similarities yes, but they seem to pertain mostly to smaller issues that I wouldn't imagine are incredibly important for most American people. Calling them identical seems like an incredible stretch though.


----------



## Scali (Sep 9, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I'm sure ANYONE'S personal agenda/beliefs are going to come into play when they're given that much power.


 
Does the president really have all that much power though? It's still a democracy, with a congress and all. He's not a dictator, and cannot arbitrarily make decisions and laws.
Congress makes the law, the president can only sign or veto it.
The president can sign treaties, but only under 'advice and consent' of the senate.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> I'm pretty out of my element here and I could be way wrong, but I doubt all people in a political party are of the same mind on a lot of issues.


 
Well, that's why I said 'on record'. Any debate on issues within the party will be done behind closed doors, where an official stance is agreed upon, which is then supported by all members of the party.
So, you will have to compromise at times. Or find a different party that suits your views better (which ofcourse is a problem when there are only two big parties, and basically no chance in hell of a third party getting in congress).

By the way, how many of you know who Johan Cruijff is?


----------



## HotRodded7321 (Sep 9, 2008)

RCP National Average

McCain (R)	
48.3% 

Obama (D) 
45.4%

Apparently people don't see eye to eye with JY's theory on 'experience' 

Headline:
Obama puts heat on Palin as she boosts GOP ticket
AP - Tue Sep 9, 3:56 AM ET
AP - Listening to Barack Obama, it can seem like Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is the main person standing between him and the White House instead of John McCain.

Now...what was that about "this has nothing to do with strategy"?

Oh...nm...I found it:



Jongpil Yun said:


> That has nothing to do with whether it was a smart political move for McCain to pick her.



Apparently.............it does.

More and more stories like this keep popping up EVERY DAY. Looks like McCain isn't as dumb as I thought. 

Hm.


----------



## Drew (Sep 9, 2008)

Sigh. This thread is really beginning to suck.


----------



## Popsyche (Sep 9, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sigh. This thread is really beginning to suck.


----------



## Naren (Sep 9, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sigh. This thread is really beginning to suck.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 9, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sigh. This thread is really beginning to suck.



Did I ruinate it?


----------



## Drew (Sep 9, 2008)

Naw, not really.


----------



## Toshiro (Sep 9, 2008)

damigu said:


> perhaps you should actually learn about something before you attempt to use it as a weapon?
> 
> OF COURSE HE DIDN'T GET ANY ELECTORAL VOTES!!
> as i said, the electors of a given state *ALL* have to vote for the same party (there's only one or two states that allow their electors to cast individual ballots, based on district populations instead of the state's overall swing). since ross perot did not win the popular vote in any state, it logically follows that he did not win any state's electoral votes.
> ...



Face it, his chances were nill, nada, zippo. He made a good loud-mouth though. I sure didn't vote for his ass in 1996 when he half-ass ran again.

He got 19% BTW, your numbers are off.

I don't care either way, I wouldn't vote for any 3rd party candidate unless he/she was more well known than Perot was. Who knows who you'll end up with.

Anyone have the numbers for the % of voters registered as independent?


----------



## ohio_eric (Sep 9, 2008)

According to Wikipedia, Politics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are 72 million registered Democrats, 55 million registered Republicans and 42 million registered Independents.


----------



## Toshiro (Sep 9, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> According to Wikipedia, Politics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> There are 72 million registered Democrats, 55 million registered Republicans and 42 million registered Independents.



I wonder how many indy's are people like me who got sick of party mailers during every election so switched.  Obviously people don't vote on party lines, otherwise no GOP candidate would ever get into office.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Sep 9, 2008)

Scali said:


> I don't, it's a non-sequitur. Which is ofcourse a fallacy, and as such disrespectful to your discussion partner.
> I raise a point, provide arguments and basically he ignores my arguments and discards my view without any proper arguments himself. Apparently because I'm from a smaller country, you don't have to take me seriously (and oh the irony, New York used to be a Dutch colony... You know what the dollar is? The Dutch currency of daalder (a coin of 1.50 guilders)).



Way to miss the point. Yeah, a lack of experience in that magnitude would be fine for the Governor of New York, or California, or whatever. But President of the whole country? No.



> Another point to make about the army of advisers stance: you're not electing advisers, you don't know them at all. They could be the biggest douche in the history of mankind, or they might be the shit, who knows? I wouldn't elect someone on that stance.



Example: Rumsfeld.



> Well, you vote for your party, right?
> That's what the presidential candidate is: a representative of his political party.
> The advisors are also representatives of the political party.
> Besides, isn't the presidential candidate already put forward by the political party?



No, they aren't. There is essentially a mini-election within each party, a competition to see who gets nominated, usually with 5-6 people. Who is chosen as the representative of the respective parties is pretty much entirely the direct choice of the people who will be voting in November. The party elders have a say, but they are very wary of breaking with public opinion.



> I just don't get why people are focused so much on one person. It's not about the person, it's about what that person and his or her political party stand for (which they are bound to because they are sworn in, right?).
> Besides, you say you don't know these advisors... But does that mean you think you know Obama or McCain? I doubt it, really. They're just putting on a show, trying to win as many votes as they can. That's what their job is, running as candidates for their party.



We have a two party system. The umbrella of Democrat or Republican is quite large, occupying a large swathe of the political spectrum. There can be great differences between two Republicans (see Pat Robertson, fascist, and Ron Paul, libertarian).

We do not have a parliamentary system. The executive is not dependent upon the legislature. We often have a Democratic executive and a Republican legislature, or vice versa. It is _very_ difficult to get things done in such a situation.


----------



## Scali (Sep 10, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> Way to miss the point. Yeah, a lack of experience in that magnitude would be fine for the Governor of New York, or California, or whatever. But President of the whole country? No.


 
Yes, I know that this is your opinion. You have however repeatedly failed to explain what makes you feel this way, which is what I have been asking. So this is still a non-sequitor.
The question is really simple: Why?
Or in more detail: What do you mean by 'experience'? What areas would you need experience in? And what difference will that experience make? How much experience do you consider enough?
Etc.
In short, define what you're talking about in the first place, because now it's just your opinion on something that is completely undefined, which you are trying to use as an argument why others should be of the same opinion as you. I don't even know what your opinion entails in the first place, so I can't even say if I agree or not.



Jongpil Yun said:


> Example: Rumsfeld.


 
Again you're dropping names (like Jimmy Carter and George W Bush), without any kind of explanation whatsoever.
Care to explain why you mention these names? What aspect of their political careers are you driving at specifically, and how does this support or oppose the quoted post that you responded to?
You have to realize that us foreigners aren't as familiar with the political careers of Americans as you are, and while we could get a lot of info from a source like Wikipedia, there's no way of knowing what you were driving at specifically, since we are not Americans in the first place, and lack your specific frame of reference. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

In short, if you want to make a point, then do so by explaining, rather than randomly dropping names with no indication whatsoever of what you are actually driving at.



Jongpil Yun said:


> No, they aren't. There is essentially a mini-election within each party, a competition to see who gets nominated, usually with 5-6 people.


 
Sounds to me like they are put forward by the party.
I don't think with a system like this there will ever be a presidential candidate that is not deemed suitable for the job by his or her own party.
That was my point. The political party has already 'approved' their candidates.

In that light, saying "He doesn't have enough experience" sounds a bit strange to me. Clearly their own party thinks that he does, and they probably know more about both the person and about what it takes to be a president than most voters.


----------

