McCain or Obama?

[GregBurch]

Greg, don't wish to burst your bubble but it'd probably be a better idea not to find links from the guardian.They're about as unbiased as Fox News

I thought the Guardian was left-leaning. Isn't that Robert Fisk's paper? Or am I confused?

And, anyway, don't we need to stop pre-filtering stuff based solely on the source? Isn't that what leads people to live in echo-chambers where they only hear what reinforces their existing opinions?

 

[Urwumpe]

I would just wait and observe. And look if really the mayors in the USA are women, and if going from mayor of a 7000 citizentown to governor by employing a pretty expensive lobby agency is really a typical political path of the average hockey mom. My personal experience with US politics so far is, that no higher echolon politician is really an average guy - they are always part of a high-income elite.

And McCain did not take hits yet. his own punches just hit air... and his opponent is sad, but true, currently not better. The first public debates between both groups should be the litmus test.



Three days ago, the German social democrat party seemed without a chance in the next elections. Then came the comeback of Müntefering, which stirred a lot of excitement, not only in his party, then came the surprising fast nomination of foreign minister Steinmeier as candidate for chancellorship and the pretty violent firing of party chairman Beck. And now, suddenly, people are not so sure that the CDU will win and that the SPD is helpless against the new socialist party on it's left.

Also, that Obama was not really active, except bringing not only his party, but also the independent liberal media on his course, during the republican congress could also be just a calm before the storm... who knows what his team knows?

 

[GregBurch]

I would just wait and observe. And look if really the mayors in the USA are women, and if going from mayor of a 7000 citizentown to governor by employing a pretty expensive lobby agency is really a typical political path of the average hockey mom. My personal experience with US politics so far is, that no higher echolon politician is really an average guy - they are always part of a high-income elite.

And McCain did not take hits yet. his own punches just hit air... and his opponent is sad, but true, currently not better. The first public debates between both groups should be the litmus test.

1. The "pretty expensive lobby agency" story you're focusing on is only ONE part of her political story -- if that's what you want to focus on to explain her success, please do. You'll be missing other, important things, but, hey ... as they say, whatever floats your boat.

2. Palin personally is absolutely NOT part of a "high-income elite," and the cadre of local politicians in the US typically are not. Most mayors don't go on to being governor or anything else.

The point is that every once in a while, one of them does. You can be cynical (Newton knows, it's justified) and say that the ONLY way that ever happens is by being hand-picked by some kind of behind-the-scenes power elite. But what if it's not true?

Now, as for McCain not taking hits before, you're just utterly incorrect about this. His position now has to be considered in light of his defeat in the Republican primaries in 2000 and the fact that last year his candidacy was considered completely dead. Obama supporters ignore the details of that history at their peril.

 

[Notebook]

I thought the Guardian was left-leaning. Isn't that Robert Fisk's paper? Or am I confused?

And, anyway, don't we need to stop pre-filtering stuff based solely on the source? Isn't that what leads people to live in echo-chambers where they only hear what reinforces their existing opinions?

The Guardian would be classed as a left-leaning newspaper in the UK, for what thats worth, with our current crop of broadsheets.

Robert Fisk may write in The Guardian, he sure does in The Independent:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/

Another 'leftie' newspaper, has good foreign coverage.

N.

 

[simonpro]

And, anyway, don't we need to stop pre-filtering stuff based solely on the source? Isn't that what leads people to live in echo-chambers where they only hear what reinforces their existing opinions?

I never said it wasn't left leaning, I said it exhibits a similar amount of bias as Fox does.

That's exactly what I'm complaining about. All the papers you quote from on here are left leaning, I'm more than capable (and willing) to read both sides of an argument, but we don't get that here. Just you with left-leaning British papers
The times is a bit better, as is the independant. The telegraph and guardian should be avoided like the plague, though. They'll really screw up your world view, even if they are useful in your posts against Obama,

 

[GregBurch]

I never said it wasn't left leaning, I said it exhibits a similar amount of bias as Fox does.

That's exactly what I'm complaining about. All the papers you quote from on here are left leaning, I'm more than capable (and willing) to read both sides of an argument, but we don't get that here. Just you with left-leaning British papers
The times is a bit better, as is the independant. The telegraph and guardian should be avoided like the plague, though. They'll really screw up your world view, even if they are useful in your posts against Obama,

Well, OK, but it seems that when someone in a left-leaning source admits a tactical error on the part of supporters of a left-leaning candidate, it's more compelling. Maybe I'm just too reflexively applying a tool I use in the courtroom. It's much more convincing when I can get the other side to make a damning admission than if one of the witnesses on my side says the same thing ....

 

[Urwumpe]

1. The "pretty expensive lobby agency" story you're focusing on is only ONE part of her political story -- if that's what you want to focus on to explain her success, please do. You'll be missing other, important things, but, hey ... as they say, whatever floats your boat.

What else did she do? I know that she was officially spending less money as others in their campaigns there.

And what opponents did she have in her campaign for governor? As far as I am informed, for opponent in the republican party was the daughter of the Governor who defeated Palin in an earlier election, and which is now Senator of Alaska in the US Senate. And finally defeated a candidate who was already on a losing streak after a failed campaign for Senator.

So far, not too hard opponents. Important is more, what happened in the years between... Her campaign for mayor in 1996 was for example financed by the Alaskean Republican party, which is unusual for such a campaign. And it especially counters your later argument that she was not picked behind the scenes - somebody behind the scenes must have had an interest in building up a christian-conservative candidate.

The same people also had obviously an interest in bringing her to higher offices than just mayor.

Can you explain this with a explanation which would make Occam happy?

2. Palin personally is absolutely NOT part of a "high-income elite," and the cadre of local politicians in the US typically are not. Most mayors don't go on to being governor or anything else.

Are you sure? She is a former sports reporter and her husband owns his own fishing business (Sure no reason to get richer than by other forms of agriculture). And something must have attracted parts of the republican party of Alaska to not only support her politically (though her politics as Mayor are pretty interesting...) but also financially.

She is part of an elite, even if you don't like it. And even if this fact which makes her so attractive for the republican party is a Miss Alaska tag and compatible political views.

The point is that every once in a while, one of them does. You can be cynical (Newton knows, it's justified) and say that the ONLY way that ever happens is by being hand-picked by some kind of behind-the-scenes power elite. But what if it's not true?

What does it change, if Palin got randomly chosen? She is hand-picked behind the scenes. You can't deny that fact.

Not only McCains team selected her among others who applied for the post, she was also build up as right-wing candidate inside the republican party from her start into politics.

Now, as for McCain not taking hits before, you're just utterly incorrect about this. His position now has to be considered in light of his defeat in the Republican primaries in 2000 and the fact that last year his candidacy was considered completely dead. Obama supporters ignore the details of that history at their peril.

That is not part of the dealings between Obama and McCain - McCain had to resort to the same dirty laundry campaign like Bush used against him, to become candidate. And also used this strategy against Obama already... but with limited success so far.

That McCain take some punishment should be out of question, but I have strong doubts he is able to rise from the ashes like a Phoenix or have a Reality Distortion Field like Barack Obama or Steve Jobs.

 

[Kyle]

Some chick came on the new's and said McCain does not know how hard life is, because he has many houses. Um, hello!? McCain was thrown in a cage in a rat hole known as Vietnam for 5 years and beaten to hell, and nearly died when his plane crashed. Mr 'War Machine', I believe McCain hates war after that, seen video's of him in his condition, really bad.

 

[eveningsky339]

I find it disturbing that so many people support an inexperienced junior senator from Illinois who incessantly preaches "hope" and "change". I'm not too happy about supporting the Republicans this year, but Obama makes it a necessity... I'm happy that Sarah Palin is McCain's running mate, though.

 

[Donamy]

Vietnam wasn't the rat hole, it was the Hanoi Hilton, where he was imprisoned.

 

[Urwumpe]

I find it disturbing that so many people support an inexperienced junior senator from Illinois who incessantly preaches "hope" and "change". I'm not too happy about supporting the Republicans this year, but Obama makes it a necessity... I'm happy that Sarah Palin is McCain's running mate, though.

OK - so you think hatred of Obama is enough? Especially as inexperience also applies to Palin - one week ago, she was still unknown south of the canadian border, and her political career relied heavy on republican party sponsorship, while Obama became State senator against the will of the Democrat party (they wanted first Jesse James Jr, then Alice Palmer in the district) and got support for his step to senator only after he left the first marks in state senate.

I think in this context, you can compare McCain and Obama pretty well - both had to fight hard for the position they are today, and that not only against their political enemies, but also their "political friends" (if such a thing exists). Both have earned being candidates. You can argue about Biden and Palin... I think both are just watchdogs of their party. Especially Palin, who had already shown that she has no problems with betraying other republicans, if it suits her career.


-----Posted Added-----

Vietnam wasn't the rat hole, it was the Hanoi Hilton, where he was imprisoned.

Yeah. When Vietnam was hell, the Hanoi Hilton was the locker of the devil.

But when asked by a German reporter, one of his former guardians, who now works for the Hanoi Hilton Museum, said he would vote for his most famous prisoner, if he could.

 

[Mission_CDR]

I dont mean offense to be taken but I have never really heard Obama say exactly how he is going to do some of the things he says he will. Just about all of the time it seems that he waffles around the point, can some one please help me understand exactly how he plans to make everything that he says he will do happen? Once again I am not trying to attack him, I am just curious.

I didnt see anyone answer my question, BTW all he will do is slow down the economy by raising taxes, that is the last thing america needs right now.

 

[Radu094]

I misvoted!!!

In a strange dislexix move, I clicked on the other candidate and voted!
I was 100% sure who I wanted to win, but I still voted for the other guy. And now the poll is tied at 14 - 14. Oau...

 

[replicant]

As I have stated before, there are many things I don't like about the Democrats, and wish there were a better option. I respect John McCain's war record greatly, but again he is a rich man far out of touch with working people.

Obama is the most likely person to send Palin (who considers the Iraq war to be a task from God) back to the bible belt of Alaska.


-----Posted Added-----

I didnt see anyone answer my question, BTW all he will do is slow down the economy by raising taxes, that is the last thing america needs right now.

Not that I have ever been in favor of raising taxes, but the question is who do the supposed current tax cuts benefit? I have never made enough money to benefit from Bush's supposed "tax cuts". In addition, wars cost a great deal of money. Will we keep borrowing from China to pay the Saudi's and to pay the bill for the war in Iraq? Where is all this money going to come from?

Also please keep in mind that when someone offers large blanket tax breaks to corporations INCLUDING the ones that send jobs overseas, I don't get how that helps the economy. If I have no job then I am not buying Wal-Mart's cheesy crap or eating at the Burger Den or travelling too far. I am beyond tired of seeing Americans put out of work for cheap overseas slave labor.

Is the death of our young people not to be considered a very high tax? I doubt we will avoid a draft if we keep having to "surge" more troops into Iraq, or send other ones into other wars that McCain and Palin no doubt have planned for us.

BTW, I am not sure how the "surge" is considered such a success. It seems to me that it demonstrates incompetence by the fact that Bush was advised very early on that he would need to send more forces than he originally did to maintain order. Had he sent more initially, perhaps we would not have lost so many already. How do you measure "success" in Iraq? If success is the formation of an independant free state, then it seems it is a failure if we have to keep sending more and more military forces into it.

 

[Urwumpe]

I didnt see anyone answer my question, BTW all he will do is slow down the economy by raising taxes, that is the last thing america needs right now.

Without a little war too much, there wouldn't be a economic crisis in first place. Also, there would not be the need for raising taxes, if a republican president did not lately reduce the taxes for rich people only.

Where have you been to shout "Stop, we can't invade in Iraq. We need the money to compensate your last tax decreases for rich people!"? :dry:

How do you think do the USA work? Let a republican pray to god and suddenly, money arrives? Face the facts.

Even McCain will not be able to keep the USA liquid, if he does not raise the taxes. And if he does follow republican party standards, his raise of taxes would only hit the people, who already have little money and who are hit hard by the subprime crisis. Which will destroy consume inside the USA. But that is no problem for somebody, who can claim that he really owns many houses...


-----Posted Added-----

BTW, I am not sure how the "surge" is considered such a success.

The "Surge" is no real success - the 30000 people more are not really important (of course, they feel different about it). The difference in the last months actually comes from the USA finally adapting UK anti-terror tactics. Small mobile teams, with integrated intelligence personal. Pretty much like "24" in a single night. Also the Iraqi people now give more hints to the US people, after they finally manage to hunt the terrorists with the new tactics (guess why the UK sector was so calm... ). When somebody gives a hint, the new teams can already deploy on the next night, when they find a suspect and get information about other terrorists, they strike twice the same night.

All from the book of British anti-terror-fight. Who will not say thank you for the extra-training, they got from the US-Irish citizens, who supported the IRA all the years.

 

[Linguofreak]

Especially as inexperience also applies to Palin - one week ago, she was still unknown south of the canadian border,

Fame does not equal experience. Having been a mayor and a governor, Palin has more experience relevant to the job than Obama, Biden, *or even McCain,* seeing as all of those three are legislators. The presidency, like a governorship and unlike a senatorship, is an executive job, not a legislative one.

 

[Andy44]

All from the book of British anti-terror-fight. Who will not say thank you for the extra-training, they got from the US-Irish citizens, who supported the IRA all the years.

That's a pretty funny way to think about it.

 

[David]

there would not be the need for raising taxes, if a republican president did not lately reduce the taxes for rich people only.

Where have you been to shout "Stop, we can't invade in Iraq. We need the money to compensate your last tax decreases for rich people!"? :dry:

How do you think do the USA work? Let a republican pray to god and suddenly, money arrives? Face the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_Curve

There have reportedly been three notable tax cuts in recent history: by Kennedy (1960's), Reagan (1980's) and Bush (2000's). In all three cases, government revenues increased. The link, above, shows the reason.

Thus, inadequate U.S. government money, cannot be blamed on tax cuts by the Bush administration, and neither can it be supposed that raising taxes would be necessary (or even useful) for providing the U.S. government with more money.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the tiresome assertion that the Bush administration provided "tax cuts for the rich," instead the tax cuts were extended across all income levels and, in fact, slightly weighted to lower incomes, so that "the rich" paid a greater fraction of Federal Income Taxes, after the tax cuts, than before. Furthermore, the number of persons who, after the tax cuts, would pay no income taxes at all (now about 40% of the income-earning population), increased. Currently, the cost of the U.S. government is almost entirely (97%) borne by persons in the upper half of income level.

However, because the tax cuts were "across the board," therefore persons who had paid more taxes, got back more money in the tax rebate (if there is an x% rebate, then x% of more money in taxes paid, means more money returned).

Furthermore, the "earned income tax credit" was extended, as part of the "Bush tax-cut" legislation, to higher incomes - which basically means that more people, who don't even pay any income taxes, will henceforth nevertheless get a "rebate" from the U.S. government.

Additionally, the U.S. Income Tax system is a "progressive" system - meaning that persons with higher income pay a larger percentage of that income. Seemingly, those who complain about the "unfairness" of "Bush's tax cuts for the rich" - wherein, higher-income persons received even less than an equal percentage rebate, compared to lower-income persons (note that I mentioned: "slightly weighted to lower incomes") - nevertheless find nothing ironic in that complaint. They allege that it is unfair that "the tax cuts disproportionally benefitted the wealthy," while finding no unfairness in the fact that the tax system disproportionally acts against the wealthy.

In the Bush administration's tax cuts, lower-income persons received a larger share of their taxes, returned, than higher-income persons did. That they received a smaller absolute quantity of money, as a rebate, is the result of their having paid a smaller absolute quantity of money, in the first place.

 

[Cobalt]

The above is why I'm a strong supporter of the FairTax.

 

[Andy44]

The above is why I'm a strong supporter of NoTax.