If by frenzied you mean the way a hungry wolf looks at a limping rabbit, then yes, we're frenzied.

8/31/2008 1:05:11 AM

John McCain for President.

10/8/2008 10:16:33 PM

Reminds me slightly of Marlon Brando there.

10/8/2008 10:18:19 PM

Man, it'd be so embarrassing to have jumped ship in order to swim over to the failboat.

10/8/2008 11:21:16 PM

^ I would be more embarrassed I was part of a party that sold out on its policies and principals to get elected. Or, more accurately, adopted the policies of Jimmy Carter and the tactics of Karl Rove to energize the base in order to get elected.

I have no problem voting for a losing candidate I actually believe in.
Like I've always said and your comments keep proving, you're less interested in policy than in poll numbers. Not a boat I want to be in.

10/8/2008 11:26:26 PM

The Democrats didn't sell out.

Maybe they've given you the shaft, but you've yet to fully explain exactly how they did it.

Wasn't it that you liked their pragmatic, pro-trade policies? OH WAIT, YOU LIKED EDWARDS. NM.

10/8/2008 11:33:51 PM

of course the Dems didn't sell out...why would they have to? as long as there are poor people that they can convince need big government to fix all their mistakes and tell them how to live their lives, they won't have to sell out...just keep propagating the idea that less fortunate people simply cannot survive in this world without the Dems...no need to sellout unless we live in a perfect world which we never will

10/8/2008 11:39:29 PM

Boone,

You keep saying that, but I have explained this half a dozen times. Indeed, here is what I said about it on the very first page of this thread.

Quote :

"[I can see how my support of John McCain can seem inconsistent with my previous support for John Edwards and other Democrats,] but I think my position is more consistent than it initially appears. I have a rough philosophical core that guides my political choices—largely influenced by economist Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum. The primary principal is that I think that the government has a large role in making sure that people have the means and resources to develop the capabilities they need to lead “choice-worthy” lives. That doesn’t mean ensuring everyone reaches the same outcomes as measured by income or even that everyone must have an equal opportunities to reach a certain level income. People want different things. Some people want high paying jobs with little time off, others would rather trade less money for more leisure time. And I think the government can help people develop the basic capabilities to pursue either life goal. That potentially means helping people get medical care or education or housing or what have you. But at the same time, the government should also allow people to have the freedom to pursue those lives. That means few restrictions on civil liberties and trade. Now, when it comes to picking a political candidate, I try to find those that have the best ideas for helping people develop their capabilities while preserving their freedom to live their lives. Hillary Clinton has a better plan for getting health care to more people than either McCain or Obama, but it isn’t perfect and she will likely not get elected anyways. McCain’s plan is less ambitious but will likely do more to improve the working poor’s access to medical care than Obama’s plan (at least in my opinion). [Note: I am actually now less supportive of the Hillary-Edwards plan than I was as explained in several other threads, though I am not totally opposed to it.] McCain also supports fewer trade restrictions than Obama or Hillary (with the exception of smoking). Plus, I think that McCain is a more credible fighter on climate change and that his plans for Iraq will do more good for Iraqis than Obama’s (they’re people too you know). That’s on top of the fact that he has shown himself to be a first rate leader on politically dangerous issues. My choices my seem fickle, but appearances can be deceiving. I already know what I want to see done, it’s just a question of finding the best person to do it. And knowing the minds of others is a much more difficult task than knowing your own."

This is how I know you're just trolling. I know for a fact you and I have discussed this before. But you keep asking because you think it annoys me. Sometimes it does. This time it doesn't. Because I know I am not the one clinging to a philosophically bankrupt candidate.

PS* Edwards voting record on trade issues was much more reasonable than his campaign rhetoric. This was a point the Economist magazine made back in 2004. If I cared enough, I would go hunt it down, but I don't. So I won't.

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2008 12:01:13 AM

Quote :

"Man, it'd be so embarrassing to have jumped ship in order to swim over to the failboat"

socks is a pathetic shell of his former self.

how sad.

10/9/2008 12:34:50 AM

look at joe...like a crab in a pot...always trying to pull the other one back down instead of see him succeed and improve his situation...chill out with that envy man, its not healthy

10/9/2008 12:40:48 AM

and your analogies are getting WAAAAY too tangential.

you really oughtta scale back some on the bong.

10/9/2008 12:45:53 AM

Actually, the analogy was spot on.

10/9/2008 12:48:15 AM

that's cause you fags are blowing each other shotguns.

10/9/2008 12:53:42 AM

no he too just happens to realize that you're jealous of socks' political evolution

10/9/2008 1:00:37 AM

evolution. ahahah.

Socks suppported:

Edwards

then Hillary.

Now McCain.

who will next? Ralph Nader? Lyndon LaRouche? Anyone, apparently, besides The Black Guy.

oh, yeah.

i said it.

10/9/2008 1:03:05 AM

posting multiple

doublespaced lines with no point

schmoe pwnt by haiku

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

10/9/2008 1:07:59 AM

Quote :

"I would be more embarrassed I was part of a party that sold out on its policies and principals to get elected."

Um, unless you're voting Green or Libertarian or something, this seems like a really stupid argument to be making.

10/9/2008 7:23:09 AM

^ Or unless you long for the centrist Democratic party of 10 years ago.

Obama can't stop complaining about "shipping our jobs over seas" or "the market running wild". He has already made it clear that balancing the budget is not one of his top priorities. Aside from one commercial, I have not heard Obama say anything about "welfare reform", and lord knows there is still things we can change for the better (like setting time limits on pell grants or tying them to academic performance).

None of this sounds like the Democratic party that Bill Clinton tried to lead. Clinton realized that markets were the best source of improving living standards for everyone, but (unlike Newt Gingrich and other of his more libertarian Republican rivals) he realized that markets are not perfect and that the government can productively get involved. And that's exactly why Bill Clinton did not seek to expand the federal government, he sought to make existing initiatives more effective through market-based reforms.

Like I keep saying, the "progressive" fundamentalist base has taken over the Democratic Party. They have traded in their regard for the free market for the big government philosophy of the past. Why? Because as Karl Rove has shown, you can always count on the base to get out there and vote if you just get them excited enough.

Centrists have no other choice than John McCain in this election.

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 8:14 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2008 8:11:05 AM

I wasn't saying the Dems haven't sold out, I was saying the Repubs have sold out just as much.

10/9/2008 8:23:52 AM

There's no way you can tell me you supported Edwards for centrist economic views.

His entire campaign was centered around a populist, protectionist trade policy.

That his voting record might indicate otherwise would simply make him a liar (well, I guess that's not too difficult to believe, after all)


And what of Clinton's rants against NAFTA? You seem more than happy to dismiss Clinton and Edward's talk on market interference as campaign talk, yet you take Obama's speech's, and instead of minimizing them, you exaggerate them to a ridiculous extreme.

Are you positive you aren't going to write in Buchanan this year?

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2008 9:04:10 AM

10/9/2008 9:11:33 AM

Boone

This is probably the first election you can vote in, so I might be telling you something new when I say that a candidate's campaign rhetoric doesn't always match his/her governing style.

That's why a candidate's voting record can be an important indicator of what they will actually do in office. Edwards had a pretty centrist voting record despite his populist rhetoric, so I considered giving him a chance. Since Obama simply has not much of a record to speak of, I can only judge him by his campaign rhetoric. And I don't like what I'm hearing.

Sometimes he indicates that he really isn't all that serious about this anti-trade business, but then he keeps on saying the same things. And on top of that, the actual mechanics of many of his policy proposals make no sense, which illustrates he simply doesn't care about policy detail (forcing insurance companies to sell insurance plans to anyone that wants them while not requiring everyone to purchase them simply makes no sense). Even when I disagreed with Edwards it was clear that he (or at least his campaign in general) was always engaged in the details of policy proposals.

Now, you're probably at that age where you still think you can't possibly support someone unless you agree with them on every single issue. That's probably why when I asked you to name something about Obama you didn't like, the only thing you mentioned was his posters. But for those of us outside the fundamentalist base, choices can be much harder. We're left not choosing the candidate based on party, but trying to figure out which one agrees with us most and which has the best skill-set to serve. That's a pretty tough job. Much harder than just looking for the "D" next to someone's name.

If you really can't see what would make McCain an attractive candidate, even to someone that may have typically leaned Democrat in the past two elections, I can only tell you that this is phase. You'll likely grow out of it soon. Probably after the election is over and you see true change doesn't happen as easily as a campaign rally.

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2008 9:24:49 AM

Quote :

"If you really can't see what would make McCain an attractive candidate, even to someone that may have typically leaned Democrat in the past two elections, I can only tell you that this is phase. You'll likely grow out of it soon. "

Please tell me are you going to listen to this condescending drivel? It is not a phase, you won't be growing out of anything.

Boone, you'd do well to constitute and forge your own intellectual honesty and stances and not listen to one of the most zealous and dismissive supporters of McCain on TSB.

10/9/2008 9:32:42 AM

^ hahaha I knew that would provoke you. you really can't stand that type of talk.

But, seriously. Are you asking me to polite in response to this kind of trashing?

Quote :

"Man, it'd be so embarrassing to have jumped ship in order to swim over to the failboat."

Boone is personalizing this election into winning and losing teams (as if were a sporting event and as if anyone of us truly had an impact on the outcome). And that really IS a common phase among undergrads. Most people go on to not give a shit about politics (1/2 the country doesn't even vote). Some people never grow out of it, but then again, some people never grow out of playing video games (i never did).

PS* What about ME forging my own intellectual path. Shouldn't that be encouraged.


[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 9:40 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2008 9:35:28 AM

Consider me guilty as charged. I can't resist your charm.

Quote :

"Boone is personalizing this election into winning and losing teams (as if were a sporting event and as if anyone of us truly had an impact on the outcome). And that really IS a common phase among undergrads."

And you're not? I think all of us ring the flag up the pole for our respective sides....we all do this in the heat of pleading our cases....funny thing is, we're all constituted already in opinion..

10/9/2008 9:45:23 AM

^ No, I am personalizing this election and putting people into right and wrong teams. The fact that Obama wins the election doesn't make his policies any better than they were 6 months ago. And indeed, the correctness of his policies had nothing to do with Obama's rising poll numbers. If they did, how would we explain his slump a few weeks ago? Neither his or Obama's policies changed. So what gives?

I'll leave that for another discussion, but I think the take home point is that am more interested in who is winning arguments than who is winning the election. That may be a phase too, but not much I can do about it.

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 9:52 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2008 9:52:14 AM

What gives? The economy. Obama has shown he's a more steady and capable candidate to roll the dice on this year to fix that than McCain. Plain and simple...there's no vapid sense to it (despite all that you insinuate).


I'm not conceding your point that issues don't have something to do with it (in my opinion that's a wash in terms of support 50/50), but there's something else entirely going on. You can't see McCain's campaign's actions through a clear lens like the undecided voters but there is definitely a response to the aggrandizing theater, and completely erratic hardheaded behavior and set of decisions that many do not want to put in the white house for the next 4 years. How else do across the board McCain and Palin's favorability dropped consistently in almost all polls?

Meanwhile Obama has held consistent presence and has stayed strictly on message. That's what's mattered here...people are starting to trust that Obama will stick to a plan instead of slinging fire hell all over the place to gain this or that point and god knows what the plan would be in the white house. Reaction city.

10/9/2008 10:03:10 AM

and yet you and no one else can explain the fundamentals of his actual plans and how they will be implemented

which means you are very easily persuaded by what sounds good instead of substance

10/9/2008 10:16:56 AM

Yeah uh

I think you missed the last debate

the part where McCain said, "I have a plan for it, my friends"

and then said completely nothing.


I also loved the part where he said he knew where Osama Bin Laden was and how to get him.

Oh really? Well then why didn't you help the fucking Department of Homeland Security get him 5 years ago you old fuck?

So much for "Country first."

10/9/2008 10:19:30 AM

Quote :

"which means you are very easily persuaded by what sounds good instead of substance"

Nice try. Why do you forget that I might completely disagree with McCain's 'subtance'? Why does that escape you? It's the same fucking fundamental attribution error that plagues the lot of you guys...just because you think he has all these rock solid policies you agree with doesn't mean others do as well. If polls are correct, most don't. We're not some programmed cult of personality, most aren't. I'd say that cult of personality washes out with the same cult on your side that thinks Obama is an A) terrorist, B) Muslim, C) all of the above or any combination of and will not vote for him on that principle alone.

And on McCain I think his plans and policies from the economy, tax code, health care, foreign policy stances, all of it is completely shitty and backwards for this country. So don't make that retarded claim again, or at least don't point it in my direction.

10/9/2008 10:40:15 AM

Kainen,

I just don't believe that story. McCain surged in the polls even when he picked a VP candidate the media criticized and even when he was running many more negative ads. Even after Palin was savaged in interviews McCain and Obama barely tied.

Things did not really turn around for Obama until the financial crisis kicked into high gear. Check out this graph from intratrade on the odds of Dem becomming next President.



Are you gonna tell me people just, all of a sudden, learned to trust Barry on Sept 14, the day Paulson decided to let Lehman Brothers fail? That seems kinda crazy. More likely, people are attributing a poor economy to a sitting President and his party. Kinda like they did in 1932, 1960, 1980, and 1992. SHOCKER!!!


[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2008 10:44:41 AM

Quote :

"Things did not really turn around for Obama"

He was up by three and it was a close race, as we all thought it would be. I think the economy certainly made people wake up and realize what they'd get out of McCain.

You underestimate his role in this as well. The sequence of 'fundamentals of economy are strong' - ridiculous theater and airdropping into DC in his captain america underoos to do nothing but make a fool out of himself - the debates sunk McCain in late Sep to early Oct.

You are drastically underrating the impact that had...he looked like a freaking boob.

10/9/2008 10:52:31 AM

Wait Wait Wait WAIT.

So Obama's policies didn't change, but people just happened to "wake up" to how great they are when the economy under a sitting Republican President tanked!?!?!?!

WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!!

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2008 10:56:25 AM

I think you forgot that McCain has no substance either, my friends.

10/9/2008 10:56:35 AM

Quote :

"More likely, people are attributing a poor economy to a sitting President and his party. "

so what. look, we all know the republicans are not responsible for this financial crisis... but they are totally responsible for a dozen other quagmires.

look at it like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. or OJ for armed robbery. its a technicality that works out for the best, as they wind up paying for their greater crimes.

anyhow, the trend in the POLLS are not clearly about the economic crisis. thats only a part of the picture.

the fact is, McCain got a boost from Palin, but it immediately began deflating after the RNC was over. Yes, he generated a burst of short-term excitement over his vacuous barbie doll, but the long term trend leveled out as soon as people realized what a policy airhead she really is. Katie Couric Sarah Palin did more damage to the McCain campaign's credibility than the economic situation ever will.

besides... are you suggesting that all your republican circlejerkers are ready to give up the ship to a Dem just because of some finances? holy hell, you guys are more fickle than i thought. some commitment you have to the free market, what with all of you rushing in to throw $700B of tax money in the greatest socialist endeavor since the New Deal.






[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2008 11:02:14 AM

^ again, that's a wonderfully self-serving read of events. Before Lehman Brothers went under, McCain and Obama were essentially neck-and-neck. You can see that in Intrade markets and you can see that in various polls:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

After mid-September, THAT'S when Obama started to surge again in the polls.

Now, what makes more sense. That people "suddenly woke up" to months of negative ads or Obama's well-worn policies? Or that the polls were driven by the financial crisis? Proximate onset = proximate cause my friends.

Besides, I thought you were staying out of TSB till next month.

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ``]

10/9/2008 11:17:45 AM

ill be the first to agree that putting palin on the ballot wasnt the smartest move in the long run. we didnt know that back then. it was a great move at first.

but shes not running for president. so lets not divert from what really matters. the voting booth will not have her name on the ballot. if youre so concerned with the vps lack of experience that she wouldnt be able to serve in office, then youre only damning yourself and are merely reiterating the flaw of your presidential candidate. if experience is THAT big of an issue for the VP, obama wouldnt be your candidate now.

so stay consistent here, it goes both ways

10/9/2008 11:19:39 AM

^ straight up

10/9/2008 11:24:15 AM

Yeah, she's not running for President.

A guy who is 72 years old, who frequently visits the doctor to have skin removed, and who has thousands of pages of medical records is running for President.

Good luck with that time bomb.

10/9/2008 11:26:45 AM

Quote :

"This is probably the first election you can vote in, so"

Wow. hooksaw tactics. Your transition is complete.

I voted for Gore, twit.

Quote :

"a candidate's campaign rhetoric doesn't always match his/her governing style."

Dude, duh. But typically the candidate doesn't hang his entire platform on a lie. As did Edwards, if you actually believe he was a free trader.

Quote :

"Now, you're probably at that age where you still think you can't possibly support someone unless you agree with them on every single issue."

Oh please. If it'll make you feel comfortable to believe that, then whatever.

10/9/2008 11:35:09 AM

Quote :

" A guy who is 72 years old, who frequently visits the doctor to have skin removed, and who has thousands of pages of medical records is running for President. "

wow, so this concerns you, but fraud, corruption, indictments, socialist supporters, and money laundering are keeping your vote for this guy

10/9/2008 12:19:47 PM

Quote :

"but fraud, corruption, indictments, socialist supporters, and money laundering"

FACT

10/9/2008 12:26:45 PM

McCain has had near-fatal brain aneurysms

oh wait, thats Biden

10/9/2008 12:28:29 PM

But does anyone care what happens to a VP?

10/9/2008 12:31:12 PM

Quote :

"Sarah Palin did more damage to the McCain campaign's credibility than the economic situation ever will. "

I can agree with this statement to an extent.

My wife and I and several other family members who may typically vote Republican are voting for Obama simply because Palin is truly a terribly unprepared candidate. I don't want to call her stupid, because I think that may not be true and that really is a weak argument. But rather her inability to articulate ideas about the Bush Doctrine, regardless of hair splitting about phases (widely regarded as premptive strikes), her inability to answer questions without sounding like Miss South Carolina, and the tone of condescension that she exudes when talking, etc.

A lot of people that I know who were considering voting McCain were put off by this selection. Sometimes personality and optimism and a face for all people really does matter more than purported substance. In truth, to me, there isn't much difference between the policies of either candidate and what will actually be accomplished. Most of this is posturing. I think that Obama is the candidate that the world needs right now at this very moment. In other times, he would be just as worthless as any other candidate.

Hate away.

10/9/2008 12:34:06 PM

fraud - the people who paid for his campaigns are in prison and obama has acknowledged this as a big mistake

corruption - if you are a democratic official in chicago, you answer to bosses, and if you dont, you will lose your office ... thus the opening in the state senate that he took over

indictments - rezko was indicted and just sentenced to federal prison

socialist supporters - his mentor is a marxist which is in his book, socialists in chicago are among his most consistent fundraisers, and he has spoke of socialist rallies he attended right out of college

money laundering - how do you think rezco acquired campaign funds, and why do you think hes in prison





its all there ... i dont know why this is so hard for you to comprehend

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2008 12:34:18 PM

and putting a marxist and his pals in charge of our economy?

Quote :

"Good luck with that time bomb."

10/9/2008 8:05:26 PM

Quote :

"the people who paid for his campaigns are in prison and obama"

I'm not in prison.

10/9/2008 8:09:21 PM

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338

Quote :

"Size of Donations $200 and Under $222,769,762 $200.01 - $499 $43,372,209 $500 - $999 $36,051,952 $1000 - $1999 $50,576,835 $2000 and Over $85,600,206 "

Damn, that's a lot of people in jail.

10/9/2008 8:22:30 PM

BACK TO THE TOP PEOPLE!!!!

11/4/2008 10:00:35 AM