OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:47 pm

Tomorrow is going to be a train wreck:

http://videothevote.org/video/407/

Using computer touch screens and all that nonsense is asinine to me, in a presidential election. Too much room for error and tampering. We have a big sheet of paper with all the candidates and measures on it. There are big, black arrows pointing to each candidate, with the middle of the arrow removed. A Sharpie is used to 'draw' in the rest of the arrow next to your candidates' names, then fed into a machine that reads the Sharpie marks. Simple as that. No chads, no computer glitches, and if your vote is wrong, you have only your stupid ass to blame for it.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:01 pm

We always wanted higher turnout and we may get it but the voting infrastructure probably can't handle the higher numbers of voters. There will probably be people who give up and people still waiting in lines when the polls close. There will probably be court challenges to either close or keep open the polls in some precincts.

Then there will be some laws passed, about voting reform, like after previous elections, and we'll still have these problems.

This morning on CNBC, there was a guy on who runs his own investment firm. He was predicting that the recession Obama would inherit if he wins, will still be with us in 2012 and that things will be actually worse because of Obama and the Democrats' policies. He didn't really outline what policies those were but he was talking in general terms about the need to shrink govt. and dismantle a lot of agencies.

His name is Peter Schiff and it turns out he was Ron Paul's economic advisor. He is credited with predicting the housing bubble bursting. He thinks if things are no better or worse by 2012, maybe the electorate will be willing to accept Draconian changes of the kind that he and Paul proposed.

Of course, other economists have said, reducing the budget deficit at this time should be a lower priority. They're calling for stimulus, to try at least to slow down the descent.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:38 pm

wco81 wrote:Of course, other economists have said, reducing the budget deficit at this time should be a lower priority. They're calling for stimulus, to try at least to slow down the descent.

Anyone else hear Tom Petty's Free Fallin' when they read this?

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:47 pm

Budget deficits are going to have to increase, unfortunately. With consumer spending dropping like a stone, the federal government can't let a recession turn into a depression.

RobVarak wrote:I would hope not. IMO the only thing more screwed up than the voter registration process is the combination of exit pollling and incremental release of voting results in a country of 300m people with multiple time zones.

I agree. Releasing exit poll results before the west coast polls are closed is completely unacceptable.

I also find it odd that US elections are always held on Tuesdays, rather than on Saturdays when most people aren't working and would have more time to get to the polls. Alternatively, they could make Election Day a proper holiday like Independence Day (not a phony holiday like Presidents Day).

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:27 pm

Obama 'salutes' McCain...

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:36 pm

I really don't think he's giving anyone the finger.

He may be subliminally foreshadowing what he's going to do to the country if elected, though.

I'm sure there are several thousand people in the coal industry and related businesses and their families who wouldn't mind the chance to return the favor though LOL

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:03 pm

My understanding of this coal kerfuffle is that Obama and McCain have the same pro-'clean coal' position. And that that quote was taken out of context. And was never "hidden". Am I wrong?

For 90% of this election I though to myself, "wow, Drudge has been pretty even-handed". Now it seems the strategy was to wait until the last minute and drop a whole lot of dubious stuff (Rashid Khalidi) in hopes there'd be no time for clarification or counter attack. Drudge's headline area has looked like full on Obama panic all week.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:31 pm

Feanor wrote:Budget deficits are going to have to increase, unfortunately. With consumer spending dropping like a stone, the federal government can't let a recession turn into a depression.

RobVarak wrote:I would hope not. IMO the only thing more screwed up than the voter registration process is the combination of exit pollling and incremental release of voting results in a country of 300m people with multiple time zones.
I agree. Releasing exit poll results before the west coast polls are closed is completely unacceptable.

I also find it odd that US elections are always held on Tuesdays, rather than on Saturdays when most people aren't working and would have more time to get to the polls. Alternatively, they could make Election Day a proper holiday like Independence Day (not a phony holiday like Presidents Day).

Purely based on farming and travel in the 1800s. It was after the crops have been harvested. And it was Tuesday to allow people to travel to the polling places. It wasn't on the weekend to allow people to attend church.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:32 pm

Teal wrote:Obama 'salutes' McCain...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XBMdWxcFXQg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

Wasn't as subtle as his 'salute' to Hillary a few months back...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UoOFp-RDpvM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

The straws you grasp at...

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:34 pm

Slumberland wrote:My understanding of this coal kerfuffle is that Obama and McCain have the same pro-'clean coal' position. And that that quote was taken out of context. And was never "hidden". Am I wrong?

For 90% of this election I though to myself, "wow, Drudge has been pretty even-handed". Now it seems the strategy was to wait until the last minute and drop a whole lot of dubious stuff (Rashid Khalidi) in hopes there'd be no time for clarification or counter attack. Drudge's headline area has looked like full on Obama panic all week.

The PA GOP apparently ran ads over the weekend about Wright. McCain had decided he wasn't going to use Wright. But the state party is hoping this last-minute gambit works where Ayres didn't work.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:36 pm

JRod wrote:
Teal wrote:Obama 'salutes' McCain...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XBMdWxcFXQg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

Wasn't as subtle as his 'salute' to Hillary a few months back...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UoOFp-RDpvM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>
The straws you grasp at...

The

's you miss...I'd keep BS like this to yourself if you want this thread to stay open.

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:50 pm

No comment. LOL

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hsmIJuN225M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:00 pm

wco81 wrote:The PA GOP apparently ran ads over the weekend about Wright. McCain had decided he wasn't going to use Wright. But the state party is hoping this last-minute gambit works where Ayres didn't work.

I saw some of those ads. They're pretty well crafted and striking as attack ads go, which is more than can be said for the McCain ad where three middle-aged women announce that they're "Joe the Plumber".

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:11 pm

Feanor wrote:
wco81 wrote:The PA GOP apparently ran ads over the weekend about Wright. McCain had decided he wasn't going to use Wright. But the state party is hoping this last-minute gambit works where Ayres didn't work.
I saw some of those ads. They're pretty well crafted and striking as attack ads go, which is more than can be said for the McCain ad where three middle-aged women announce that they're "Joe the Plumber".

They've been running the Wright ad here in Michigan. It's pretty effective as far as attack ads go.

However, Elizabeth Dole's "Godless" ad probably takes the cake for sheer feces flinging this year:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa ... 41,00.html

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:17 pm

Slumberland wrote:My understanding of this coal kerfuffle is that Obama and McCain have the same pro-'clean coal' position. And that that quote was taken out of context. And was never "hidden". Am I wrong?

It was definitely never hidden, as the SF papers carried stories about the event from which the quote was taken. Probably because it was California, nobody really batted an eye at the quote.

Just because McCain and Obama have both taken positions in favor of developing clean coal technology does not, however, mean that McCain would be as ruthless as Obama in its implementation or be so aggressive with pricing signals.

Right or wrong, it's tremendously and uncharacteristically tin-eared to drop phrases like those used by Obama in that forum...particularly given the pre-emindence of coal in the corridor from IL through W. Virginia. The quote raises legitimate questions regarding whether Obama, like many environmentalists, would be willing to throw industry under the bus to suit his environmental policy.

It may be late in the game, but given McCain's push in Pennsylvania Obama's gotta be hating that this surfaced right now.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:45 pm

RobVarak wrote: Right or wrong, it's tremendously and uncharacteristically tin-eared to drop phrases like those used by Obama in that forum...particularly given the pre-emindence of coal in the corridor from IL through W. Virginia. The quote raises legitimate questions regarding whether Obama, like many environmentalists, would be willing to throw industry under the bus to suit his environmental policy.

If anything, his stances on issues of regional interest have been predictably conventional.

He's for ag subsidies and supports the corn ethanol mandates and subsidies.

I'm not necessarily against ag subsidies but corn ethanol policy has been a disaster for all but corn growers and people connected with corn ethanol processing.

As for clean coal, my understanding is that there isn't a single carbon sequestration installation in the US at all. Shortly after Bush took office, CA had the energy crisis and one of the responses was that he touted coal, especially "clean coal."

But the incremental cost to build a plant with sequestration as opposed to just a conventional plant is higher than most plant operators are willing to accept.

Especially when the administration relaxes emission standards for power plants or make it easy for them to avoid any caps.

It's too bad, because the Chinese are planning to build coal plants like there's no tomorrow and we can't really present them with an argument for using sequestration because a) carbon emissions aren't really a problem or b) we didn't bother to implement it, let alone find a way to scale costs down.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:40 pm

Cheney's hometown newspaper backs Obama (in a well-stated manner, I might add):

"It is a foregone conclusion that Wyoming's three electoral votes will go to Sen. John McCain. It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president," the Editorial Board of Wyoming's Casper Star-Tribune wrote Monday.

"But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one."

The board goes on to commend Obama's judgement, criticizing McCain's conduct during his campaign and choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

"If the John McCain of 2000 saw today's counterpart, he wouldn't recognize himself," the Board wrote. "McCain is no longer a GOP maverick, or the war hero whose principles were unwavering. He has flip-flopped on issues ranging from tax cuts to torture in an effort to win over the conservative base of his party. He has waged a dismal campaign based on fear and divisiveness."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:07 pm

GTHobbes wrote:Cheney's hometown newspaper backs Obama

Game set and match.

miget33 · Post by **miget33** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:27 pm

Now for something that's very bipartisan, Gambling.
Anybody taking part in any sort of Election Night wagering. Such as margin of victory(% wise), House and Senate races, and so on.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:47 pm

With friends like these...

http://newsmax.com/insidecover/moore_ob ... 47023.html

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:15 pm

Thomas Sowell unloads on Obama. Clarly Stanford has a racist on the faculty! Not a surprise that Sowell is a critic, but the tenor of his criticism was not something that I expected.

To his credit he is of keen enough mind to recall Obama's running mate, who has been strangely low key for the last several weeks...

After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.

The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.

The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.

The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.

"This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.

For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.

The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.

After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.

Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion.

People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some "gotcha" questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden.

Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.

Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did.

Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.

But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85."

Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:29 pm

This is the sound of hordes of conspiracy theorists and attack dogs collectively sighing:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:44 pm

HA! Just got this email from a friend, and what he meant for one thing, I took as another-whoo-hoo! Apparently, history has already been written, and one man swayed the election...ME.

Of course, the main difference is two fold:

-I'm voting

-I'm not voting for Obama

Other than that, I love this video-it's hilarious.

http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/?combined=Jas ... k0ODkxMTU-

Post by **Jared** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:12 pm

RobVarak wrote:Thomas Sowell unloads on Obama. Clarly Stanford has a racist on the faculty! Not a surprise that Sowell is a critic, but the tenor of his criticism was not something that I expected.

Though the inaccuracy of his criticism is.

For example...

"This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.

Except there's no evidence that he said "I will change the world".

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit ... 026574.php

UPDATE: Jake Tapper emails: "I have never heard him say 'I will change the world'. Where is that headline supported? Seriously…a serious question."

I don't know. They've got it in quotation marks, but it's not in the body of the story, just the headline. Anybody seen that anywhere else?

***
Meanwhile, in a followup email, Tapper writes: "Seems dubious to me. I'm covering him like white on rice and if he said that we would have written about it, but if anyone finds it, let me know pls." Will do.

MORE: Reader Urania Mitchell says it's probably a misquote of this statement:

"I'm Barack Obama," he concludes. "If you give me your vote on Tuesday, we won't just win this election -- together, we will change this country and change the world."

Nothing like making up quotes to support a crappy thesis. Hooray National Review!

Smurfy · Post by **Smurfy** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:05 pm

Wishing you guys a happy election day from Toronto!

Please please don't mess this up for the rest of us

So, has McCain been declared yet? If not, I'm calling it!