Right, thanks.
And the VP debate in October so i gather. A pundit claimed that Bidon comes across as a tad patronising, that could prove to be a problem.
Nigh on two months still, you lot are nuts. lol
U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Right, thanks.
And the VP debate in October so i gather. A pundit claimed that Bidon comes across as a tad patronising, that could prove to be a problem.
Nigh on two months still, you lot are nuts. lol
Nick, here's a dumb question but what does SGA stand for in your location?
It's a TV show called Stargate Atlantis, at least it is for a little while longer anyway. Should probably take that down at some point, oldish news.
I was flicking between channels and must've missed it, but i just heard on the news that anti-war protesters interrupted McCain's speech, how badly? Did anyone here see them?
They did a couple (maybe 3) times. It was what started some of the "USA USA USA" chants. I don't mind protesting but I think it's pretty tasteless to do so in the convention hall.
EDIT: I liked SGA also.
I saw two of them myself. The second person (some lady dressed in pink) had a banner with her but someone grabbed it from her hand and chucked it on the ground. There was a guy at the top with with black banner that said something about mccain not caring about vets and the other said said "vote no for occupation"
Hollywood!
If McCain is advocating a need for change, promising to get the country moving again etc. isn't that admitting that the current Presidency has messed up?
of course it is, he'd be lying if he said otherwise though as we're talking about arguably the most unpopular/incompetent/worst administration in US history. It's no wonder he didn't even mention Bush's name in his speech! The fact that he's voted on issues 90% of the time with Bush does undermine his claims though. The other 10% where he opposed certain bills such as those advocating more tax cuts for the rich, he's now actually endorsing. Palin is actually even less of a 'maverick' despite their efforts to pretend otherwise. She didn't even believe in human's role in Global warming not too long ago, which isn't a surprise considering her never ending support for the oil companies and drilling. So much for being a maverick and offering 'change Americans can trust' eh? McBush for president indeed.
that's the name of the game. The should've gotten Karl Rove to manage his campaign, after all he managed to engineer an imbecile's road to the white house through any tactic he could use. Saying that, they're not that different in terms of campaign strategy to that of Bush, it does seem the only way they could nick it again. I still wouldn't rule out the Republicans resorting to noble democratic tactics like they did with the Florida votes en route to brining a monkey to the most powerful office in the country.
I don't like the way McCain is using his war record to curry favour, and pointing out that Obama doesn't have one....all that does for me is point out that McCain is knocking on a bit. Hardly Obama's fault that he hasn't been to war.
Mind, in forty years or so, just about every American male will probably have a war record.
Mind, in forty years or so, just about every American male will probably have a war record.
Based on what she has already said she stands for, it's not promising. Creationism, abstinence only, global warming denying, not really interested in foreign policy? Sounds pretty poor.
Strange that McCain chose her. Why her, and not Kay Bailey Hutchison?
Strangely, the issues that McCain is most correct on are those on which he decided to go against his own party.
You should. Being totally oblivious to what your friends think, and pandering to their every whim, are two unhealthy extremes. What's wrong with treating your friends and allies as friends and allies?
Very true.
The policy blueprints laid out so far are interesting. Obama's more so than McCain's, because of the level of detail.
Good point.
Human's role in global warming has yet to be proven either way. Until it has been proven I would say it would be sensible to hedge our bets and take small steps to reduce emissions rather than the drastic ones being proposed by the left which would damage our economy.
Surely if the great European hope, Barack Obama, became president, all of the world's problems would be solved by good 'ol diplomacy?
After all the UN is a shining beacon for that policy.
Therein lies the fallacy. Doesn't matter whether it's been proven or not; if it's the case that people make a difference you have to act now, because if you wait till it's conclusively proven, it will probably be too late. Besides, it's been proven to a reasonable standard of proof, scientifically speaking.
The other fallacy is that drastic action will damage the economy - that's a myth being pushed by Republicans in hock to special interests. What's true would be to say that drastic action will damage those parts of the economy who spend loads of money on lobbying Congress into inaction.
Surely if the great European hope, Barack Obama, became president, all of the world's problems would be solved by good 'ol diplomacy?
After all the UN is a shining beacon for that policy.
Probably not, and the US will probably send soldiers overseas whoever the President is. That's why in 40 years, just about every American male will have a war record.
No it hasn't, you're making that up to help your argument.
What is far more likely is that the current global warming is simply a cyclical event.
How do you explain the planet cooling at various different points over the past 125 years?
Drastic action against climate change would definitely damage the economy. I suspect you've managed to reach an alternative conclusion due to the fact that you like hugging trees.
No it hasn't, you're making that up to help your argument.
What is far more likely is that the current global warming is simply a cyclical event.
How do you explain the planet cooling at various different points over the past 125 years?
Drastic action against climate change would definitely damage the economy. I suspect you've managed to reach an alternative conclusion due to the fact that you like hugging trees.
He's not. The vast (and I do mean vast) majority of scientific literature shows us that man-made global warming is a fact.
Here are the facts. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes higher temperatures. Human activity has caused a huge increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in temperatures.
As seen here, the carbon dioxide levels have increased hugely in the past 300 years, way too much to be accounted for by natural cooling and warming cycles:
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_co2.htm
If you look at charts of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, you'll see a nice cyclical line, until recent history when the level of carbon dioxide suddenly shot up steeply. The rate of change is the highest ever recorded.
If you look at charts of global temperature, you'll see a nice cyclical line, until recent history when the temperature suddenly shot up steeply. The rate of change is the highest ever recorded.
That's suggestive, although not proof. The proof lies in various other scientific findings, including data from ice cores, solar physics, and measurements of pollutants and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The point still remains however - if you wait for "conclusive" proof, you're not going to be able to do anything if and when the proof arrives. And if you're being ideological, as I suspect you are, you're just not going to do anything, even if said proof bites you on the arse.
Drastic action against climate change would definitely damage the economy. I suspect you've managed to reach an alternative conclusion due to the fact that you like hugging trees.
No, I've reached an alternative conclusion because I did some analysis on the impact of climate change on the global economy a couple of years back. A small part of that was gauging how the US economy might react to various policy actions - the answer to this question was that those policy actions won't cost that much. Of course, the costs don't fall evenly, and the people who pay the majority of those costs will lobby Congress for inaction. I invested a fair amount of money on the back of it, and I've seen no reason to change my conclusions, or my investments.
Actually Obama is on the correct side of most issues, including Iraq. As you'll see in about two months, the general public are about to hand the Republican party its most humiliating defeat in generations. A Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. Its quite clear that the public have little interest in giving another term to George Bush and his 28% approval rating.
Surely if the great European hope, Barack Obama, became president, all of the world's problems would be solved by good 'ol diplomacy?
After all the UN is a shining beacon for that policy.
The failed politics of cynicism rears its head again.
On McCain's speech...
Firstly, there was only one person more nervous, at last night's convention, than the dozen people of colour...
Palin looked like, 'Oh, my gosh... what HAVE I gotten myself into...' as she squirmed in her seat all night.
_________________________________
Cindy McCain seems like a good person, but that referrence to Palin being a 'Pistol Packing Mom'... was creepy shit.
_________________________________
The activist in me didn't think it was the place for the Code Pink ladies to be interrupting the facists on their night. I'll give that to them... Although, I do believe that Iraqi Vet Against War might have had more of a right to be there with his sign that said McCain doesn't care about the Vets.
McCain delivered his speech under very difficult circumstances, with all the protestors, with the hard hitting criticizism of Palin through the past 24 hrs, and the fact that he's a feckin' liar... he did, though, delivered a speech that was highly critical of his own party.
The reality of who John McCain is, as far from the 'Mavrick' (Whatever that is supposed to mean) and reformer that the Republicans portray him to be...
I have done lots and lots of reading and following the Gov. channel C-SPAN, concerning many of the US gov. officials, and particularly McCain. He claims to be a reformer, the only thing he can hang his hat on is two attempts at 'Lobby Reform' (One of which Obama was a co-sponsor) which led to what the Washington Post depicted as, 'Meaningless Reform'.
Furthermore, McCain has been the Congressman that crosses party-lines to broker deals... I can't think of a single time those deals came as a benefit to the American people.
In short, McCain is still the criminal that he was in the 1980's that led to his inclusion of a spot in the Keating 5.
As the media continues to remind us, McCain's positions bend with the winds of influence. (i.e. lobbyists contributions)
_______________________________________
I've got an early day off to work, prior to the storm Hanna hitting the DC area...
But I can't pass up this chance to mention Jon Stewart's show two night ago... oh, it was fecking hysterical, 'The Best feckin' News Team in America' (as they call themselves) did a segment outside and then inside, the ever famous, Larry Craig St. Paul airport restroom.
I am going to look on YouTube for it... if I can't find it tomorrow, I will record it off my DVR and post it, on Saturday. (if the storm does blow out my electric)
________________________________________
One last note to WeWonitTwoTimes,
You might have gotten away with two very suspicious elections with GW, but not even Dibold can save the GOP, this time around.
I'm not expecting a name-change request, too ThreeTimes.
Firstly, there was only one person more nervous, at last night's convention, than the dozen people of colour...
Palin looked like, 'Oh, my gosh... what HAVE I gotten myself into...' as she squirmed in her seat all night.
_________________________________
Cindy McCain seems like a good person, but that referrence to Palin being a 'Pistol Packing Mom'... was creepy shit.
_________________________________
The activist in me didn't think it was the place for the Code Pink ladies to be interrupting the facists on their night. I'll give that to them... Although, I do believe that Iraqi Vet Against War might have had more of a right to be there with his sign that said McCain doesn't care about the Vets.
McCain delivered his speech under very difficult circumstances, with all the protestors, with the hard hitting criticizism of Palin through the past 24 hrs, and the fact that he's a feckin' liar... he did, though, delivered a speech that was highly critical of his own party.
The reality of who John McCain is, as far from the 'Mavrick' (Whatever that is supposed to mean) and reformer that the Republicans portray him to be...
I have done lots and lots of reading and following the Gov. channel C-SPAN, concerning many of the US gov. officials, and particularly McCain. He claims to be a reformer, the only thing he can hang his hat on is two attempts at 'Lobby Reform' (One of which Obama was a co-sponsor) which led to what the Washington Post depicted as, 'Meaningless Reform'.
Furthermore, McCain has been the Congressman that crosses party-lines to broker deals... I can't think of a single time those deals came as a benefit to the American people.
In short, McCain is still the criminal that he was in the 1980's that led to his inclusion of a spot in the Keating 5.
As the media continues to remind us, McCain's positions bend with the winds of influence. (i.e. lobbyists contributions)
_______________________________________
I've got an early day off to work, prior to the storm Hanna hitting the DC area...
But I can't pass up this chance to mention Jon Stewart's show two night ago... oh, it was fecking hysterical, 'The Best feckin' News Team in America' (as they call themselves) did a segment outside and then inside, the ever famous, Larry Craig St. Paul airport restroom.
I am going to look on YouTube for it... if I can't find it tomorrow, I will record it off my DVR and post it, on Saturday. (if the storm does blow out my electric)
________________________________________
One last note to WeWonitTwoTimes,
You might have gotten away with two very suspicious elections with GW, but not even Dibold can save the GOP, this time around.
I'm not expecting a name-change request, too ThreeTimes.
Re: Kay Bayley Hutchisson Spin.... Although she quite comfortably outclasses Palin, McCain is clearly trying to pick off Hillary voters while simultaneously attempting to pick up Evangelicals. This will clearly not work since there are massive political differences between girl power Hillary voters and the type of Right wing kool-aid drinkers who Palin might appeal to. McCain's biggest problem is that he is on the cusp of losing several states that went red in previous elections. This in the end, will likely be his downfall. The Obama people are close to having him checkmated since he now has to spend his resources defending states most thought he would easily win.
Obama made a powerful argument during his speech last week.
"John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change."
You're right, he's up by about 9 points nationally whereas many experts predicted he would be up by 10.
I see. I guess Hutchinson's support for abortion rights meant that she wasn't appropriate for evangelicals.
Should Obama have picked Hilary for his running mate and thereby ensured that the Democrats were united?
That's a bold claim Raoul and I've a feeling it will come back to haunt you.
Current odds from hills:
Obama: 1/2
McCain: 6/4
Possibly that, and the fact that she's quite pragmatic and would also be percieved as a Washington inside, which of course would undermine McCain's reformist talking points.
I'm not looking at odds, I'm looking at specifc states that are trending away from McCain at the moment. Of course, Obama could make a big mistake and let McCain back into it, but right now he looks like he will win by about 30-50 electoral votes.
The vast majority of votes are on entirely mundane matters so no he didn't make a powerful argument at all.
hehehe
The polls I saw were saying 6-7 points. Anyway we've still got the McCain bounce to come which I'm sure you'll enjoy seeing over the coming days.
It's all over the place though isn't it?
There are quite a few states which you'd think Obama would have wrapped up, but in reality are very much still in play.
With the greatest of respect I'm not willing to risk the economy on the basis of your conclusions.
You'll get the support you need for your drastic action when conclusive proof is offered. Until then you'll have to make do with small and sensible measures.
Well, the good thing is that it won't be you making the decision, unless you're Barack Obama or John McCain.
Out of curiosity, when you say drastic action asked for by the left, what exactly do you mean? Because the major thing the candidates have said about climate change is that they both support a emissions trading scheme. Both also support some sort of emissions reduction standard for cars, with Obama going further and proposing a fuel economy limit. The big difference is that McCain supports building more nuclear power stations, while Obama doesn't, preferring instead to grow biofuel crops.
The real drastic action, IMO, is McCain's, not Obama's.
Oh yeah, neither candidate's policy is likely to damage the economy at all, since neither of them decided to do these sensible things which might reduce GDP growth a little:
(a) import Brazilian ethanol tariff free
(b) impose a carbon tax on fuel at all points of consumption
(c) reduce the number of coal and gas power stations in return for nuclear power and solar power, passing on costs to consumers
(d) tax car purchases by fuel economy
Of course, (a), (b) and (d) will end up in the candidate not being elected, with (c) a distant prospect, but these are the right things to do, and probably won't cost more than a fraction of a percent of GDP combined. (a) may even help boost GDP.
I'm not sure how much more proof you need about global warming.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
Although, in fairness, the public approval rating of Congress is even lower than that of Dubya, and it is controlled by the Democrats. Of course, the normal public opinion is that "I hate all Congressmen except my own," so incumbants do carry around a 95% reelection rate.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks that the general election in November will be a "humiliating" defeat for the GOP. Last November, the consensus might have been that Hillary was the next President of the United States, but even the most ardent Republican faithful (who was actually somewhat knowledgable) I talked to assumed that the only true race was the Democratic primary and that the Republicans were fighting for a chance to "do the Mondale." The fact that McCain, eight years after his prime, is actually making a bit of a race of this would have been surprising to me 8 months ago.
Only if you subscribe to the belief that you "hold your friends close and your enemies closer." Does Obama want a person who said that much negative about him for the past year on the ticket? Prime GOP campaign material and it would reduce Hillary from being an effective campaigner to spending all her time to explaining why she said it then and doesn't believe it now, which makes her either a liar or a hypocrite.
fair enough post.
i really believe that many will go into the polls wanting to vote for obama and will somehow vote for mccain.
and this belief is just not about the race issue.
I will vote with no hesitation but i expect the race to be close at least in the popular vote. it is possible that obama could win a decisive electoral win however