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.
McCain has taken a slight lead in Florida and Ohio in the latest polls. Oh I'd love it if we beat them, love it!
McCain has pulled out of New Mexico and Colorado to put his focus on Pennsylvania. He now has to win Pennsylvania or he looses the election. He's down double digits in Pennsylvania.
Good luck with that.
But, you go get 'em in Ohio!
Nonsense, all views are "allowed". It's just that McCain supporters here are badly outnumbered, and those that wander into the thread to post mostly stick to poorly conceived knee jerk reactions which often have no basis in fact: Obama's a dangerous radical about Pakistan. Raising taxes on the wealthiest 5% of Americans is filthy socialism, disproportionately punitive, and un-American, as "anyone with an ounce of intellect" can see. Through no fault of McCain's, his champions here on the Caf posts dainty little morsels of rubbish that get refuted three lines later. Quickly abandoning that line of argument, they slink away, then return when the spirit moves them to post another two-line sound point/talking bite that makes Obama sound vaguely threatening, or perhaps overtly subversive.
But it's a free country Cali Red, post wherever you want, the McCain supporters will do the same. And despite what Sarah Palin hints, implies, or winks at her substance-free campaign rallies, it will still be a free country even if the traitorous socialist terrorist-fraternizer Barrack Hussein Osama steals the election by turning in eight million phony voter registration slips filled in with the name Michael Mouse. Not that anyone would actually show up and claim to be Michael Mouse, but still it's a threat to the very fabric of our democracy, et cetera.
John Jesus McCain
Standard group psychology applies. If you walk into a bar and make an ass of yourself you'll likely be shouted down by the masses.
What on earth have the republicans delivered over the last 8 years that have you pining for more? Everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - they have touched has turned to dust. Are you a masochist or something?
Bush is a reverse alchemist. Everything he touches turns to shit.
Surely the worst President and presidential term since ..... erm ...... ????
Surely the worst President and presidential term since ..... erm ...... ????
It's an extraordinary record. He's presided over more damage to US power than anyone else I can remember. He's a historic President, no doubt about that, but historic like Nero rather than historic like Augustus.
Are you trying to suggest he might be middle-eastern?
If you say so. People don't slink away with opposing views from the Obamaniacs it's just the sounds get drowned out by the 28475628956 following posts telling you how stupid, ignorant, uncarring or how your views are from Dumdfeckistan. The way you make light of some of the arguments only enforces what I thought already. To some of what you're saying I'd agree with you somewhat. The McCain camp really fecked up when they focused on certain things. That doesn't make these things not valid though. Obamas has some curious, if not troubling, association for someone who aspires to be president. Not saying that automatically disqualifies him though. If you flip the conversation and say if McCain had been hanging with some of these people it would fecking front page news every day. Again, I don't care how McIdiot runs his campaign. I'm not voting for him or Barry Steve Obama. They are both the same, politicians who will end up only caring about themselves.
Mexican
He also presided over perhaps the second most difficult time in American history. Certainly top 5. Did he feck up? To be certain.
Actually, there's a correlation, but there's no strong proof. Which is precisely what I meant when I mentioned the Laffer curve.
Economic growth increases tax revenue, but the primary driver of economic growth during the Bush administration years wasn't necessarily tax cuts. Globalisation, low inflation, increased access to credit, the tail end of the productivity dividend from the late 90s all suggest themselves as better explanations. In fact, given the increased access to credit and Bush's wholesale fiscal burp, Ricardian equivalence suggests that tax cuts boosting growth were unlikely.
Supply side economics is a bit like string theory. Lots of interesting things along the way which actually yield solid theorems and useful insights, but the ultimate goal is a bit hazy and probably bollocks.
Hence you know the marginal tax rate impacts at each income level. So what's McCain's plan do to tax rates at $100,000?
There was a lot of shit spewed on Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday, but one brave thing they did talk about, was the unfounded fear of socialism in America. That made me happy that.
At the start of his Presidency, the US was being called a hyperpower, the global hegemon, an empire. Now people are wondering if the US era is over. That's quite a turnaround in only 8 years.
What do you mean by, "the second most difficult time in American history".
Americans, imo, tend to have short memories. the great depression was a difficult time, but so was Pearl Harbor and WWII, Vietnam, the civil war, and war with the British, the civil rights struggles, etc.....
So you don't believe in the theory of 77?
There is a great president every 77 years: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Bush
I say 2nd most as I think the most difficult decision was dealing with the civil war. That could have easily fractured the country beyond repair. There were certainly others that were difficult. Such as Pearl Harbor, Great Depression, etc. This is just my opinion and there would certainly be valid arguments to other times.
I don't think it's short term as much as diffrerent levels and internal and external influences.
The latest insecurities (justifiably, so) "Dubai, Mumbai, Shanghai or Goodbye" - is the financial world's attempt to communicate that they don't trust Wall Street/Western Banking...
Dubai is picking up the mantle of the financial capital of the world, as global banking sectors London and New York continue to fade on the back of the global credit crises.
The new mantra in New York and London is “Dubai, Mumbai, Shanghai or goodbye”, as job losses mount in both cities while opportunities in the east continue to rise.
Lehman Brothers on Tuesday became the latest investment bank moving one of its most senior positions to the UAE. Philip Lynch, the bank’s co-head of equities for Europe and the Middle East, will be relocating to Dubai after serving more than two decades in London.
The US investment bank, which has axed over 6,000 staff in the last nine months, said the move was aimed at serving the growing needs of clients in the Gulf region and the wider Middle East.
Lynch will find himself in good company. Barclays last month dispatched Roger Jenkins, one of London’s highest-paid bankers, to the emirate as chairman of investment banking and investment management.
Earlier in May Citigroup, which has so far cut 1,500 jobs because of the global credit crisis, announced it would send Alberto Verme, co-head of global investment banking from London to Dubai. ...
The relocation of roles from London and New York to Dubai, and to a lesser extent Mumbai and Shanghai, reflects the reshaping of global opportunities for investment banks.
With a surge in oil revenue, rapidly rising infrastructure needs, and the emergence of sovereign wealth funds at the head of M&A activity, the Middle East and Asia have become crucial for global investment banks looking to remain profitable.
http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=3871
-------------------------
The USA and UK banks and investing avenues will have to grow from this Neo-Conservative-Money-Grab mentality, but they will rise, for the better... we hope.
I dismiss the arguments I mentioned in the first post because I have already addressed them with relevant facts, so I feel that a little mockery, if not more, is now more appropriate. If you can't see the comedy in the Pakistan situation, for example, you've got a worse sense of humor than The Chief.
Obama says that if we know, absolutely know, where Bin-Laden is in Pakistan, and Pakistan refuses to act, he will. McCain immediately tries to paint Obama as "naive" and "foolish", not because he wouldn't do differently (his statements at the time indicate that he almost certainly would, he just wouldn't say so), but because you don't tip your hand to let them know in advance what you're going to do - as if he himself would simply allow Bin Laden to remain safe, pick up and move house to another cave or villa, knowing full well that if word were ever to get out that he had allowed that to happen as Commander in Chief, he'd never be elected even as Dog-Catcher in this country again, and in fact his entire party would probably be punished by the voters for many years to come. Anyway as if that weren't enough, on THE VERY DAY that McCain is calling Obama naive, it is first reported that weeks earlier, we had already done exactly what Obama had said he would do. CIA finds out where a high-level Al-Qaeda operative is hiding, but having been frustrated by their previous attempts to clear things with the Pakistani government, decides they'll go it alone this time. Pakistan is informed at about the same time that an unmanned Predator aircraft fires a missile into his house, killing him dead. Seriously, find the part of that story that doesn't make McCain, and his advocates in this forum posting only vague nonsense like "very dangerous stuff said about Pakistan there by Obama" look ridiculous.
By the way, isn't whining about how everyone is out to get you something that only pansy liberals are supposed to do? Shouldn't you and those you are sticking up for here be pulling yourselves up by your rhetorical bootstraps, and posting something remotely coherent in support of your candidate? But no, like I said, it's a poorly conceived sound bite overheard on Hannity, or perhaps the right-wing end of the junior high school lunchroom table, followed up by....nothing. No defense, no engagement in argumentation. Yes, some people shout others down, but others engage in reasoned discussion, so stop whining. Almost no attempts to make, support, or illustrate a single point, and now here you come to whine about the lot. Pathetic. Engage in argumentation about a single issue before you bleat about how you're "not allowed to post in the thread". Poor you, mate. Poor, poor you.
Interesting. Do you work for the Bush administration? Isn't that the same thing we said about Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe we should invade them? I'm for it, I think LABOB will have a problem with it though.
so according to you pakistan doesn't provide a safe heaven for terrorists?
and iraq was not invaded for the fight against terrorists...you've forgotten the wmd's now have you?
I'd rank FDR's tenure (1933-1945)as far, far more difficult than George W's. Other than planes flying into he WTC in 2001, I don't think this has been particularly challenging when compared against numerous other eras. And in response to that event, the conflict in Afghanistan was not the most difficult decision to reach, given that their government, by some accounts, was working hand in glove with Al Qaeda to the extent that in some areas, it was impossible to tell the difference between the two. And other than that, a sitting President could have appointed some qualified people to secure the borders and our internal security more effectively, point the intelligence services in the right direction, and allow them all to do most of the rest of the work. Economically, Dubya began his term with budget surpluses inherited from the days when it seemed the internet bubble would never burst. If terms of foreign affairs, no Soviet Union, no hostile powers invading close allies, the Chinese content mainly to make themselves much richer, and far more influential, without firing a shot or even having to threaten.
Some of Dubya's most serious challenges have come from his Administration's poor handling of the follow-up to 9/11, in particular in Iraq. There are energy issues to be sure, but nothing like there were under Nixon and Carter. Our Allies around the world have been very upset with some of what Dubya has done, but no one is threatening to pull out of NATO, or stop trading with us, or any such thing. Many still contribute troops and support in Afghanistan. At home, we've had some economic difficulties, but prior to the last couple of months, it looked quite a bit rosier than almost the entirety of the 1970s. I'm curious as to how you could make a case for the past eight years having been the second most challenging of the last 220 or so. I don't see the case for even Top 5, personally.
Most of Bush's difficulties are of his own making, the only possible exception being 9/11. FDR inherited some rather more serious problems, like a great depression. FDR reacted to Pearl Harbor by getting involved in the world war and helping defeat Germany and Japan. Bush partly reacted to 9/11 by going to war in Iraq. I doubt if Roosevelt's approval rating fell anywhere near as low as Bush. So basically I agree with Chris.
FDR had tough problems but Bush had 9/11 which was unpresidented. In other conflicts there were distinct armys or governments to target. He did take office with a budget surplus but a war, without cutting spending was going to use that and I wish he'd cut spending. There was the dot-com bubble burst that was generating revenue that was lost. Most recently the colapse of the housing market and ensuing financial crisis. Runaway oil prices and enrgy. Again I think 2nd behind Lincoln but I would certainly understand arguments otherwise.
Heading into war with Japan and reacting to a terrorsit attack are apples and oranges. I'd bet the public was just as willing to attack Afghanistan as it was Japan. Bush let his desire to invade Iraq consume him it would seem. He probably could have made a case to invade Iraq later with more world support had we gathered better and more reliable intelligence. I'm not sorry Saddam was removed, he was a torturous dictator but if that were the standard we'd have to invade many countries so we should have stayed out. This is of course using hind sight.
so according to you pakistan doesn't provide a safe heaven for terrorists?
and iraq was not invaded for the fight against terrorists...you've forgotten the wmd's now have you?
What ever happend there? We did find those right? I can't remember......
Iraq was never about the reign of saddam. It was about the oil and establishing a military presence in the middle east. I'm no conspiracist, but those are the only reasons I can think of for our sustained presence in the country. When the losses got too high, we pulled out of korea because fighting the spread of communism wasn't sufficient motivation/justification to stayyet we remain in Iraq as the death toll increases daily into the thousands and most of the people seem to hate us for "liberating" them.
No pun intended.
GLU we are still in Korea, and we were in Vietnam longer than we have been in Iraq, I think we need to stabilize it ASAP and then get the feck out ASAP
Washington is debatable himself, great general though
Approximately 36,000 Americans died in Korea. The fact that we haven't pulled out of Iraq after losing 4122 soldiers is not evidence that we're there for the oil. Although the oil underneath the ground of the entire region is certainly a factor.
Take the first president. Wait for the a great one, and calculate the distance between them (77 years). Wait 77 years. Is the current president great? 1 in 10 chance says he is, and you get lucky. A theory is born! Wait 77 years. 1 in 10 chance you'll get lucky and...this time we didn't get so lucky. You might go so far as to say that we were downright unlucky. If you wanted to go a bit further, you could say that we got exactly the president we deserved, but I'm not going to say that.
I'm optimistic that the next one will be better. Even if my preferred candidate loses, it'll still be an improvement in my opinion. Provided his health holds up that is, because if it doesn't all bets are off.
So, you want to be there forever, then?