Nice usage of the "I don't care" card.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Props.
Link to the thread where I wanted exact numbers of votes gained or lost?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Thanks.
Printable View
Nice usage of the "I don't care" card.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Props.
Link to the thread where I wanted exact numbers of votes gained or lost?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Thanks.
Damn, even Nbadan agrees with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Thanks. I answered and it wasn't good enough for you. That's fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
I asked about the votes. An estimate might have made me care more, but if you can't make a guess it's cool. I'm still voting for McCain.Quote:
Link to the thread where I wanted exact numbers of votes gained or lost?
Thanks.
I guess I didn't care enough to make you care.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Exactly. I asked for a baseline to help answer your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I'm not the one asking about votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Yeah and whottt is voting for Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Completely unnecessary. You can do it all yourself.Quote:
Exactly. I asked for a baseline to help answer your question.
Do you think your issue is costing Obama any votes?Quote:
I'm not the one asking about votes.
No, he just has a negative net worth.Quote:
Yeah and whottt is voting for Obama.
I guess we agreed not to care.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You're asking the question. You need to give me numbers to work off of.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
First you need to tell me whether the current talking point is gaining votes so I can compare.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So you are not voting for Obama because you don't want your taxes to be increased?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Well, I kinda agree with you, but it comes down to a matter of trust...who would likely follow through with their disengagement strategy and who would likely craft nuanced ways of keep a large contingent of combat troops in Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Nah. You can do it all yourself. I'm not going to hold you to it. It's all speculation.Quote:
You're asking the question. You need to give me numbers to work off of.
Do you think it is? Like I said, you can do this all yourself. I'm curious to see how much you think it matters. I won't comment on it at all. Thanks in advance if you do it. No problem if you don't.Quote:
First you need to tell me whether the current talking point is gaining votes so I can compare.
I don't make enough for any politician to care about me.Quote:
So you are not voting for Obama because you don't want your taxes to be increased?
If Obama/Biden went hardcore Anti-Bush without any conditions on where he may be used as an ally, that tactic may help push up their poll numbers up a percentage point or two. And the race would likely be over. Being Anti-Bush only when it's handy is riding a slippery slope.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So you agree with Biden that McCain only cares about Exxon-Mobil and the other super rich and doesn't want to help anyone below that section of the population?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
One of the (minor?) themes from Obama/Biden is that they have been advocating policies that Bush was against, but now Bush is starting to follow some of them because of how badly his old policies were working. It's a "I said it first" or "I told you so" argument. Of course, a "theme" does not mean it is "true". In any case, the Iraq timetable and talking to your enemies (Iran and NK) are in this list.
Regarding Iraq, I think the public will favor any pol saying "I'll get us out of Iraq and stop spending blood and treasure there" without much regard to any contradictions or other hard issues. Most are tired of being there and the thought seems to be (where any thought exists) that if Iraqis want to kill each other in a bloody civil war, that their problem.
What dubya does or says now, like giving lip service to an Iraq withdrawal time-table, is totally irrelevant because he wil NEVER actually implement or even initiate. Empty, meaningless words. Totally out of the discussion.
To say HUSSEIN's position is in agreement with dubya but opposed McWarMonger is dishonest, esp for someone as intelligent as timvp.
McLameSame has been and still is a 100% supporter of the bogus Iraq invasion and occupation, putting him at odds with 70%+ of the American people.
otoh, HUSSEIN always has been and still opposes the Iraq fiasco and worse-than-Viet-Nam quagmire.
That distinction couldn't be more clear, to honest people.
In conjunction with that theme (described in my previous post) is the claim that McCain/Palin are still for the old bad Bush policies.
I'm not saying they are in agreement. Hussein and Robinette are saying they are in agreement. And they are trying to use that fact against McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_
Agreed. However, by using this tactic, it's like they are trying to paint McCain as even worse than current Bush. That's going overboard in relation to what their overall strategy should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
Obama/Biden shouldn't spend time trying to convince America McCain is more evil than Bush. All they need to do is convince America has McCain has Bush-like tendencies and this race is over.
"George Bush is an idiot, but even he has come around to my Idea, while Mr. McCain is ok with us staying there for a hundred years."Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
That is the narrative that they are going with, and it seems to be effective so far. "McCain is all of the worst, and none of the good about Bush". The case doesn't have to be made that Bush is 100% bad.
In the last year or so of Bush's term, some evidence of a learning curve on foreign policy has started to emerge. Bush seems to have finally learned something, and has altered his stance to be (gasp) more like what a lot of Dems have been pushing for all along.
This allows the Democrats some leverage in that area.
That sounds a lot like "McCain is even worse than Bush".Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
If Democrats were smart, Bush = 100% bad should be their strategy. Based off of Bush's approval ratings alone, that should be enough to clue them in.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Like I said, picking and choosing when Bush is bad is a slippery slope.
If anything, Democrats should be ignoring this ... not bringing it out more for public consumption. If Bush is the Antichrist and the Antichrist is agreeing with you, even if it is after the fact, I'm not sure that is the picture they want in the voters' minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
This is largely a technicality but it is oddest tactic I've seen in this whole presidential process. The Dems usually have it figured out that comparing McCain to Bush is enough to win the election. But then they try to go overboard and while it may be harmless right now, it's definitely dangerous.
Again, McCain doesn't have to be worse than Bush for the Dems to win.
George Bush isn't running this time, and McCain has an undeserved reputation as a (not gonna say that word) who bucks his party. Chaining him to Bush is a good strategy and it's working.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
Did Palin hack Findog's account?Quote:
Originally Posted by Findog
True, that's my point. That strategy shouldn't be suspended here and there to try to make McCain seem even worse than Bush. That's unnecessary to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Findog
I don't necessarily think they're trying to make McCain seem worse than Bush. I think the point about a withdrawal from Iraq is that a consensus has formed that we need to leave Iraq and draw down the war, and that John McCain is outside of the consensus on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
I disagree that the message is inconsistant, or "slippery slope".Quote:
Originally Posted by timvp
That Bush is so widely reviled and discounted means that you can make the argument:
"His (Bush) policies are all bad, and we have been saying X all along. Now, even this idiot realizes we were right about X, and McCain doesn't."
That is a good way to capitalize on it. Because if you don't say something like that, and your opponent says:
"If Bush is all that bad, and he is now seeming to do your proposed policy X, doesn't that mean your policy X is bad?"
How do you respond?
The smart bit is to claim the idea first, and then claim your opponents realized the error of their ways, and came around to it afterwards.
Umm that is exactly what Obama has done when he talks about issues he agrees with Bush on. Claims ownership of the idea 1st, then goes on to say that even Bush supports it after many years of being stubborn and thick-headed. He goes one step further in saying McCain is the odd man out here that is even more stubborn and out of touch than Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
What's not to get? I'm confused that you're confused.
It is called strategery.
Sorry but I'm not following this. If in the next debate we hear this:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Are you suggesting Obama can say "we claimed that position first, you may not speak of such thing" and be done with it? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by John Sidney McCain III
There is no such thing as "claiming" positions, especially in politics. It's fluid and once the can of worms is open, it's a lot harder to close. And no one will remember who claimed what when.
In actuality, McCain questioning now would have even more of a positive affect considering that Obama has already aligned himself with Bush on that specific subject. Without that quote on record, it'd be much easier to just scoff at the question. You can't scoff at a question when you brought it to the table.
'Tis the slippery slope I'm talking about. Using Bush as a hammer against McCain is just asking for trouble. Especially when it's so unnecessary.
The Really Hard-to-Swallow Truth About the Bailout
By Joe Bageant, CounterPunch
Posted on October 3, 2008, Printed on October 3, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/101403/
Myriad cultural historians have noted the American belief that success is a sign of God's favor. Over the past couple of decades, He has had a downright lovefest with the already-rich -- so much so that the richest 400 Americans now have more money stashed away than the combined bottom 150 million Americans. Some $1.6 trillion.
This was accomplished by selling off or shipping out every available asset, from jobs to seaports, smashing usury and anti-monopoly laws, raiding the public coffers and manipulating the medium of exchange and blackmailing the peasantry regarding common needs such as health care and energy to keep their asses warm, to name a few. The ultimate coup was to convince the entire nation that the well-being of the rich, meaning the well-being of Wall Street, was indeed the common man's well-being.
All went well for a while. People went into credit card hock up to their noses in order to provide 26 percent credit card interest to Wall Street, etc. And when that became untenable, flimsy mortgages were cranked out by the millions, ensuring that every American who could hold a crayon could sign to purchase a home. To facilitate this, all sorts of shaky "mortgage instruments" were created -- balloon (sign here Jeeter, you're gonna flip it in a year and make a hundred K on this house trailer), interest only, and finally, negative-balance mortgages where you only paid part of the interest and the rest was rolled back into the principal balance. And joy of joys, you could refinance a couple of times while the inflated value of these houses was on the way up. Life was good for everybody.
The bill was never gonna come due because God, in His wisdom, had deemed that capitalism would defy the second law of thermodynamics and expand forever. So every time a bank made a mortgage loan of say, $400,000, even though the debtor hadn't even made a payment yet, the loan was declared a bank asset and another $400,000 was loaned against it. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Bank yelled whoopee and printed another $800,000 in currency. Of course, at some point the country had to run out of customers, so the loans got easier and easier. No matter that debt is not wealth. Wink and call it that, and most folks won't even look up from their new big-screen high-resolution digital TVs.
The problem was that all the jobs to pay for this stuff were stampeding off toward places in China with names containing a lot Xs and Zs and praying for a vowel. It was becoming clear that the entire economy was running on fumes -- in fact, less than fumes. It was running on the odor of paper. Mountains of the stuff. Bundles of mortgages and very strange securities and derivatives of unknown origin and value. Paper that stated its own worth and signed by some mystic hand no one could quite identify though the blurry signatures looked to read Greenspan, Paulson and Bernanke.
But there was a rub. Things reached the point where there simply was not anything left to defraud the public out of, nothing left to steal from the nation's productive capability, no matter how much paper Jeeter and Maggie signed for that trailer house, no matter how secure Brian and Jennifer out there in Arlington, Va., and Davis, Calif., thought they were. So the only thing left to do was steal from future generations of Americans and accept an I.O.U., which the government would happily sign on behalf of the people and enforce. By the wildest coincidence, under the Bush administration this I.O.U. happened to tally up to about $700 billion.
Seeing the oncoming train of financial disaster, the financiers just about wet their pants and screamed, "We want it all now! And if we don't get it, the 'economy' will lock its brakes and crash. Remember, we control the medium of exchange. Nobody gets a paycheck if we don't. Remember that it's lines of credit from us that back every working man's and woman's paycheck in the country. So pay the hell up."
Folks, they've got us all by the nuts and nipples.
McCain knows that.
Obama knows that.
In the end, regardless of the so-called dissenters in the House and the Senate, we will pay up. It's election season, and the dissent is for show. So it looks like we will get some "concession." For example, we will get shares in these "toxic assets" that are stinking up the joint. The rich need to dump them and dump them fast. In another magnanimous concession, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will raise the insurance on "our savings" to $250,000. (How many readers have $250K in the bank?) But it will be redeemable in even more inflated currency amid an inflationary environment. And, in case you didn't know, the FDIC has up to 10 years to pay up on that insurance. So don't get any ideas about running off to Mexico, to which, by the way, we are a net debtor nation.
We will pay. We will pay because the European banks holding all that bad paper we wrote demand that we make good on it so even more of their banks will not fail. We will pay because the Chinese, the Japanese and everyone else will cut off the loan tap with which we pay the interest (not the principal) on our exploding supernova of national debt. We will pay because God loves the rich. We will pay because we will not be offered any other choice. We will pay because George Bush worked hard for all those Ds in school and became the first MBA president. We will pay because our media has internalized the capitalist system so thoroughly they can only talk in Wall Speak. We will pay because the only language we have to describe our world is that of our oppressors because we have been taught to think in Wall Speak. We will pay because we hitched our wagon to last-stage capitalism and even though the wagon has now two wheels over the cliff and roars forward, we don't know where the brake handle is located. And because we don't know any better or understand any possible resistance to the system because we have been kept like worms in a jar and fed horseshit.
And as we all know, worms do not rise up in revolt.
That takes a backbone.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/101403/