or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How to lose an election
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How to lose an election - Page 3

post #81 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Look I'll make it easy for you.

Party terms in office are cyclical. Guess who's term it is now ( pun intended ).

Definition of pun.

Quote:

Nobody likes the republicans now and they haven't for a long time.

Stunning analysis. It's also patently false. There are millions of Republicans that will vote for McCain. True, it's a Democratic cycle right now...but that alone will not win the election.

Quote:

You know the reasons so I really don't have to site them.

Cite. That's the second time you've done that.

Quote:
It's mainly Bush's fault but others have played a role. Bush has really made a mess of it for his own party. That's why I say he only cares for himself in this regard. Although that attitude extends to all of us. The selfish bastard.

A selfish bastard? That's really classless of you. And what, specifically has Bush done to "make a mess" of things for his party? He's unpopular, but he doesn't things that will knowingly hurt the party...has he?

Quote:

As we go into the summer and fall there will undoubtedly be more embarrassing things that come up about the Bush administration that fuel this dislike.

I think he's bottomed out. There is only so much damage such information can do to McCain anyway.

Quote:

The idea that all of these people who support Hillary are just not going to vote or vote McCain out of spite because their candidate didn't win is just wildly stupid!

Your ignorance is amazing. I am merely quoting data for you. It's not my fault you don't like the numbers. 12% of Oregon Dems say they won't vote for Obama. Therefore, we can say the following:

1. The number will likely change as the general election approaches.
2. Since Oregon is a liberal state, we can assume that same type of poll would not be more favorable to Obama, especially if that state in question was a swing state.
3. Even if only HALF the number of poll participants follow through on their threat not to vote for Obama, it would still be a statistically significant number.

Quote:

Democrats know they have a chance to dominate the government in washington for the first time in a long time. Do you really think that they'd throw that away for spite?

Why is about "spite?" Some don't like Obama. Some Republicans won't vote for McCain either, it's just that number is not as great, especially given the alternatives.

Quote:

McCain doesn't share all of Bush's views but he shares enough and he is in favor of staying " A hundred if necessary " years in Iraq. Most aren't in favor of this.
And that's putting it mildly.

First, the "hundred years" comment is out of context. It's intellectually dishonest for you to use it, yet you keep doing so. And how many views are "enough?" He didn't support the Bush tax cuts, he opposes enhanced interrogation techniques, he wanted MORE troops in Iraq from day one, he opposes drilling ANWR, he pushed campaign finance reform (which Bush signed, but reluctantly) and he was part of the Gang of 14 on nominees. He's not Bush at all.

Quote:

So even though Bush isn't running he'll play a significant role in this election ( whether he wants to or not ) .

Look, I agree with that. Why can you not admit the same about the significant number of people that say they will not vote for Obama?

Quote:

A lot of people like Obama.

True.

Quote:
He's like the new Kennedy for our times.

He's no Kennedy, but a lot of dems think he is, so OK.

[quote]He just seems to have a kind of magic when comes to bringing in the votes.[quote]

Really? He lost 6 of the last 13 primaries. Magic?

Quote:
Also as I've pointed out he stands for change.

I think you mean CHANGE!

Quote:

Something that most people out there see as a trend. McCain ain't it.

Yes, most democrats love Obama's CHANGE message. They have no clue what Change is, but they want it.

Quote:

The thing I worry most about is assasination attempts ( just like Kennedy ). Funny the nut cases mostly go after the good guys and seldom the bad.

That's a terrible thing to say. Assassination of any candidate or office holder is unthinkable and horrifying. Your implication is that some politicians deserve it. What was the word you used? Oh yes, bastard. That's what I would say anyone is who wishes such a thing on another.

Quote:

Also the republicans are worried. It's like the herd sensing the wind has changed. Even you who has to stoop to correcting my spelling.

They're worried about the future of the party, and rightly so. Most aren't too worried about Obama himself.

As for your spelling, you know full well it's not just that. You consistently use words that you don't understand. You make glaring grammatical errors repeatedly, such as "site" vs. "cite."

Quote:

So all in all even though the democrats are doing stupid things right now ( mostly due to Hillary ) it won't matter in the long run.

Yeah, it's not like Obama's campaign has been stumbling all over the place. Reverend Wright. Guest pastors. Not really opposing NAFTA. Quitting his church. Saying he won't denounce Wright, then doing exactly that a month later.

By the way, did you know that Obama didn't know what memorial day was?

Quote:
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.....

We're going to have hundreds of thousands of new veterans coming in, many of them who suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. They are not being diagnosed quickly enough, they're not getting the services that they need quickly enough.

And, sadly, the group of veterans that are probably being most neglected in this area are women veterans. We've got to do a better job of creating facilities...

(APPLAUSE)

... specifically for women veterans.

Awesome, flawless candidate you have there. Apparently he thought Veterans Day and Memorial Day are the same.

Quote:

They talk like they'll be mad over Hillary now. But that's in the heat of the primaries. Later it'll fall around party lines. Even if Hillary keeps pushing until the convention.

Don't believe me? Just keep watching.

So your prediction is that McCain will take fewer Democratic and independent votes than Bush did? You think that ALL of these people will go for Obama, despite the polling data and Obama's problems in certain swing states and among white, working class voters? That's simply delusional, not to mention unrealistic and unlikely. Even Bush got some of those votes, and that was without utter Democratic turmoil.

Quote:

Oh! I almost forgot! " Beyond that, no..most Democrats won't vote for him "

That deserves a :

Why? I meant McCain. Please attempt to read an comprehend.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 123
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

One of my favorite lines from Rambo...

"It's over Johnny. IT'S OVER!"

"Nothing is Over!"

Get ready for First Blood part III Hillary goes to Afghanistan landing under snipper fire to find bin Laden and bring him to justice. Bill gets his law license back and prosecutes bin Laden in NY federal court.

With Monica working under him as before...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #83 of 123
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1258725]Definition of pun.



Stunning analysis. It's also patently false. There are millions of Republicans that will vote for McCain. True, it's a Democratic cycle right now...but that alone will not win the election.



Cite. That's the second time you've done that.



A selfish bastard? That's really classless of you. And what, specifically has Bush done to "make a mess" of things for his party? He's unpopular, but he doesn't things that will knowingly hurt the party...has he?



I think he's bottomed out. There is only so much damage such information can do to McCain anyway.



Your ignorance is amazing. I am merely quoting data for you. It's not my fault you don't like the numbers. 12% of Oregon Dems say they won't vote for Obama. Therefore, we can say the following:

1. The number will likely change as the general election approaches.
2. Since Oregon is a liberal state, we can assume that same type of poll would not be more favorable to Obama, especially if that state in question was a swing state.
3. Even if only HALF the number of poll participants follow through on their threat not to vote for Obama, it would still be a statistically significant number.



Why is about "spite?" Some don't like Obama. Some Republicans won't vote for McCain either, it's just that number is not as great, especially given the alternatives.



First, the "hundred years" comment is out of context. It's intellectually dishonest for you to use it, yet you keep doing so. And how many views are "enough?" He didn't support the Bush tax cuts, he opposes enhanced interrogation techniques, he wanted MORE troops in Iraq from day one, he opposes drilling ANWR, he pushed campaign finance reform (which Bush signed, but reluctantly) and he was part of the Gang of 14 on nominees. He's not Bush at all.



Look, I agree with that. Why can you not admit the same about the significant number of people that say they will not vote for Obama?



True.



He's no Kennedy, but a lot of dems think he is, so OK.

[quote]He just seems to have a kind of magic when comes to bringing in the votes.
Quote:

Really? He lost 6 of the last 13 primaries. Magic?



I think you mean CHANGE!™



Yes, most democrats love Obama's CHANGE™ message. They have no clue what Change™ is, but they want it.



That's a terrible thing to say. Assassination of any candidate or office holder is unthinkable and horrifying. Your implication is that some politicians deserve it. What was the word you used? Oh yes, bastard. That's what I would say anyone is who wishes such a thing on another.



They're worried about the future of the party, and rightly so. Most aren't too worried about Obama himself.

As for your spelling, you know full well it's not just that. You consistently use words that you don't understand. You make glaring grammatical errors repeatedly, such as "site" vs. "cite."



Yeah, it's not like Obama's campaign has been stumbling all over the place. Reverend Wright. Guest pastors. Not really opposing NAFTA. Quitting his church. Saying he won't denounce Wright, then doing exactly that a month later.

By the way, did you know that Obama didn't know what memorial day was?



Awesome, flawless candidate you have there. Apparently he thought Veterans Day and Memorial Day are the same.



So your prediction is that McCain will take fewer Democratic and independent votes than Bush did? You think that ALL of these people will go for Obama, despite the polling data and Obama's problems in certain swing states and among white, working class voters? That's simply delusional, not to mention unrealistic and unlikely. Even Bush got some of those votes, and that was without utter Democratic turmoil.



Why? I meant McCain. Please attempt to read an comprehend.

" a phrase that deliberately exploits confusion between similar-sounding words for humorous or rhetorical effect. "

" Term "- turn. And your point is?????

The rest is your highly skewed viewpoint. Colored of course with your Bush glasses.

The problem with your whole analysis is that it's based on your viewpoint. Which doesn't match reality. We've tried to tell you. You're assuming alot will just go they way you see it.

And you're correcting me again. Should I just wait until you don't proof read something and then point it out to you? You really must be worried.

" Why? I meant McCain. Please attempt to read an comprehend. "

My comment was meant as a " No? Really! ".

Man are you not going to like November. I'm sorry you don't understand what's happening. But it's expected and not necessary for you to.

And I don't mind calling someone who thinks torture is just ok when it's us doing it a Bastard. I think the whole torture thing is pretty classless itself.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #84 of 123
jimmac:

Quote:
He just seems to have a kind of magic when comes to bringing in the votes.

" a phrase that deliberately exploits confusion between similar-sounding words for humorous or rhetorical effect. "

" Term "- turn. And your point is?????

OK, fair enough. Weak, but fair enough.

Quote:

The rest is your highly skewed viewpoint. Colored of course with your Bush glasses.

Bush is not even freakin' running! WTF?!?

Quote:

The problem with your whole analysis is that it's based on your viewpoint.

Actually, no...it's not. It's based on math and knowledge of state voting trends, demographics, etc.

Quote:
Which doesn't match reality. We've tried to tell you. You're assuming alot will just go they way you see it.

Please explain which assumptions are unreasonable. Really, I'm waiting.

Quote:

And you're correcting me again. Should I just wait until you don't proof read something and then point it out to you? You really must be worried.

jimmac, it's pretty clear you have little understand of the English language. I hope it's not indicative of the people working in your profession.

Quote:

My comment was meant as a " No? Really! ".

I was simply trying to clarify what I was saying wrt dems going for McCain. The vat majority won't, but a significant number will.

Quote:
Man are you not going to like November. I'm sorry you don't understand what's happening. But it's expected and not necessary for you to.

Actually, the Dems sweeping might be a good thing. As long as Iran doesn't run off and nuke Israel, the dems will likely screw things up far worse than the GOP ever could. Maybe it will help my party find its soul again.

As for not understanding, I think I understand it fine. Your position is that a wave of "change" is sweeping the country, elections are cyclical, and that there is a lot of anger towards Bush and GOP. I agree with ALL of that. But while I acknowledge the very real advantages the Dems have, you refuse to see their equally real weaknesses, especially Obama's weaknesses.

Quote:
And I don't mind calling someone who thinks torture is just ok when it's us doing it a Bastard. I think the whole torture thing is pretty classless itself.

So the President of the United States is a bastard. That's what you're saying. Man, you've got a comfortable seat on the looney wagon.

But hey, let's get back to your election predictions vs. mine. Yours are based on this:

1. Change!
2. Anger at Bush
3. McCain=Bush

Which, of course...is pretty much the Dems' entire platform for this election.

Now, mine are based on exit polls and demographics.

1. A significant number of Democrats in liberal states say they won't support Obama.
2. That number MUST be even higher in more moderate swing states.
3. Obama has real weakness among working class, white voters, elderly voters, etc.
4. Obama has real weakness is traditionally conservative states.
5. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, et al have hurt Obama, even among Democrats.
6. There is a small percentage of the electorate that will not vote for a black man.
7. McCain's strength is Obama's weakness: Strong conservative states and moderate swing voters. These states are the key to the election.

Now, refute those, please. And I assume you agree that if Obama loses PA, OH and FL that he cannot win the general election. You can spout off all the "change" rhetoric you'd like...you can't overcome the math.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Now, refute those, please. And I assume you agree that if Obama loses PA, OH and FL that he cannot win the general election. You can spout off all the "change" rhetoric you'd like...you can't overcome the math.

Thought franksargent went through all this. Have you been paying attention or have you become an ignorant troll full time?
post #86 of 123
Obama clinches Democratic nomination

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.

The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

The 46-year-old first term senator will face Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the fall campaign to become the 44th president.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP)Barack Obama has effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates.

The tally put Obama over the top Tuesday, ahead of the results from the day's final primaries in Montana and South Dakota. The Illinois senator becomes the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House. Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic contest and now faces Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona for the presidency.

post #87 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac:

OK, fair enough. Weak, but fair enough.



Bush is not even freakin' running! WTF?!?

Actually, no...it's not. It's based on math and knowledge of state voting trends, demographics, etc.

Please explain which assumptions are unreasonable. Really, I'm waiting.

jimmac, it's pretty clear you have little understand of the English language. I hope it's not indicative of the people working in your profession.

I was simply trying to clarify what I was saying wrt dems going for McCain. The vat majority won't, but a significant number will.

Actually, the Dems sweeping might be a good thing. As long as Iran doesn't run off and nuke Israel, the dems will likely screw things up far worse than the GOP ever could. Maybe it will help my party find its soul again.

As for not understanding, I think I understand it fine. Your position is that a wave of "change" is sweeping the country, elections are cyclical, and that there is a lot of anger towards Bush and GOP. I agree with ALL of that. But while I acknowledge the very real advantages the Dems have, you refuse to see their equally real weaknesses, especially Obama's weaknesses.

So the President of the United States is a bastard. That's what you're saying. Man, you've got a comfortable seat on the looney wagon.

But hey, let's get back to your election predictions vs. mine. Yours are based on this:

1. Change!
2. Anger at Bush
3. McCain=Bush

Which, of course...is pretty much the Dems' entire platform for this election.

Now, mine are based on exit polls and demographics.

1. A significant number of Democrats in liberal states say they won't support Obama.
2. That number MUST be even higher in more moderate swing states.
3. Obama has real weakness among working class, white voters, elderly voters, etc.
4. Obama has real weakness is traditionally conservative states.
5. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, et al have hurt Obama, even among Democrats.
6. There is a small percentage of the electorate that will not vote for a black man.
7. McCain's strength is Obama's weakness: Strong conservative states and moderate swing voters. These states are the key to the election.

Now, refute those, please. And I assume you agree that if Obama loses PA, OH and FL that he cannot win the general election. You can spout off all the "change" rhetoric you'd like...you can't overcome the math.

SDW.

A small part of you must know we're right about this. I mean coorecting me on my spelling?

Which by the way I told you this would come back and bite you in the ass!

" The vat majority won't, but a significant number will. "

I don't know who the " Vat " majority is but they sound scary.

I know you forgot the " S " but it was fun!

" 1. Change!
2. Anger at Bush
3. McCain=Bush

Which, of course...is pretty much the Dems' entire platform for this election. "

Well given how much crap Bush has pulled ( and other republicans ) that's really all that's needed. You don't see Bush in the same light the rest of the world does so you draw a different conclusion. With most people out there what he's done is pretty serious stuff.

So you don't see it well just sit back and watch what happens. About 7 months and counting until they remove a good portion of the garbage in Washington DC.

I'm not agreeing to anything because the general election hasn't even started yet. But I've been around long enough to get a sense on how things will go. I could be wrong but I really don't think so.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #88 of 123
Hey everyone! Did you all hear? John McCain is going to make a major speech tonight where he declares that he's breaking from Bush and that HE is the true "change" agent.

McCain to break from Bush, take on Obama: In speech, GOP presidential nominee says he's right candidate for change

But, but, but .... Jubelum, Trumptman, SDW and few others have been furiously trying to teach me that "change" is a lame term, an unachievable goal, and ultimately something worthy of mockery and ridicule. How could John McCain want so desperately to be viewed as the "real" change agent if it's just silly platitudes and political populism? I didn't think he would stoop to that level.

That's what you've said all along? Right guys?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #89 of 123
Thread Starter 
I wuv things de way day iz:

boys dying in Iraq
the image ov dem states north of Mexico declining around the world
skyrocketing gas prices
recession
the list is long
a prez who couldn't graduate from his own wife's kindergarten class

the list is long



Yep. Change is bad.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #90 of 123
Guys, stop imagining that America is going to stop being anything less than a fading power after BHO gets in.

The American president actually doesn't control worldwide fungible commodity markets, or force people to take on billions in idiotically structured debt. He isn't making you fat, or late for work, he can't make your kids study harder or get in to better schools. He can't stop other countries from educating their kids better or working harder or having greater economies of scale. He can't give you "free" things either -- even if he's a Democrat.



Really.

Stop.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #91 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Guys, stop imagining that America is going to stop being anything less than a fading power after BHO gets in.

The American president actually doesn't control worldwide fungible commodity markets, or force people to take on billions in idiotically structured debt. He isn't making you fat, or late for work, he can't make your kids study harder or get in to better schools. He can't stop other countries from educating their kids better or working harder or having greater economies of scale. He can't give you "free" things either -- even if he's a Democrat.



Really.

Stop.

Does this mean you will be voting responsibly... for Ron Paul?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #92 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Does this mean you will be voting responsibly... for Ron Paul?

National Taxpayers Party, Libertarian, you name it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #93 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Guys, stop imagining that America is going to stop being anything less than a fading power after BHO gets in.

The American president actually doesn't control worldwide fungible commodity markets, or force people to take on billions in idiotically structured debt. He isn't making you fat, or late for work, he can't make your kids study harder or get in to better schools. He can't stop other countries from educating their kids better or working harder or having greater economies of scale. He can't give you "free" things either -- even if he's a Democrat.



Really.

Stop.

But there is an entire ideology that thinks that the president is there to "make sure they are happy" or "give them stuff" or "make sure that they are alright." You know, this pathetic ethic where people are conned into looking to elected officials to make their smiles huge, their wallet fat, their cares disappear, and rainbows appear from horizon to horizon.

Like Jenny Ballantine.

Just one of the "unintended" (but very intended) consequences of US liberalism.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #94 of 123
The President is there to make sure we don't go to war in Iraq, that we don't hold prisoners indefinitely in Gitmo and in other places across the globe, that we don't fail to respond to national emergencies like Katrina, that we don't nominate Supreme Court justices like Alito and Roberts, that we don't veto important legislation, and so on.

But you know, pshhh, the President ain't important or nothing.
post #95 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The President is there to make sure we don't go to war in Iraq, that we don't hold prisoners indefinitely in Gitmo and in other places across the globe, that we don't fail to respond to national emergencies like Katrina, that we don't nominate Supreme Court justices like Alito and Roberts, that we don't veto important legislation, and so on.

But you know, pshhh, the President ain't important or nothing.

The president's job is right there in the oath of office..."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When's the last time that happened?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #96 of 123
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The president's job is right there in the oath of office..."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When's the last time that happened?


Pulling out the dusty history books...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #97 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Pulling out the dusty history books...

Tru dat..
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #98 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The President is there to make sure we don't go to war in Iraq, that we don't hold prisoners indefinitely in Gitmo and in other places across the globe, that we don't fail to respond to national emergencies like Katrina, that we don't nominate Supreme Court justices like Alito and Roberts, that we don't veto important legislation, and so on.

But you know, pshhh, the President ain't important or nothing.

no, shawn... the POTUS is there... not in theory, but in practice... to execute the will of the ruling elites. All three of these idiots are faces of much larger interests.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #99 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The president's job is right there in the oath of office..."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When's the last time that happened?

You know, it's funny that you ask that.

I would honestly answer that the last time it was the executive branch's job to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" was before the Supreme Court's power-grab in Marbury v. Madison. That decision established the principle of judicial review and made the Supreme Court the final arbiter on constitutional questions. Before that, it wasn't really clear which branch was responsible for interpreting the Constitution. Now I think that quoted language is just shorthand for "not to be really bad and shit."
post #100 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Marbury v. Madison

Funny, that's the first thing that popped into The Jvbelvm's head as well...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #101 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Hey everyone! Did you all hear? John McCain is going to make a major speech tonight where he declares that he's breaking from Bush and that HE is the true "change" agent.

McCain to break from Bush, take on Obama: In speech, GOP presidential nominee says he's right candidate for change

But, but, but .... Jubelum, Trumptman, SDW and few others have been furiously trying to teach me that "change" is a lame term, an unachievable goal, and ultimately something worthy of mockery and ridicule. How could John McCain want so desperately to be viewed as the "real" change agent if it's just silly platitudes and political populism? I didn't think he would stoop to that level.

That's what you've said all along? Right guys?



Yeah that's rich!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #102 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Hey everyone! Did you all hear? John McCain is going to make a major speech tonight where he declares that he's breaking from Bush and that HE is the true "change" agent.

McCain to break from Bush, take on Obama: In speech, GOP presidential nominee says he's right candidate for change

But, but, but .... Jubelum, Trumptman, SDW and few others have been furiously trying to teach me that "change" is a lame term, an unachievable goal, and ultimately something worthy of mockery and ridicule. How could John McCain want so desperately to be viewed as the "real" change agent if it's just silly platitudes and political populism? I didn't think he would stoop to that level.

That's what you've said all along? Right guys?

No. You've obviously missed the lesson if you think it was to denigrate the idea of "change." Change, in and of itself, is not "worthy of mockery and ridicule." Change is unavoidable...

My problem is with Obama claiming to be the embodiment of "CHANGE" is because, in your fawning over The Big O, you miss that there is nothing new or innovative about BHO. His solutions are not "Change"- they are "Return," as in "Return to the policies of Mondale, Carter, LBJ, FDR, and Dukakis."

Barack Obama... "RETURN TO CARTER'S MALAISE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #103 of 123
ShawnJ, I'll be the first to say that BushCo has been substandard with the effectiveness of their foreign policy, and obviously the president is supposed to lead the country. But you have to admit blaming him for high oil prices, etc., is pretty delusional.

Really. Delusional.

I haven't followed BHO's rehtoric too closely, but if he is supporting things like the latest farm bill orgy, and, say, showing up at Senate hearings to grill oil executives on "why they keep the price of gas so high" -- then he's playing the country for fools.

And if that's the case, there is no hope. Then BHO is just an incredibly intelligent millionaire attorney, who knows how to hire the right people to get the job done, and knows how to play his cards. But if he tires to practice cargo cult economics, then he's simply giving free heroin to a country of junkies. We just don't have that much left to mortage before we hit the bus station bathrooms to pick up some cash for our next hit.

(That said, if BHO could play the foreign scene the way he played the Hillary, that would be something I'd pay to see.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #104 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

ShawnJ, I'll be the first to say that BushCo has been substandard with the effectiveness of their foreign policy, and obviously the president is supposed to lead the country. But you have to admit blaming him for high oil prices, etc., is pretty delusional.

Look at the list of countries that make up OPEC. Where two thirds of the world's oil comes from.

Most of them don't like us mainly because of Bush. Now consider how you would treat a customer you don't like. And it's not like they haven't done this before. Look up the oil embargo in the early 70's. Also it's easy to do because larger profits are made all the way around. Maybe China's growing appetite is part of this but it's not enough to account for this rapid rise in price.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #105 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

No. You've obviously missed the lesson if you think it was to denigrate the idea of "change." Change, in and of itself, is not "worthy of mockery and ridicule." Change is unavoidable...

My problem is with Obama claiming to be the embodiment of "CHANGE" is because, in your fawning over The Big O, you miss that there is nothing new or innovative about BHO. His solutions are not "Change"- they are "Return," as in "Return to the policies of Mondale, Carter, LBJ, FDR, and Dukakis."

Barack Obama... "RETURN TO CARTER'S MALAISE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"

Ohh Jubelum you know I love ya and all but let me see if I can shift this a bit in another light.

Remember back not so long ago in 1994 when the freshman republican majority in congress took form after a couple of years President Bill Clinton being in office?

If you will recall at that time republicans were pretty much acting like republicans in a fiscal sense and Clinton even co-opted (triangulated) some of the progress resulting from the contract with america like welfare reform and balancing the budget etc.

So where am I going with this you may be asking,,, While not all things going on on Bush's watch are awful or dismal failures many in the country feel something is off with the direction our country is going. It can be argued that so-called conservatives have lost their way in congress and in the White House. Could it be possible that a shift to a majority democratic party in congress with a democratic president Barack Obama could be just the kick in the pants "kick start" if you will that republicans need to re-discover what helped them win elections and be successful in the past??

I would argue that conservatives (in recent history) have relied too heavily on the drumbeat of patriotism, war, wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage instead of focusing on policy which has mostly a focus on fiscal matters like they did in 1994.

After the backsliding of so many republicans from what once made them successful (staying on message not just in talk but in practice like in 1994) I am of the opinion the country needs more democrats in power if for no other reason to make the republicans realize they have to drop some of this neo-con agenda and return to what made them successful in history.

A President Obama is not automatically a bad thing if you lean republican. It could actually spark the much needed "change" the republicans need to make back to who they once were before they fell off the deep end into this neo-con version of conservatism.

Now you know I am making a valid point here...

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #106 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Look at the list of countries that make up OPEC. Where two thirds of the world's oil comes from.

Most of them don't like us mainly because of Bush. Now consider how you would treat a customer you don't like. And it's not like they haven't done this before. Look up the oil embargo in the early 70's. Also it's easy to do because larger profits are made all the way around. Maybe China's growing appetite is part of this but it's not enough to account for this rapid rise in price.

Well, some of this has to do with weakness in the dollar. Demand is going way up, just look at India and China. Also, If someone could make money selling for less, they'd do it. I don't know what the margins are for oil companies, but even if they are turning the traditional ~5%, that volume and price of what they are into makes those profits huge.

Edit: also, if they are prevented from plowing that income back into refineries, that just adds to their bottom line.

(Unless they're all in on it, the Oil Companies hoarding oil, Schlumberger hoarding exploration equipment, everybody hoarding oil in just the right amount, just the right number of Nigeria hostage takings and black-market oil.... )

But you forget, everybody is paying this higher price, the same goes for the commodity prices -- and it is a much bigger share when you're average wage is half or a third of what ours is. No one is getting off easy here.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #107 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW.

A small part of you must know we're right about this. I mean coorecting me on my spelling?

Which by the way I told you this would come back and bite you in the ass!

" The vat majority won't, but a significant number will. "

I don't know who the " Vat " majority is but they sound scary.

I know you forgot the " S " but it was fun!

jimmac:

Yeah, you really got me. Good one. Except of course, I'm not pointing out spelling errors. I'm pointing out major grammatical mistakes that show you have a poor comprehension of the written language.

Quote:


Well given how much crap Bush has pulled ( and other republicans ) that's really all that's needed. You don't see Bush in the same light the rest of the world does so you draw a different conclusion. With most people out there what he's done is pretty serious stuff.

On what do you base that? Your ass?

Quote:

So you don't see it well just sit back and watch what happens. About 7 months and counting until they remove a good portion of the garbage in Washington DC.

Yes, we'll see. And look...you may be right. Obama might win. I'm just saying that in terms of the math, I don't see how its possible given what we know today. In 6 months the polls could show something different. If Obama is leading in major swing states and nailing down the liberal base, my view will certainly change.

Quote:

I'm not agreeing to anything because the general election hasn't even started yet. But I've been around long enough to get a sense on how things will go. I could be wrong but I really don't think so.

So you just said it: Your entire position is based on intuition. Man, I wish you were advising Obama. McCain's election would be friggin guaranteed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #108 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Ohh Jubelum you know I love ya and all but let me see if I can shift this a bit in another light.

Remember back not so long ago in 1994 when the freshman republican majority in congress took form after a couple of years President Bill Clinton being in office?

If you will recall at that time republicans were pretty much acting like republicans in a fiscal sense and Clinton even co-opted (triangulated) some of the progress resulting from the contract with america like welfare reform and balancing the budget etc.

True.

Quote:
So where am I going with this you may be asking,,, While not all things going on on Bush's watch are awful or dismal failures many in the country feel something is off with the direction our country is going. It can be argued that so-called conservatives have lost their way in congress and in the White House. Could it be possible that a shift to a majority democratic party in congress with a democratic president Barack Obama could be just the kick in the pants "kick start" if you will that republicans need to re-discover what helped them win elections and be successful in the past??

Ahhh, the "you must lose to win" argument. There is definitely something to that. The hardest part of this election season is that either we get the Obama-nation -OR- we demonstrate that liberal republicanism in the McCain/Graham/Snowe mould is actually the future of the GOP. Either way conservatives and libertarians are not going to see much that makes them happy. There are days that, if the stakes with a socialist like BHO were not so high, I would prefer the GOP to lose and lose big to teach them that they cannot shaft their conservative base. Like I said, either way... we're in for a GOP that is going to take 4-6 years to get itself together with what won big in 2000 and 2004.

Quote:
I would argue that conservatives (in recent history) have relied too heavily on the drumbeat of patriotism, war, wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage instead of focusing on policy which has mostly a focus on fiscal matters like they did in 1994.

Agreed. They stopped selling conservatism, started spending like hell, took their base for granted, and lately began to cozy up to people who have no interest in moderating at all. One could say that, as abhorrent as I find Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, and Schumer, at least they stick to their guns. The GOP has not.

Quote:
After the backsliding of so many republicans from what once made them successful (staying on message not just in talk but in practice like in 1994) I am of the opinion the country needs more democrats in power if for no other reason to make the republicans realize they have to drop some of this neo-con agenda and return to what made them successful in history.

The problem is... McCain. The GOP does not yet "Get it" that the way to win is NOT to look just like Democrat-lite... all the spending, half the taxes. \

Quote:
A President Obama is not automatically a bad thing if you lean republican. It could actually spark the much needed "change" the republicans need to make back to who they once were before they fell off the deep end into this neo-con version of conservatism.

Yes, the NeoCons need to go... and we're seeing that now. Possibly the only productive thing that the northeastern elite version of the GOP is doing right at this point. As far as republican principles, Obama is a disaster. He's as far left as we have ever had nominated for high office in this country.

Quote:
Now you know I am making a valid point here...

Of course, I have come to expect no less.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #109 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post



Of course, I have come to expect no less.

You flirt!



Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #110 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Then BHO is just an incredibly intelligent millionaire attorney

This is an aside:

Interestingly, he's more of a millionaire author than a millionaire attorney, if we want to get specific. Obama was the Editor-in-Chief of the HLR; he could have gotten virtually any legal job in the country. He didn't go that route, and only made his money when he wrote his first autobiography.
post #111 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Thought franksargent went through all this. Have you been paying attention or have you become an ignorant troll full time?

No, Frank was being obtuse as usual. He spent his time arguing semantics and telling me that national polls were more valid than local ones. He dismissed the OR polls and the ones showing Obama's weaknesses. He further dismissed any anecdotal evidence. He's like jimmac with a better grasp of the English language.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #112 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

You flirt!

Fellows

I wish I knew how to quit you, Fellows.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #113 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

This is an aside:

Interestingly, he's more of a millionaire author than a millionaire attorney, if we want to get specific. Obama was the Editor-in-Chief of the HLR; he could have gotten virtually any legal job in the country. He didn't go that route, and only made his money when he wrote his first autobiography.

That came out wrong -- I didn't mean to put him in the same category as Edwards. Point being, he's a brainy/crafty guy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #114 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He's like jimmac with a better grasp of the English language.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #115 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, Frank was being obtuse as usual. He spent his time arguing semantics and telling me that national polls were more valid than local ones. He dismissed the OR polls and the ones showing Obama's weaknesses. He further dismissed any anecdotal evidence. He's like jimmac with a better grasp of the English language.

... what I presented was way over your head, as usual.

Meanwhile, you present exit polling data from what, two states, and by some as yet unheard of methods, extrapolate these exit poll data to the national general election, 5+ month's down the road. Laugh riot ensues at this end as you "explain" how these Democratic primary exit polls mean doom and gloom for the Democratic Party come the general election, 5+ month's down the road.

I think we all could use an encore presentation of your dissertation on why you use exit polling data from Democratic primaries, and apply them to the general election, 5+ month's down the road, sans any other polling data between when those exit polls were taken, and the general election 5+ month's down the road.

Remember we're talking about herding cats, not like the Republican dogs, who march in lockstep, once having made up their minds. You're not a Democrat, so don't tell us how they think, based on your Republican lockstep like thinking.

You don't even have a clue as to what the Democratic turnout will be like come the general election. In fact, you speak in such generalities, that it makes a moot point out of any so called "facts" that you do present. Otherwise known as a "leap of faith."

An honest person, would admit when they are engaged in wishful thinking (as I have done so in the aforementioned thread), and when I call you out, when you are clearly engaged in wishful thinking, you can't even admit it. Your points of "pretzel logic" like argumentation are rather obvious.

SDW != unbiased "analysis" (quotes around the word analysis because it wasn't an analysis per se, more like a big fresh hot steaming pile of conjectures and speculations applied to the general election 5+ month's down the road, somehow, someway, somewhere, and something)
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #116 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... what I presented was way over your head, as usual.

I mean, who in the world can ever keep up with your brilliance.

Quote:
Remember we're talking about herding cats, not like the Republicans dogs, who march in lockstep, once having made up their minds. You're not a Democrat, so don't tell us how they think, based on your Republican lockstep like thinking.

So we should, conversely, accept your knowledge of these alleged "lockstep Republicans" from a democrat. Brilliance. (And BTW, you don't know jack shit about "lockstep Republicans" this cycle.)

Quote:
You don't even have a clue as to what the Democratic turnout will be like come the general election.

Nor do you. Or any of us. Political tea leaves, ya know.

Quote:
In fact, you speak in such generalities, that it makes a moot point out of any so called "facts" that you do present. Otherwise known as a "leap of faith."

This is why it is not worth it to argue with you most of the time, frank. If someone posts a fact to back up their generalities, like you so often demand, then you say "that's moot." And if they speak in generalities, they are "not dealing in facts" like the erudite and (as we have already covered) brilliant franksargent. In short, make up your mind.

Quote:
SDW != unbiased "analysis" (quotes around the word analysis because it wasn't an analysis per se, more like a big fresh hot steaming pile of conjectures and speculations applied to the general election 5+ month's down the road, somehow, someway, somewhere, and something)

Um... political speculation is what we do here in an election season. Get used to it. I would think a brilliant scientist like yourself would be able to situate properly the topics of "analysis" and "conjecture," and realize that you do both as well.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #117 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I mean, who in the world can ever keep up with your brilliance.



So we should, conversely, accept your knowledge of these alleged "lockstep Republicans" from a democrat. Brilliance. (And BTW, you don't know jack shit about "lockstep Republicans" this cycle.)


Nor do you. Or any of us. Political tea leaves, ya know.



This is why it is not worth it to argue with you most of the time, frank. If someone posts a fact to back up their generalities, like you so often demand, then you say "that's moot." And if they speak in generalities, they are "not dealing in facts" like the erudite and (as we have already covered) brilliant franksargent. In short, make up your mind.



Um... political speculation is what we do here in an election season. Get used to it. I would think a brilliant scientist like yourself would be able to situate properly the topics of "analysis" and "conjecture," and realize that you do both as well.

... you know the drill, TYVM!

You make my points for me, like I stated from the get go, all wishful thinking, no serious analysis can be done using exit polling data from just two Democratic state primaries, that's also what I've been saying from the get go. The very facts that SDW used are in continuous flux, they are those individual's thoughts at a specific point in time, it is their opinion at that particular point in time. Get it?

This post (and my previous one) is targeted towards SDW, who rarely understands facts, and how to use them correctly, on those rare occasions where he actually presents "facts.' And offhand, look at who's calling the kettle black, someone who believes Alex Jones and The New World Order™. About 80% of what you post has overtones of TNWO™, seriously. Another laugh riot ensues at this end.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #118 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Look at the list of countries that make up OPEC. Where two thirds of the world's oil comes from.

Most of them don't like us mainly because of Bush.

What's most funny about that comment is that you don't realize how truly insane it is.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #119 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

What's most funny about that comment is that you don't realize how truly insane it is.

I thinks "bonkers" fits... but it is exactly that kind of ignorance that the DNC is banking on come November.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #120 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Guys, stop imagining that America is going to stop being anything less than a fading power after BHO gets in.

The American president actually doesn't control worldwide fungible commodity markets, or force people to take on billions in idiotically structured debt. He isn't making you fat, or late for work, he can't make your kids study harder or get in to better schools. He can't stop other countries from educating their kids better or working harder or having greater economies of scale. He can't give you "free" things either -- even if he's a Democrat.

Really.

Stop.


You have meddled with the primal forces of nature Mr Beale!

AND I WON'T HAVE IT!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How to lose an election