| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 10/23/2008 : 17:46:42
I feel the same as Larry and it's not even my country. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| turrell |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 18:44:08
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit.html
www.fivethirtyeight.com is a tremendous resource for detailed analysis on polling. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 10:03:40
One thing that struck me when the results were coming in was that several commentators on Fox were talking about the "statistical bias" that exit polls always show towards the Democrats for "various reasons that we haven't got time to go into here".
I'd love to know why, historically, the results haven't matched the polls, although I get a feeling that, magically, they were a lot more accurate this time round. |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 22:15:47
quote:
Originally posted by Co-nine The Westy
Well Larry David was obviously paranoid.
I saw this on an Aussie blog this morning:
What I haven#65533;t yet seen
John McCain is beaten, and this is what I haven#65533;t yet seen or heard:
Screams that the vote was rigged.
Perhaps that's because nobody believes it was rigged. It could be hard to rig a 7 million vote majority. The decisive result appears beyond question.quote:
Lawyers taking the result to court.
See above.quote:
The loser blaming anyone but himself.
True, Kerry should have blamed himself. But, Al Gore was not the loser, he was the winner (he got more votes than Bush). I didn't hear Bush blame himself for getting less votes than Al Gore either.quote:
Angry celebrities vowing to move overseas.
I'd guess they like the result then.  quote:
Stickers claiming the winner stole the election.
See first point above.quote:
Furious reporters denouncing ads by the losers#65533; critics.
Furious reporters blaming the winner#65533;s evil genius.
The bitter losers warning the country #65533;is more divided than ever#65533;.
That remains to be seen. I'm sure the assassination plans are already being drawn up somewhere.quote:
Graceful losers in a democracy need to be acknowledged just as much as graceful winners, if not more. At the very least, it may help to ensure the example catches on.
I've seen nothing but global praise for McCain's concession. Perhaps the writer of this blog should take a leaf from his book. |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 21:00:31
Well Larry David was obviously paranoid.
I saw this on an Aussie blog this morning:
What I haven�t yet seen
John McCain is beaten, and this is what I haven�t yet seen or heard:
Screams that the vote was rigged.
Lawyers taking the result to court.
The loser blaming anyone but himself.
Angry celebrities vowing to move overseas.
Stickers claiming the winner stole the election.
Furious reporters denouncing ads by the losers� critics.
Furious reporters blaming the winner�s evil genius.
The bitter losers warning the country �is more divided than ever�.
Graceful losers in a democracy need to be acknowledged just as much as graceful winners, if not more. At the very least, it may help to ensure the example catches on. |
| duh |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 02:30:58
quote:
Originally posted by S9�n
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
What makes you 'liberal' or 'conservative' in America these days and how are these ideals reflected in the nominees' policies?
I always thought this quiz here gave a better indicator of where people stand than the overly simplistic "left/right" or "liberal/conservative" one-dimensional model of political leanings.
Hmmm...I came out even more Libertarian than I did the last time I took that quiz. |
| Sean |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 22:40:03
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
What makes you 'liberal' or 'conservative' in America these days and how are these ideals reflected in the nominees' policies?
I always thought this quiz here gave a better indicator of where people stand than the overly simplistic "left/right" or "liberal/conservative" one-dimensional model of political leanings. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 16:48:18
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
It's hard to say. The way I feel about things is that it seems to have nothing at all to do with policies and everything about throwing your weight behind one party and believing all sorts of ridiculous smears about the other.
So you're voting for the muslim guy? That's pretty un-American isn't it?
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 15:11:34
It's hard to say. The way I feel about things is that it seems to have nothing at all to do with policies and everything about throwing your weight behind one party and believing all sorts of ridiculous smears about the other. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 14:08:39
What makes you 'liberal' or 'conservative' in America these days and how are these ideals reflected in the nominees' policies?
|
| duh |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 05:48:56
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
I feel the same as Larry and it's not even my country.
Larry David and his political opinions do not interest me.
I do not view Obama as a messiah.
I agree that despite the things that I respect McCain for, he is also a flawed human being.
I expect that Obama will be elected. I hope there will be a conservative Congress to counter-balance an otherwise inevitable extreme liberal backlash.
I like Palin but I agree that it appears unlikely that she has the experience to be a good president. Some of the most qualified people didn't do so well either as presidents. Carter was eminently qualified and a very good man, for example. Although one might argue that Clinton was a good president, he could have been even greater if he had not, as Michael Medved said, "squandered his talents." (Medved knew both of the Clintons when they were in law school with him.)
Biden is too liberal for me.
If Ron Paul were a candidate, I would vote for him.
Regardless of who wins the election, I'll be glad when it is over so we can just play with the cards we are dealt and move on. I don't answer the telephone anymore because it is usually some kind of political call.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 19:38:18
To clarify, I meant it was an unfair statement, not an unfair vote, and in any case I never said that a candidate had a "right" to fair votes anyway. |
| turrell |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 18:57:44
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I think that's unfair to Mr. Obama, seeing as he made that ill-advised Pakistan remark only once back in 2007
He repeated this stance in the last debate and has been pretty consistent that he favors military action if "we have Osama Bin Laden in our sights and Pakistan is either unwilling or unable to act".
I am voting Obama but one thing I don't like is that he has a hard time admitting when he is wrong - this is one example. Another is his stance on meeting with dictators without preconditions - instead of saying he misspoke and favors more diplomacy (which many agree would be a nice change) he continues to spin that original statement - but never mentions that he misspoke.
As for fair and square - people have the right in the US to vote for whomever they choose based on what ever criteria they choose. If they falsely think that McCain is exactly like Bush based on a manufactured statistic of voting with Bush 90% of the time (when Bush has never cast a vote) that's fine. If they don't vote for Obama because he is black - that is reprehensible but it is not unfair (or for that matter if some of the 96% of blacks vote for Obama because of his skin color for that matter).
Voter fraud is another matter, but that's not yet at issue in this election. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 18:34:22
quote:
Originally posted by S9�n
Actually I think the whole "experience" thing is overrated. Leaders have a massive support network under them to advise them on the appropriate action to take if their personal experience hasn't equipped them for it (as will very often be the case).
IMO the main qualifications to be leader are:-
a) empathy for other beings
b) intelligence
c) foresight
d) calmness under pressure
they're innate qualities that don't have much to do with "experience".
I'm with you on this. And when someone asked Bill Clinton if he thought that Hillary was prepared enough to be President, his answer was, that he didn't think that anyone is ever prepared to be President. There is no level of experience you can get to become really ready to be the President of the USA.
And as for surrounding yourself with competent people who can advise you wisely on subjects you are unfamiliar with and help you in areas that you are weaker at, McCain's choice of Palin has made him look like he wouldn't be very good at doing that. In that, Obama's choice of Biden as his VP was a far wiser choice, and makes me feel that he'd be choosing his staff based on some very carefully thought out criteria.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 12:53:40
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Savoir Faire
My reasoning is Obama is against NAFTA, but for expanding faith-based initiatives, and also for striking Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan, with or without Pakistan's approval (he's also hinted at involvement in Sudan and Iran).
Expanding 'faith-based initiatives' and expanding war? Correct me if I'm wrong but these are the very policies for why people don't like Bush? For a campaign that is anti-Bush, he sure does act like him.
I think that's unfair to Mr. Obama, seeing as he made that ill-advised Pakistan remark only once back in 2007 (If I'm wrong about this, please correct me). And while he's never run as a pacifist candidate, he's also repeatedly criticized the GOP's refusal to negotiate with its enemies. On a side note, I don't really agree that unilaterally invading Pakistan to attack Al-Qaeda really counts as "policing the world" (though it's probably not smart); it's finding and attacking a terrorist group that has already declared war on us. Obviously I don't think that an effective defense of this nation should include getting nuked by a pissed-off Pakistan, but I do think that we really should capture Osama Bin Laden at some point.
And as for "faith-based initiatives"... I think that at this point, a little favoritism towards religion-based charities is pretty far down the list of things people don't like about Dubya. |
| randall |
Posted - 10/26/2008 : 06:28:51
Either topline candidate could actually sit in the Oval Office more plausibly than the arrogant moron who's there now.
For me, the election once came down to two words: Supreme. Court.
Now there are two more: Sarah. Palin. A stupendous lapse in judgment when the chips were down. You failed the job interview, Senator. |
