• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SRG01

Member
adamsappel said:
Where/how does France dispose of its spent nuclear fuel?

Very little is disposed of, IIRC. Nuclear fuel rods are only 3%, so it is very easy to reprocess/re-enrich them.

As for some of the heavier by-products, I assume they're processed into other materials to make medical radioisotopes. Some of them are already naturally available with the main reaction, so I don't know how much further processing needs to be done.
 
Tamanon said:
Education is key it seems on this issue.
Well, and there in lies a huge problem with some issues. One of the things that frustrates me the most about this oil situation is how difficult it is to just understand the basics because they're buried underneath political agendas. Okay, McCain and Obama are making their case for how to solve the energy crisis. Excellent. But before we start critiquing their proposals, how about we start from the beginning and get to the bottom of how it is that we got here. Let's pretend that it's not an election year, and that I'm your typical, uninformed Joe Consumer who wants to understand why he's gone from paying $1.50 a gallon back in 2000 to $4.00+ in 2008. I'm not interested in finger-pointing, I'm not shouting at my Congressman to fix it, I just want to know why it's happening. So far, I've discovered several ideas:

1. It's simple supply and demand market principles at work. You mix a little instability in the governments that are the source of the supply with increased demand from developing nations, and of course you're going to see a spike. But fear not, because in due time the market will correct this trend and supply will go back up and demand will go back down, and things will be back to normal.

2. It's a catastrophic supply and demand problem. Production has leveled out. The greatest supply areas have either already been found, or are not cost-effective enough to pursue. This means that we need to start preparing for the worst now. Supply is permanently going to start decreasing, meanwhile developing economies will dictate that demand will continue to go up exponentially. Fear the worst, folks.

3. Speculators are artificially driving the prices way up, and we're just waiting for the bubble to burst now so prices will return to normal.

4. Greedy oil barons are only getting richer and richer from this, so don't expect things to change or else it's going to hurt their bottom line.

Okay, so that's the information you'll find from various news sites and analytical debates about the issue. Some suggest that it's a huge problem that can be fixed. Some suggest that it's a huge problem that can't be fixed. And still others suggest that it really isn't a problem at all. I've gotten nowhere.

So, what have you got for me politics? Surely, my leaders are out there looking for solutions to the big problems, or at least have explanations forthcoming? No. Instead I mainly find typical partisan politics, with each side blaming the other and offering solutions that pander to what we want to hear.

And it works. Instead of discussing the real problems and solutions, often we break down into the normal ideological battle grounds that apply to every issue. Let's hear from the right: "hippie, tree-hugging liberals care more about their precious environment than they do about Joe Schmoe at the pump. We've got plenty of oil ripe for drilling, but Democrats are standing in the way." Okay, now let's hear what the left has to say: "Republicans want to destroy our environment so that they can help the rich oil barons get richer. Alternatives are the key."

Dynamite. Unfortunately, neither of these proposals attempt to provide a good, solid explanation of the problems today, nor a time-table for when the solutions will affect us. Overall, I like Obama's policies, and am an ardent Obama supporter. However, this issue in particular I think is more important than debating how it impacts politics. Getting back to what I quoted, I just hate that there's a lack of education even among the educated on this issue.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Basically, yeah.

20 and 30 year plans to solve this problem will never be implemented by 2 and 6 year term congressmen. Not when they spend that time raising money for their next campaign from the different interests.
 

gkryhewy

Member
Steve Youngblood said:
1. It's simple supply and demand market principles at work. You mix a little instability in the governments that are the source of the supply with increased demand from developing nations, and of course you're going to see a spike. But fear not, because in due time the market will correct this trend and supply will go back up and demand will go back down, and things will be back to normal.

2. It's a catastrophic supply and demand problem. Production has leveled out. The greatest supply areas have either already been found, or are not cost-effective enough to pursue. This means that we need to start preparing for the worst now. Supply is permanently going to start decreasing, meanwhile developing economies will dictate that demand will continue to go up exponentially. Fear the worst, folks.

3. Speculators are artificially driving the prices way up, and we're just waiting for the bubble to burst now so prices will return to normal.

4. Greedy oil barons are only getting richer and richer from this, so don't expect things to change or else it's going to hurt their bottom line.

3. OPEC prices oil in dollars, and since the value of the US dollar has fallen like a rock, the price of oil has risen right along with it.

Good post. I've taken the liberty of striking two possibilities that I think have no (or little) basis in reality, and adding a very important one that isn't talked about enough. It's related to "3", which I've struck, in that oil acts as a hedge for investors against the falling dollar, which contributes to perceptions about a bubble.

This is as much about failed federal monetary policy as failed environmental and energy policy.
 
gkrykewy said:
Good post. I've taken the liberty of striking two possibilities that I think have no (or little) basis in reality, and adding a very important one that isn't talked about enough. It's related to "3", which I've struck, in that oil acts as a hedge for investors against the falling dollar, which contributes to perceptions about a bubble.

This is as much about failed federal monetary policy as failed environmental and energy policy.
Thanks, I just forgot about the weak dollar as one of the usual suspects when compiling that list off the top of my head.
 

gkryhewy

Member
Steve Youngblood said:
Thanks, I just forgot about the weak dollar as one of the usual suspects when compiling that list off the top of my head.

You almost never hear it mentioned by politicians. They were all for aggressive fed rate cuts that let the bottom fall out of the dollar, just to avoid economic and market pain.

Which resulted in energy price spikes exacerbating said economic pain, for a double-whammy. Genius.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Incognito said:
Cave to the White House and Teleco's. "Conditional Immunity". These companies have more than likely been indemnified so financial litigation isn't a concern to them. I wonder what keeps them up at night, then..
I suppose I should be used to being disappointed in Democrats, but I'd gotten a little hopeful lately. What a shitty "compromise".

RE: Public financing: Good call, Obama. There will be a bad press cycle, and then we'll move on. It's the right move. He needs to be able to react to the swift boating, which is coming.
 

Chichikov

Member
Incognito said:
Cave to the White House and Teleco's. "Conditional Immunity". These companies have more than likely been indemnified so financial litigation isn't a concern to them. I wonder what keeps them up at night, then..
Shameful.
Another gigantic failure of the Pelosi.
It’s amazing how much she manage to alienate conservatives in this country, considering she achieved jack shit.
 
funny thing about supply and demand in growing markets. turns out that many countries subsidize the cost of oil. this throws S/D out of whack as people in those countries will take longer to curb their energy usage.


So today China decides that they don't want to pay as much for oil and oil falls a good $4.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Incognito said:
I was just coming to post that. Ben Smith just pointed out that the states it's running in are shifted from what Obama had signaled - it's more aggressive.

Dropped: New Jersey, Oregon, Washington.

Added: North Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Indiana.


He's feeling confident in the first three that he doesn't need to run this round there, and expanding the field to four others. McCain can't be happy.
 

Tamanon

Banned
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91560330

n October 2002, McCain railed against Saddam Hussein shortly before the Senate passed a resolution to use force in Iraq. "He has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the Earth multiple times," McCain argued on the Senate floor. "He's placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes, not hours, and has devolved military authority to fire them to subordinates. He develops nuclear weapons, with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage."

I didn't remember his rhetoric being so bizarre and fearmongering back then.
 

Diablos

Member
Sigh. First the Senate, now the House. Did they not campaign on the promise that they wouldn't allow our government to do this type of thing?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Diablos said:
Sigh. First the Senate, now the House. Did they not campaign on the promise that they wouldn't allow our government to do this type of thing?
Yeah. Even with a majority, they can't stop capitulating. Old habits die hard, I suppose. I'm so pissed about this. :(

Also - Obama's ad is running in 18 states. IIRC, Bush ran ads in a then-record 17 states.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
gkrykewy said:
You almost never hear it mentioned by politicians. They were all for aggressive fed rate cuts that let the bottom fall out of the dollar, just to avoid economic and market pain.

Which resulted in energy price spikes exacerbating said economic pain, for a double-whammy. Genius.

its not patriotic to talk bad about the US dollar.

Why nobody but the economist talk about the bad US dollar increasing oil/gas prices is beyond me.

Even Obama hasn't talked about it. :(
 
mckmas8808 said:
its not patriotic to talk bad about the US dollar.

Why nobody but the economist talk about the bad US dollar increasing oil/gas prices is beyond me.

Even Obama hasn't talked about it. :(
Because it's not interesting in the narrative about fuel prices. It doesn't give us any tangible villains to hate for why we're paying so much at the pump, and it doesn't lend itself to partisan solutions. Regardless of the feasibility of such a proposal, either side can offer long-term solutions to the oil crisis that sound good, but how are either of the candidates going to campaign on fixing the dollar? Also, it's a more abstract concept to understand than simply doing something like blaming speculators or Exxon Mobil.
 
HylianTom said:
BREAKING: Obama Opts Out of Public Financing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25259863/

Can't wait to hear the GOP whining on this one.. :D

Why would this make you happy? I'm really disappointed in Obama. I think this would have been a major step forward in cleaning up our government, and would've had an affect on our shitty Congress who have been so ineffective due to their financial ties.
 

Gaborn

Member
kame-sennin said:
Why would this make you happy? I'm really disappointed in Obama. I think this would have been a major step forward in cleaning up our government, and would've had an affect on our shitty Congress who have been so ineffective due to their financial ties.

No, it's actually an excellent decision on his part and very admirable. the taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for a candidate whether we agree with them or not and we're in enough debt as it is, not that 89 million is much of the total federal budget but every bit we don't have to spend is helpful.
 

sangreal

Member
He said he would stay in if McCain would reign in spending from the RNC, but he refused

Gaborn said:
No, it's actually an excellent decision on his part and very admirable. the taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for a candidate whether we agree with them or not and we're in enough debt as it is, not that 89 million is much of the total federal budget but every bit we don't have to spend is helpful.

Taxpayers choose whether or not to put money into the fund. Its an option on your tax return
 
Diablos said:
Gotta wonder how Obama feels about it.

So far his inaction speaks volumes. He has arguably the #1 platform to speak from regarding this issue and by and large, he's been silent. Yes, he is against teleco amnesty. However, by speaking out he could galvanize support like no other congresscritter could right now and really put this issue to bed.
 

maynerd

Banned
kame-sennin said:
Why would this make you happy? I'm really disappointed in Obama. I think this would have been a major step forward in cleaning up our government, and would've had an affect on our shitty Congress who have been so ineffective due to their financial ties.

I could be wrong but haven't all candidates taken public financing since like the 70s or something? I'm not sure how going with the way things have been going for so long is taking a step forward.
 

Dupy

"it is in giving that we receive"
Incognito said:
Cave to the White House and Teleco's. "Conditional Immunity". These companies have more than likely been indemnified so financial litigation isn't a concern to them. I wonder what keeps them up at night, then..

Well that's some bullshit.
The House Democratic leadership's decision to move forward on the measure reflects a calculation by House leaders to complete action on the issue, to prevent it from becoming a distraction in a campaign season during which they hope to focus on economic, not national-security issues.

Uh, what about that other campaign promise of "undoing 8 years of the Bush administration" that you just help sweep under the rug? What the fuck?
 
Obama: You Wanna Talk About 9/11? Well, Let's Talk About 9/11!

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_lets_talk_about_911.php
"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let's talk about 9/11.

"The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors -- the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we'd be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

"Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership -- the people who murdered 3000 Americans -- have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."
In the video I watched of this speech, Obama called McCain "Weak" on National Security.

Hell yeah.. Bring it!
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Vlad Rudy Has Returned from the Fear Mongering Netherworld

While Senator Obama helps flooding victims in Iowa, and counsels hard-working college students who are having trouble managing their growing tuition debt, the McCain campaign, meanwhile, has cracked open the seal on their emergency Feargasm Lock Box and unleashed a terrible mythological force.

With a blinding white light, a loud bang and a puff of wig powder, he's emerged from the netherworld of Republican politics like a hunched, creepy, bulbous-foreheaded genie -- shamelessly rattling off his "Very Best Of" compilation of fear mongering slogans -- most of which include those two words (September 11th) without which he would have no power whatsoever on the national stage.

2008-06-18-20070911bram_stokers_rudy.jpg



In addition to a prepared statement that resurrects the antiquated "pre-9/11 mindset" talking point from the 2004 Bush campaign, Vlad Rudy participated in a conference call today in which he made the forthcoming remark -- a comment so misguided in its inaccuracy and so cynical in its exploitative reasoning that it ought to be etched into a cement tablet and placed in a gutter in lower Manhattan, allowing future generations of Americans to spit upon it.

Gules said:
"It is fair to say that Osama Bin Laden would be given new rights that nobody ever had before."

:lol
 

Cyan

Banned
bob_arctor said:
:lol

Oh man, I'd love to see this Youtubed:

McCain 2008 said:
"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
McCain 2005 said:
"Try them or release them. I think the key to this is to move the judicial process forward so that these individuals will be brought to trial for any crime that they are accused of, rather than residing in [the] Guantanamo facility in perpetuity."
 
CowboyAstronaut said:
I was wondering when it was going to happen. It doesn't surprise me one bit that it has begun. This is the real reason we went into Iraq folks!

Oil companies go where the oil is, it doesn't say anything about the initial impetus behind Bush wanting the war. You're making connections based on assumption of conspiracy, which isn't a particularly good way to come to a conclusion.

Personally, from everything I've been able to discern, Iraq was far more about Bush's desire for a legacy of democratically transforming the middle east, than grabbing oil. He's an ideologue of the most dangerous kind.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
wait, didn't Rudy's pre-9/11 mindset convince him that placing his emergency command center in WTC7 (you know, in the same general area that was attacked last time) was a good idea?

or the same pre-9/11 mindset that failed to update the communications radios for emergency responders?

RUDY RUDY RUDY RUDY!
 

3rdman

Member
Here in Miami, as I was hanging out at home, I got a call from the Obama campaign regarding helping them organize their "Unity" event to be held nation wide at people's home. He also asked if I would volunteer or allow an intern to stay at my house.

Did anyone else get this call?
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
Gaborn said:
No, it's actually an excellent decision on his part and very admirable. the taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for a candidate whether we agree with them or not and we're in enough debt as it is, not that 89 million is much of the total federal budget but every bit we don't have to spend is helpful.

Yes, how admirable of him to take the option that let's him get a huge fundraising advantage :lol :lol :lol

I don't blame him one bit for opting out- he'd be stupid to throw away that kind of advantage. But let's call it what it is- a flip flop that makes the most sense politically, not some sort of grand selfless gesture.
 

Clevinger

Member
schuelma said:
Yes, how admirable of him to take the option that let's him get a huge fundraising advantage :lol :lol :lol

I don't blame him one bit for opting out- he'd be stupid to throw away that kind of advantage. But let's call it what it is- a flip flop that makes the most sense politically, not some sort of grand selfless gesture.

It doesn't have to be the two extremes you two describe.

As for flip-flopping: If he had pledged to use public financing, then he'd be flip-flipping. But he didn't; he pledged to pursue it with his rival. And unless those meetings with McCain's people truly are lies from the Obama camp, he didn't flip-flop.
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Deus Ex Machina said:
Elizabeth Hasselbeck on Hannity

What an asshole she is. Totally throwing Michelle Obama under a bus and doubting her sincerity because of rev wright.

Michelle was flawless and dignified this morning on The View and the Hasselbeck threw nothing controversial her way, she apparently saved up all her spew to unload on Hannity.

Why didn't she say that shit to Michelle's face this morning?!

Er, because she's a fucking coward, a moron, and an opportunist? Ive never heard anything insightful come out of her mouth. All she has for her is her fuckability, which I guess qualifies her to spew her vacuous thoughts on air.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
Clevinger said:
It doesn't have to be the two extremes you two describe.

As for flip-flopping: If he had pledged to use public financing, then he'd be flip-flipping. But he didn't; he pledged to pursue it with his rival. And unless those meetings with McCain's people truly are lies from the Obama camp, he didn't flip-flop.


Obama as a pretty long history of being for public financing. Whether he flip flopped on whatever his last statement was, its pretty clear he's flip flopped his overall position.

Which, as I said, I can't blame him for. As Halperin said today, his campaign would be sued for malpractice if they didn't opt out. Doesn't mean he shouldn't take some heat.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
schuelma said:
Yes, how admirable of him to take the option that let's him get a huge fundraising advantage :lol :lol :lol

I don't blame him one bit for opting out- he'd be stupid to throw away that kind of advantage. But let's call it what it is- a flip flop that makes the most sense politically, not some sort of grand selfless gesture.
Obama has always caveated that he would try to work out an agreement with the Republican nominee, not an unconditional promise to use public funds no matter what.

Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, charged that Mr. Obama had “broken his word.”

In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Bear in mind that Obama has been successful at stymieing funding for many (but not all) 527 groups, true to his word. McCain has given his 527's free reign. If Obama took public funds, this alone would put him at a huge disadvantage. It would mean he would either have to go back on his word about reigning in 527s in order to balance things out (which really would be breaking a pledge), or ceding a major advantage to McCain. Which he's not willing to do (understandably).

Of course this benefits him by leveraging his formidable fund raising network, but it's not the broken pledge you and others are making out to be.
 

harSon

Banned
schuelma said:
Yes, how admirable of him to take the option that let's him get a huge fundraising advantage :lol :lol :lol

I don't blame him one bit for opting out- he'd be stupid to throw away that kind of advantage. But let's call it what it is- a flip flop that makes the most sense politically, not some sort of grand selfless gesture.

Do you really want to make an argument on the grounds of 'Flip Flopping'?
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
harSon said:
Do you really want to make an argument on the grounds of 'Flip Flopping'?


As I suspected, everyone here is taking this as some sort of personal attack against Obama/endorsement of McCain.

This has nothing to do with McCain- he's been a flip flopping fool lately. If anyone here wants to argue he hasn't, I'll debate them too. Obviously that won't happen here.

My point was pretty simple in my initial post-this wasn't some selfless gesture and to claim otherwise is just incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom