• 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.

Cheebs

Member
Obama + Water bottle + Biden:
Joe%20Biden%20Obama%20Clinton%20from%20the%20blarg.jpg
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
speculawyer said:
Au contraire . . . I am VERY supportive of efforts that would give a greater voice to 3rd parties. In my view, the best ideas are:
-Instant run-off voting (where you rank your candidate preference in order so you never have to feel that you are 'throwing away' your vote by voting 3rd party
-Proportional representation (give people multiple votes that they can spread around or give all to one candidate)
-Public financing of campaigns (If you can get on ballot, you get even funding with the others.)

I think the LP views against campaign finance reform are naive and simplistic. They are completely shooting themselves in the foot since existing campaign financing supports the existing winners.

The problem I have with many libertarian ideas is that they sound great in theory. The problem is that the utopian view that under a truly laissez-faire system that there would be no corruption and every conglomerate would be kept in check by the free market is so far from reality that I don't even know where to begin. I guess my problem is that it's a bit too optimistic.

Of course there are some great libertarian ideas that would work and should be implemented, but an entire libertarian agenda/run government would be a disaster - much like an entire communist or truly socialist run government. Hence, I support a middle ground and I see Obama as being capable to provide such middle ground.
 

Diablos

Member
She didn't rise from the dead, the MSM was just being stupid and jumping the gun to be first/get better ratings/have something to talk about/etc.

Pretty awful that they spent so long talking about it when they obviously didn't even have 100% confirmation. Kira Philips getting snobby with that guy on the phone after they learned she's still alive looked so poor. It was your mistake, you fuckwits. Be fortunate the guy didn't call you out live.

Annnnyway, I find it amazing that Sen. Schumer get next to zero coverage on his attempts to end unnecessary speculation while McCain talked about more drilling and his fairy tale results...

The MSM has reached a new low this year, guys. It always has had problems being objective and reporting real news, but in a few years state-run media will have a chance to look as good as American media should quality continue to suffer. It's unfortunate.
 
reilo said:
The problem I have with many libertarian ideas is that they sound great in theory. The problem is that the utopian view that under a truly laissez-faire system that there would be no corruption and every conglomerate would be kept in check by the free market is so far from reality that I don't even know where to begin. I guess my problem is that it's a bit too optimistic.

Of course there are some great libertarian ideas that would work and should be implemented, but an entire libertarian agenda/run government would be a disaster - much like an entire communist or truly socialist run government. Hence, I support a middle ground and I see Obama as being capable to provide such middle ground.
bu bu bu bu I thought Obama was a MARXIST PINKO COMMIE
 

Drek

Member
perfectchaos007 said:
Actually it will, just not right away. And also since Oil prices go lower and higher based on speculation, if enough people BELIEVE drilling will help our problem, then Oil prices WILL go lower.
The U.S. has less than 3% of the world's remaining oil resources. Much of it, such as the Bakken formation, isn't economically retrievable at this time. Much of the rest is OCS drilling, which is impractical at less than $65 a barrel, so only a marginal savings over the current price per barrel, and that is assuming much of the current price is based on legitimate supply v. demand and not rampant speculation (which it is). You factor in the standard economist estimate of 25-40% of the current oil price being speculation produced and even on the low end 65 dollar barrels of oil are going to do VERY little to remedy the problems we have with gas prices.

Add the fact that last I checked Exxon, BP, etc. were in no way required to sell U.S. oil within the U.S., and the fact that China and India have big demands for oil and that if the Russian/Georgian conflict gets further out of hand Europe will be looking for a new provider and you see a scenario in which oil prices could very well only go up while the last of our economically retrievable oil is being siphoned off to the global market.

Don't forget the fact that OPEC produces over 35% of the oil in the world annually and they have been doing amazingly well thanks to the high price of oil (much like Russia). If we start putting more oil into the global market (where any additional drilling will go) they can simply pull back an additional 2-3% and keep the price exactly where it is or send it even higher, at their discretion.

The only thing that keeps OPEC on their toes right now is that we have enough oil to survive without them just long enough to make the change to a post-petrol energy system. Its why we have successfully used the ANWR drilling bluff in the past to scare down oil prices. ANWR and OCS are the big sticks we get to waive when OPEC and Russia get too out of hand. As soon as you start burning pieces of that stick to keep yourself warm it gets a lot less intimidating.
 
Hillary Backers In Pennsylvania Meet Privately With Top McCain Adviser

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/hillary_backers_in_pennsylvani.php
A brother of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and local Democrats who backed her unsuccessful presidential campaign socialized privately Monday with a top surrogate of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.
The private gathering featured Carly Fiorina, Mr. McCain's top economic adviser, and took place at the Dunmore home of political consultant Jamie Brazil, a longtime friend of Mrs. Clinton's family who has signed on as paid national director of Mr. McCain's Citizens for McCain Coalition.

The attendees included Tony Rodham, Mrs. Clinton's youngest sibling, his wife, Megan, and their two children; attorney Kathleen Granahan Kane, who coordinated Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign in Northeast Pennsylvania during the primary election; and Virginia McGregor, sister of Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty.

With the Democratic National Convention less than a week away, the gathering raises questions about the support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama can expect from former local supporters of Mrs. Clinton, who dominated at the polls in the Northeast in the April primary election.


Via Mark Halperin, who calls it "essential reading." Obama's Pennsylvania campaign, wisely, declined to comment.
I will say this one time only.

If Hillary is proven to be egging these Republican disruptors on behind the scenes, if she is playing fast and loose with this election by continuing to undermine it, and then attempts a run in 2012, I will actively work to see that she does not win then. She will not have my vote or my support. Period.
 

Cheebs

Member
Deus Ex Machina said:
Hillary Backers In Pennsylvania Meet Privately With Top McCain Adviser

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/hillary_backers_in_pennsylvani.php

I will say this one time only.

If Hillary is proven to be egging these Republican disruptors on behind the scenes, if she is playing fast and loose with this election by continuing to undermine it, and then attempts a run in 2012, I will actively work to see that she does not win then. She will not have my vote or my support. Period.
Tony Rodham has always been a bit of a black sheep in the Rodham family, I wouldn't read THAT much into it.


Oh and ABC has a video of Biden with his logs talking about the dump:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/average-joe-has.html
 

Diablos

Member
Deus Ex Machina said:
Hillary Backers In Pennsylvania Meet Privately With Top McCain Adviser

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/hillary_backers_in_pennsylvani.php

I will say this one time only.

If Hillary is proven to be egging these Republican disruptors on behind the scenes, if she is playing fast and loose with this election by continuing to undermine it, and then attempts a run in 2012, I will actively work to see that she does not win then. She will not have my vote or my support. Period.
Holy shit. :lol

If this is seriously true... :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
 
Cheebs said:
How the hell does picking Biden mean Obama can't get anything done with a democratic senate and house backing him up?

You rather losing if you don't get the VP you want is absurd. Sometimes I think you like Selebius more than Obama. You praise and talk about her way more than Obama.

Biden neutralizes the experience argument, period. The main problem Obama has is that they media wants to have it both ways. If Obama picks someone like a Biden, that means Obama has gone with a Beltway insider and that negates his change message. If Obama goes with someone like a Tim Kaine, that means Obama has an inexperienced ticket and gets hammered by the press. It's a lose-lose. For most voters, I don't think the experience argument will really stick as long as the candidate sounds competent. The problem is that the press rails against Obama daily on this issue and bring it up ad nauseum. McCain then jumps on the bandwagon and then it becomes an issue.

Deus Ex Machina said:
Unity Call: "Stephanie Tubbs Jones may be taken off life support"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...may-be-taken-off-life-support-2008-08-20.html


large_jones.jpg


This sad news about a strong Democrat who was key figure in our primary battles really hit me hard as a sobering reminder of how suddenly life can render our internecine spats secondary.

I was never a fan of her 'politics' but this is a sad time. Hopefully this can minimize some of the vitriol going into the convention.

woeds said:
I think the debates will be the deciding factor. If McCain gives the same stump/POW answers he did at the Warren debate and the press tells people McCain=Maverick crusader, then I think Obama will have a very tough time come November.

Fixed.
 

Tamanon

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
"Average Joe Has a 'Successful Dump'" has got to be one of the best headlines ever. I swear I've seen "Area Man Has Successful Dump" at the Onion. :lol

Goddammit, I want to make a "McCain is old" joke out of that headline SO BAD!
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
maximum360 said:
Biden neutralizes the experience argument, period. The main problem Obama has is that they media wants to have it both ways. If Obama picks someone like a Biden, that means Obama has gone with a Beltway insider and that negates his change message. If Obama goes with someone like a Tim Kaine, that means Obama has an inexperienced ticket and gets hammered by the press. It's a lose-lose. For most voters, I don't think the experience argument will really stick as long as the candidate sounds competent. The problem is that the press rails against Obama daily on this issue and bring it up ad nauseum. McCain then jumps on the bandwagon and then it becomes an issue.

Hence why he'll pick Clark!
 

JayDubya

Banned
speculawyer said:
Au contraire . . . I am VERY supportive of efforts that would give a greater voice to 3rd parties. In my view, the best ideas are:
-Instant run-off voting (where you rank your candidate preference in order so you never have to feel that you are 'throwing away' your vote by voting 3rd party
Sure.
-Proportional representation (give people multiple votes that they can spread around or give all to one candidate)
Getting kind of ehh, here.
-Public financing of campaigns (If you can get on ballot, you get even funding with the others.)
WTF?!
 

tanod

when is my burrito
GhaleonEB said:
"Average Joe Has a 'Successful Dump'" has got to be one of the best headlines ever. I swear I've seen "Area Man Has Successful Dump" at the Onion. :lol

I missed the part about the logs and just read the part about the succesful dump. Joe Biden would / hopefully will be an awesome VP candidate.
 
Tamanon said:
Eh, the fetus bill you're talking about seemed like it was unnecessary at the time, the state already had a law on its books saying that any aborted fetus that was still alive afterwards legally required care. It's just really a smear, you don't think Hillary of all people would've beat this into the ground if there was any substance?
Tamanon said:
Squirrel: It wasn't legal, that's the point. There was already a law on the books saying that what she claims to have witnessed was illegal.
And yet, aborted infants (as soon as it's outside the mother, it's no longer a fetus) that were still alive weren't given that care and, as you pointed out, no charges were filed. I would note again, that I can't find anyone connected to the story denying Stanek's claims.

Guileless said:
And what is your source that Illinois already had a law on the books? The information I have seen is that the state's attorney general released an official opinion that there was no law preventing hospitals from witholding treatment from babies who were born alive during an attempted abortion and allowing them to die, which made the law necessary in the first place.
The source is Sen. Obama saying just that. Can you link to that opinion? It sure would explain a lot.

Tamanon said:
The reason I bring up Stanek's activism is that she's actively paying for billboards in Africa that state that condom use will kill you. That immediately throws anything she says into wingnut territory.
Tamanon said:
Here's the main reason I don't buy Stanek's story.
faithful%20condom2.jpg

"Faithful condom users die"
As disgusting and misleading as those HLI billboards are, where are you getting that Stanek is responsible for them? All I can see is that she agrees with them and links to HLI's donation site. Which is bad in it's own right, but I'm not sure it's enough for me to discount everything she says, especially when what she says on BAIPA appears to be validated by the record.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
perfectchaos007 said:
Actually it will, just not right away. And also since Oil prices go lower and higher based on speculation, if enough people BELIEVE drilling will help our problem, then Oil prices WILL go lower.
if that's the case, why don't we all play make believe and announce the discovery of 50 trillion barrels of oil off the Flordia coast.

or better yet, we could regulate the futures market more. regardless i doubt global supply/demand will allow crude to drop that far. and the promise that offshore drilling will somehow stave our dependence on foreign oil or tamp down prices is unlikely.
 
Drek said:
The U.S. has less than 3% of the world's remaining oil resources. Much of it, such as the Bakken formation, isn't economically retrievable at this time. Much of the rest is OCS drilling, which is impractical at less than $65 a barrel, so only a marginal savings over the current price per barrel, and that is assuming much of the current price is based on legitimate supply v. demand and not rampant speculation (which it is). You factor in the standard economist estimate of 25-40% of the current oil price being speculation produced and even on the low end 65 dollar barrels of oil are going to do VERY little to remedy the problems we have with gas prices.

Add the fact that last I checked Exxon, BP, etc. were in no way required to sell U.S. oil within the U.S., and the fact that China and India have big demands for oil and that if the Russian/Georgian conflict gets further out of hand Europe will be looking for a new provider and you see a scenario in which oil prices could very well only go up while the last of our economically retrievable oil is being siphoned off to the global market.

Don't forget the fact that OPEC produces over 35% of the oil in the world annually and they have been doing amazingly well thanks to the high price of oil (much like Russia). If we start putting more oil into the global market (where any additional drilling will go) they can simply pull back an additional 2-3% and keep the price exactly where it is or send it even higher, at their discretion.

The only thing that keeps OPEC on their toes right now is that we have enough oil to survive without them just long enough to make the change to a post-petrol energy system. Its why we have successfully used the ANWR drilling bluff in the past to scare down oil prices. ANWR and OCS are the big sticks we get to waive when OPEC and Russia get too out of hand. As soon as you start burning pieces of that stick to keep yourself warm it gets a lot less intimidating.



.... tire pressure. DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW FOR A MORE SECURE AMERICA!!!!!


J/K, great post.
 

librasox

Banned
I really don't see what Lieberman has to gain by supporting McCain. Republicans hate him, Democrats probably hate him even more now, he never had a chance of being the VP nominee...

Seriously, all this over a disagreement on the war when Lieberman and Obama agree on 95% of other issues is a bit puzzling, to say the least.
 

Tamanon

Banned
syllogism said:

A web site in Tennessee, nashvillepost.com, had reported that he would make such a trip, citing sources in Denver. That triggered a wave of excitement and panic among the traveling reporters, who have all signed up for the text message that Obama plans to send out to supporters when he makes his pick -- but are otherwise spending their time waiting for clues, however meaningless and small.

Ouch!
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
siamesedreamer said:
Tapper is reporting Bayh's wife is apologing in advance to her neighbors of an impending media blitz on their DC street.
Well considering what is happening to Biden I'm not surprised
 
librasox said:
I really don't see what Lieberman has to gain by supporting McCain. Republicans hate him, .
What? He never would have won his recent election if it were not for Republicans. Even Hannity fawns all over the guy.
 
Just read this...

Bayh joined President George W. Bush and Congressional leaders in a Rose Garden ceremony announcing their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and was thanked by Bush and Senator John McCain for co-sponsoring the resolution.

Yeah, I'm not quite feeling Evan Bayh at the moment...
 

Tamanon

Banned
speculawyer said:
What? He never would have won his recent election if it were not for Republicans. Even Hannity fawns all over the guy.

That doesn't say much, Hannity absolutely despised and loathed McCain until he won the nomination and was facing Obama.
 
ToyMachine228 said:
Just read this...

Bayh joined President George W. Bush and Congressional leaders in a Rose Garden ceremony announcing their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and was thanked by Bush and Senator John McCain for co-sponsoring the resolution.

Yeah, I'm not quite feeling Evan Bayh at the moment...
CheckmateD.jpg
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Tamanon said:
That doesn't say much, Hannity absolutely despised and loathed McCain until he won the nomination and was facing Obama.

The only thing Hannity loves are right-wing talking points and its agenda. Period.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
speculawyer said:
What? He never would have won his recent election if it were not for Republicans. Even Hannity fawns all over the guy.
Republicans dont' like him. They were just using him.
 

TDG

Banned
ToyMachine228 said:
Just read this...



Yeah, I'm not quite feeling Evan Bayh at the moment...
This has been brought up time and time again, but again; it's not like Iraq is a big issue this election, or Bayh hasn't changed his view on Iraq, or Biden didn't support the war at the time either.

The reality is this: Bayh is a good, charismatic democrat who appeals to midwesterners, and republicans. He was a terrific governor, and his record of tax cuts is certainly something that should make voters happy. All of that is enough for me to think that he'd be a good running mate. When Obama says he wants someone who won't just be a yes man as his veep, that definitely doesn't mean that he's going to be holding grudges about bad decisions from years past.
 
the disgruntled gamer said:
This has been brought up time and time again, but again; it's not like Iraq is a big issue this election, or Bayh hasn't changed his view on Iraq, or Biden didn't support the war at the time either.

The reality is this: Bayh is a good, charismatic democrat who appeals to midwesterners, and republicans. He was a terrific governor, and his record of tax cuts is certainly something that should make voters happy. All of that is enough for me to think that he'd be a good running mate. When Obama says he wants someone who won't just be a yes man as his veep, that definitely doesn't mean that he's going to be holding grudges about bad decisions from years past.

I'm not saying he wouldn't be. But I'd be much more comfortable with many other picks. But just the fact that he stood alongside Bush and McCain to authorize the war makes my skin crawl. Would I be against him as VP? No. But are there other people I'd prefer? Definitely.
 
Deus Ex Machina said:
Hillary Backers In Pennsylvania Meet Privately With Top McCain Adviser

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/hillary_backers_in_pennsylvani.php

I will say this one time only.

If Hillary is proven to be egging these Republican disruptors on behind the scenes, if she is playing fast and loose with this election by continuing to undermine it, and then attempts a run in 2012, I will actively work to see that she does not win then. She will not have my vote or my support. Period.

she has nothing to do with it. she cant help it if a contingent of her supporters are batshit
 
Tyrone Slothrop said:
she has nothing to do with it. she cant help it if a contingent of her supporters are batshit

Maybe so, but then again she can be blamed for riling up her supporters the way she did even knowing she was going to lose by continuing to fight on the way she did.
 

Cheebs

Member
the disgruntled gamer said:
This has been brought up time and time again, but again; it's not like Iraq is a big issue this election, or Bayh hasn't changed his view on Iraq, or Biden didn't support the war at the time either.

The reality is this: Bayh is a good, charismatic democrat who appeals to midwesterners, and republicans. He was a terrific governor, and his record of tax cuts is certainly something that should make voters happy. All of that is enough for me to think that he'd be a good running mate. When Obama says he wants someone who won't just be a yes man as his veep, that definitely doesn't mean that he's going to be holding grudges about bad decisions from years past.
And Bayh outright apologized for his vote on the war saying he was wrong, Hillary never did that, not even to this day.
 
ToyMachine228 said:
Maybe so, but then again she can be blamed for riling up her supporters the way she did even knowing she was going to lose by continuing to fight on the way she did.
Yes, especially in regards to the disingenuous argument of wanting to count Michigan and Florida after the fact. Even now, some people think that she was screwed out of the election because of that, and she fanned those flames with her grasping at straws cries for every vote needing to count.
 
if hillary sincerely wanted mccain to win she sure as hell wouldn't be out stumping for obama - in NM, no less, with bill "judas" richardson. if that doesnt show she's trying to mend wounds then nothing does
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Squirrel Killer said:
The source is Sen. Obama saying just that. Can you link to that opinion? It sure would explain a lot.

The letter.

Here's the clearest explanation I have seen. There is really nothing in the MSM yet. As Ponnuru explains it, "Illinois law has rules — loophole-ridden rules, but rules — requiring treatment of babies who have “sustainable survivability.” If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital “abortions” were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That’s why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap."

If this is correct, the law would protect a baby born as a result of "an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus". So under existing Illinois law, according to Ponnuru, a pre-viable baby who has already been born has the same legal status as a fetus in the womb, i.e. that the mother could elect to kill her. Since he takes care to use the modifier "pre-viable," I assume a viable fetus that survived an abortion would have been protected with or without the new law, though I don't understand why. It's very confusing, even by the standards of abortion law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom