• 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 Thread of First Debate Election 2008 - GAF doesn't know shit

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Beavertown

Garbage
RubxQub said:
I can't tell what you're trying to say.

They obviously made the video for a reason, right? They didn't take the time mashing up those clips and editing the text just for shits and giggles and posted it on their youtube account...right?

It's not meant to be an "ad", it's meant to be a video distributed around the internet.

*scratches head*
Click to expand...



Yeah, looks like an ad or reminder if you will, that you need to get your ass out there on the 4th and vote, or our worst nightmare might come true.
 
A

Agent Icebeezy

Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Zeliard said:
Why the fuck does Gaborn like McCain? Or anyone on the right? These are people that are doing their best to destroy any possibility of equal rights for gays.
Click to expand...

Gaborn has this crazy idea about gay rights. He feels that by supporting the guy who doesn't give a shit about gay rights, this causes a revolt or a movement. By supporting the guy that gives them way more benefits and entitlements, but not all, he feels that people will become comfortable in their ways by saying that we might have gotten enough. You have to get in where you fit in and take as much as you can when you can get it.
 
D

Door2Dawn

Banned
Obama hates gay people,so it makes sence that gaborn doesn't like obama.

of course we know what obama doesn't hate gay people,but gaborn says he is,so it has to be true.
 
D

domokunrox

Banned
RubxQub said:
CNN's replaying bits of the debate right now, and they have a camera angle where it's over the shoulder of Barack looking at McCain.

When Barack goes into his "You were wrong" tirade, it seriously looks like a superior yelling at an inferior. Barack is looking right at him and raising his voice, and McCain just kind of looks straight ahead, seemingly ashamed or embarrassed.

I really don't get this body language of McCain. I honestly believe he either hates Barack so much that he can't look at him without exploding, or he literally was fearful.

Crazy either way.
Click to expand...

This right here. I saw this as well and it made me go "wow".

I also saw the other angle for while McCain was talking and Obama was in the back, and he was looking right at him.

Obama looked strong, McCain looked weak.

Infact, McCain sounded like he was going to cry for the first two minutes of him talking. Made you feel bad for him. He was a deer in headlights and Obama just ran him over on economy, oil, and Iraq.
 
Z

Zeliard

Member
Agent Icebeezy said:
Gaborn has this crazy idea about gay rights. He feels that by supporting the guy who doesn't give a shit about gay rights, this causes a revolt or a movement. By supporting the guy that gives them way more benefits and entitlements, but not all, he feels that people will become comfortable in their ways by saying that we might have gotten enough. You have to get in where you fit in and take as much as you can when you can get it.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I remember now. He believes that gay rights are somehow being inherently limited by Barack's support for civil unions, as opposed to McCain's lack of support for anything.

That is some mystifying logic. Nothing ever gets done/fixed without progress, and while civil unions are not gay marriage, they are progress. I can understand him being upset that Obama doesn't support gay marriage (that annoys me as well), but that is nothing compared to how McCain and the rest of the right view it, and it's still a step in the right direction.
 
M

Mgoblue201

Won't stop picking the right nation
Agent Icebeezy said:
Gaborn has this crazy idea about gay rights. He feels that by supporting the guy who doesn't give a shit about gay rights, this causes a revolt or a movement. By supporting the guy that gives them way more benefits and entitlements, but not all, he feels that people will become comfortable in their ways by saying that we might have gotten enough. You have to get in where you fit in and take as much as you can when you can get it.
Click to expand...
"More of the same" might cause a movement, but it will also polarize people into the extremes of their views. Those who are against homosexuals will be driven further into that belief. But if you take things slowly, I think that the general person will realize that it's inevitable and become comfortable with it. It's not like homosexuals created a revolt by staying "in the closet". They came out and made people comfortable with the idea. Things will change, but the society must adapt to it slowly.

I never had a chance to debate Gaborn on the point, but I just thought I'd mention that.
 
D

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
domokunrox said:
This right here. I saw this as well and it made me go "wow".

I also saw the other angle for while McCain was talking and Obama was in the back, and he was looking right at him.

Obama looked strong, McCain looked weak.

Infact, McCain sounded like he was going to cry for the first two minutes of him talking. Made you feel bad for him. He was a deer in headlights and Obama just ran him over on economy, oil, and Iraq.
Click to expand...
is there a video of this?
 
L

Lesath

Member
GhaleonEB said:
I didn't care for that video. It scared the shit out of me. :(
Click to expand...

I thought it was ingenious. If you pay attention, it had McCain at 51% and Obama at 49%, with the caption "Voter Turnout Lower than Expected," implying every little vote had the potential to tip the scales. It serves as a good motivator for disillusioned and overconfident Democrats to get out there and actually vote.
 
K

KibblesBits

Member
RumpledForeskin said:
You lose your rights when you go against nature.
Click to expand...

29ehr2q.jpg


Gay Seagulls says hai!
Maybe my ignore list too. :lol
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Stoney Mason said:
Stop arguing with Dr Cogent. He is a poor man's APF.

Speaking of APF where is that fellow. I would be interested in his thoughts on the debate. Scorcho or Mandark also.
Click to expand...
On substance I thought the debate was OK. The economic section was worthless, with both candidates choosing to punt rather than discuss the credit crunch and stalemate on the Capitol. Neither candidate talked about the specifics of the Dodd/Paulson plan, no one brought up the abortion that the GOP laid out on the 11th hour. Obama edged McCain here, (primarily because his economic policies just make sense (tm) and he didn't focus on earmarks for 10 minutes) but he could've eviscerated McCain had he taken more time to discuss portions of the proposed plan and the genesis of the crisis. If people tuned in expecting answers on the bailout from either candidate they were probably disappointed.

On foreign policy - I was a bit surprised that McCain walked back from his 'bomb bomb Iran' posture during the primaries. He's still prattling futilely about a new, better League of Democracies that would somehow reign in Iran by sanctions without including Russia or China (something which Obama tagged him rightly for), and the rote discussion about a brewing Soviet menace (he may not know the President of Spain, but by god he can recall every political faction in every former Soviet state to a T) must've given him an erection. Obama nailed McCain's purported judgment on invading Iraq and refocusing our efforts to regime change and democracy promotion. His Pakistan position sucks (at least as a stated policy) and, wtf, he supports a missile shield and said nothing about Georgia's reckless actions? Ugh.

As to the rest there was no discussion on China's growing global clout, and nothing on the US-India nuclear deal, which makes me scratch my head. I think those two will have a longer impact on our foreign policy than Iran or North Korea.
 
L

Learn2read

Member
This posted?

McCain Camp insiders say Palin "clueless"
Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people
are more than concerned about Palin.

The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just part of the expectations game, but if true, Holy Crap...this is going to be brutal.
 
Z

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
Cyan said:
Terrible ad. That's not going to run on TV or anything, is it?
Click to expand...

Note the brief line near the end of the video.

"Voter Turnout Lower Than Expected"

...and then all the other points.

It's clearly a video meant to pump people up for their voter registration campaign.
 
Z

Zeliard

Member
scorcho said:
On substance I thought the debate was OK. The economic section was worthless, with both candidates choosing to punt rather than discuss the credit crunch and stalemate on the Capitol. Neither candidate talked about the specifics of the Dodd/Paulson plan, no one brought up the abortion that the GOP laid out on the 11th hour. Obama edged McCain here, (primarily because his economic policies just make sense (tm) and he didn't focus on earmarks for 10 minutes) but he could've eviscerated McCain had he taken more time to discuss portions of the proposed plan and the genesis of the crisis. If people tuned in expecting answers on the bailout from either candidate they were probably disappointed.
Click to expand...

It seemed to me like both Obama and McCain were a bit taken aback by the economics discussion. I think they believed the debate would be almost solely about foreign policy, despite the recent economic troubles in this country, and it started right off the bat with the latter. Lehrer kept having to ask the same questions.

I expect both will do much better when it comes to economics in the next debate, which should concentrate solely on it.
 
K

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
theBishop said:
I walked past the Palin "Watch Party" in Philadelphia last night. There were tons of protesters! Probably 500+ crowded around the Irish Pub on 20th and Walnut. I took some pictures with my cell phone, but they came out blurry:

Lots of people were holding signs like "I can see russia from here!" or "Pro-Science, Anti-Palin". It was a lot of fun. :lol
Click to expand...
Damn, I knew I should have walked by after work.
 
C

Cyan

Banned
Mgoblue201 said:
"More of the same" might cause a movement, but it will also polarize people into the extremes of their views. Those who are against homosexuals will be driven further into that belief. But if you take things slowly, I think that the general person will realize that it's inevitable and become comfortable with it. It's not like homosexuals created a revolt by staying "in the closet". They came out and made people comfortable with the idea. Things will change, but the society must adapt to it slowly.

I never had a chance to debate Gaborn on the point, but I just thought I'd mention that.
Click to expand...
[sorry, I've been wanting to get this out of my system]

Gaborn is nuts. Even if he's right about the time-frame question, he's still wrong on the issue as a whole. He claims that 90-95% of the way there (i.e. legalized civil unions) isn't good enough, and that once we get there it will take much longer to get to 100% (i.e. marriage).

Ok, let's look at this from a utility perspective. Say that Gaborn's idea wins out, and things stay the same for 10-15 years, then suddenly everybody changes their minds at once and gays can marry. 10 years of 0 utility, then 100% utility. Now let's say that instead, legalized civil unions happen right away. 90% utility. But it takes a long time to get to 100%... say 50 years.

Total utility of civil unions before marriage happens: 50 * .9 = 45
Total utility of no civil unions, and marriage quickly: (10 * 0) + (40 * 1) = 40

Mathematical!

Seems pretty clear to me. (incidentally, with these assumptions it'd require 100 years of civil-unions-without-marriage for Gaborn to be right)
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
mamacint said:
This posted?



Maybe it's just part of the expectations game, but if true, Holy Crap...this is going to be brutal.
Click to expand...
It's a ruse. Palin's playing possum to lower expectations for the debate, at which point she'll shame both Ifill and Biden with a 30 minute lecture on the effect that proposed EU enlargement will have on the security relationship with the US and NATO, especially vis-a-vis Russia's fear of encirclement and the potential should Turkey decide to withdraw its membership.

Seriously, the McCain camp's fucking with us.

Zeliard said:
It seemed to me like both Obama and McCain were a bit taken aback by the economics discussion. I think they believed the debate would be almost solely about foreign policy, despite the recent economic troubles in this country, and it started right off the bat with the latter. Lehrer kept having to ask the same questions.

I expect both will do much better when it comes to economics in the next debate, which should concentrate solely on it.
Click to expand...
McCain couldn't bring himself to read Paulson's three-page draft for a week before he parachuted into the White House to save the economy, so his ignorance is to be expected I guess. I think Obama should've been all over this question, but the politics of supporting something the public doesn't like probably factored in here.
 
Z

Zeliard

Member
bdizzle said:
LOL Biden is awesome, I can't wait for the Palin/Biden debate. It will be a glorious clusterfuck
Click to expand...

Some people are convinced it won't even happen, and I honestly don't blame them. It's literally throwing Palin out to the wolves. Not only is Biden considerably more knowledgeable than her, particularly on foreign policy, but he is also a strong debater and always comes off as very sure of himself. If you've seen Palin recently, you'll notice that she has completely lost any confidence she's ever had. She is demoralized, and that along with her general incompetence and lack of knowledge is going to be magnified in the debate.

It's going to be ugly. Beautifully ugly.
 
D

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
mamacint said:
This posted?



Maybe it's just part of the expectations game, but if true, Holy Crap...this is going to be brutal.
Click to expand...
They're worried that Biden may take her arguments and make them to carrot.
 
V

vitaflo

Member
scorcho said:
It's a ruse. Palin's playing possum to lower expectations for the debate
Click to expand...

I honestly think she's just in over her head, however, because the reaction to Couric's interview has been so negative, the expectations are so low that if she's able to give just generic answers without rambling like an idiot, it may play to her advantage.

At this point the best thing she can do is have everyone forget about her.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Cyan said:
[sorry, I've been wanting to get this out of my system]

Gaborn is nuts. Even if he's right about the time-frame question, he's still wrong on the issue as a whole. He claims that 90-95% of the way there (i.e. legalized civil unions) isn't good enough, and that once we get there it will take much longer to get to 100% (i.e. marriage).

Ok, let's look at this from a utility perspective. Say that Gaborn's idea wins out, and things stay the same for 10-15 years, then suddenly everybody changes their minds at once and gays can marry. 10 years of 0 utility, then 100% utility. Now let's say that instead, legalized civil unions happen right away. 90% utility. But it takes a long time to get to 100%... say 50 years.

Total utility of civil unions before marriage happens: 50 * .9 = 45
Total utility of no civil unions, and marriage quickly: (10 * 0) + (40 * 1) = 40

Mathematical!

Seems pretty clear to me. (incidentally, with these assumptions it'd require 100 years of civil-unions-without-marriage for Gaborn to be right)
Click to expand...

Don't bother. He's a conservative who can't reconcile the fact that he supports a party whose base thinks he's a perverted monster, so he's latched onto a scheme whereby he can justify it to himself. sadly, he keeps dragging us down with him.
 
S

Stoney Mason

Banned
Cyan said:
[sorry, I've been wanting to get this out of my system]

Gaborn is nuts. Even if he's right about the time-frame question, he's still wrong on the issue as a whole. He claims that 90-95% of the way there (i.e. legalized civil unions) isn't good enough, and that once we get there it will take much longer to get to 100% (i.e. marriage).

Ok, let's look at this from a utility perspective. Say that Gaborn's idea wins out, and things stay the same for 10-15 years, then suddenly everybody changes their minds at once and gays can marry. 10 years of 0 utility, then 100% utility. Now let's say that instead, legalized civil unions happen right away. 90% utility. But it takes a long time to get to 100%... say 50 years.

Total utility of civil unions before marriage happens: 50 * .9 = 45
Total utility of no civil unions, and marriage quickly: (10 * 0) + (40 * 1) = 40

Mathematical!

Seems pretty clear to me. (incidentally, with these assumptions it'd require 100 years of civil-unions-without-marriage for Gaborn to be right)
Click to expand...

Gaborn entire view on this issue is based on a paradigm of separate but equal via the civil rights movement and hard line moral absolutism via his views on libertarianism. I think is realistic to advance gay rights or a true model of the world in the 21st century but it is what it is.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Two things I noted from TPM:


The gist:

Everything John McCain did on stage last night was consistent with trying to score tactical points in those 90 minutes.

....

Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes -- cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.

.....

But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways "safe" and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him.

....

For years and years, Democrats have wondered how their candidates could "win" the debates on logical points -- that is, tactics -- but lose the larger struggle because these seemed too aggressive, supercilious, cold-blooded, or whatever. To put it in tactical/strategic terms, Democrats have gotten used to winning battles and losing wars. Last night, the Democratic candidate showed a far keener grasp of this distinction than did the Republican who accused him of not understanding it.
Click to expand...
I think that's why a lot of us reacted the way we did. We wanted quick, blow-by-blow victories. But Obama had his eye on the bigger picture.

As usual.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
T

Tobor

Member
Deus Ex Machina said:
This is a great pic. 20,000 people!

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/page...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

610x.jpg

US Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama (lower L, white shirt) supporters try to catch a glimpse of him as he greets supporters at J. Douglas Galyon Depot during a rally running mate Joe Biden, in Greensboro, North Carolina, September 27, 2008
Click to expand...

It still amazes me that the polls are as close as they are when I see pictures like this. People do not do this for politicians in America. It doesn't happen. I still have the feeling that the bulk of this crown are un-pollables, and this thing could break wide open on the day.
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
Deus Ex Machina said:
This is a great pic. 20,000 people!

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/page...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

610x.jpg

US Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama (lower L, white shirt) supporters try to catch a glimpse of him as he greets supporters at J. Douglas Galyon Depot during a rally running mate Joe Biden, in Greensboro, North Carolina, September 27, 2008
Click to expand...

I'm curious. I haven't seen many photos from McCain's rallies, but are there as many people with cameras hoisted in the air at McCain outings? I'm wondering if people aren't feeling this sense of history when they cross paths with Obama (or maybe it's just misperception since I haven't seen many photos from McCain rallies). Even in Europe when he was in Germany as well...
 
M

Mr.Squirrel

Tom
Zeliard said:
Some people are convinced it won't even happen, and I honestly don't blame them. It's literally throwing Palin out to the wolves. Not only is Biden considerably more knowledgeable than her, particularly on foreign policy, but he is also a strong debater and always comes off as very sure of himself. If you've seen Palin recently, you'll notice that she has completely lost any confidence she's ever had. She is demoralized, and that along with her general incompetence and lack of knowledge is going to be magnified in the debate.

It's going to be ugly. Beautifully ugly.
Click to expand...

No this has to happens, this debate will determine who I vote for :lol. I'm more excited for this debate than any video game release in history. Once she said "well the bad guys are the guys that doesn't like Israel, and we shouldn't question Israel ya know, cause they're the good guys. And like you can see Russia from my backyard, so that's pretty awesome. One time I looked up and saw Putin in space I was like dude sweet!"

After that I realized the amount of lolz that will come from the debate will be MONSTROUS!!
 
C

CharlieDigital

Banned
scorcho said:
Wonder if this corresponds to the trend to Obama in VA - http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/09/vote-for-obamab.html

Lang's been very critical about Obama over the course the last year and has held his cards while predicting McCain's victory for some time now. It's good to see McCain's recklessness the last month is swaying some (influential) people.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, Clinton to the SC? I haven't heard that one before....but holy shit....
 
R

Rur0ni

Member
scorcho said:
It's a ruse. Palin's playing possum to lower expectations for the debate, at which point she'll shame both Ifill and Biden with a 30 minute lecture on the effect that proposed EU enlargement will have on the security relationship with the US and NATO, especially vis-a-vis Russia's fear of encirclement and the potential should Turkey decide to withdraw its membership.

Seriously, the McCain camp's fucking with us.


McCain couldn't bring himself to read Paulson's three-page draft for a week before he parachuted into the White House to save the economy, so his ignorance is to be expected I guess. I think Obama should've been all over this question, but the politics of supporting something the public doesn't like probably factored in here.
Click to expand...
:lol
 
C

Cyan

Banned
OuterWorldVoice said:
Don't bother. He's a conservative who can't reconcile the fact that he supports a party whose base thinks he's a perverted monster, so he's latched onto a scheme whereby he can justify it to himself. sadly, he keeps dragging us down with him.
Click to expand...
Stoney Mason said:
Gaborn entire view on this issue is based on a paradigm of separate but equal via the civil rights movement and hard line moral absolutism via his views on libertarianism. I think is realistic to advance gay rights or a true model of the world in the 21st century but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
I know it's pointless to argue about it, but sometimes you just can't help it.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
ronito said:
Dr. Cogent is GAF's cranky old man riding around on his rascal pausing only to shake his cane above his head and tell everyone how stupid they are and how superior he is. When asked for proof or confronted of he rides off into the gaming side on his rascal to do the same over there.
Click to expand...
:lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Trump holds town hall that's totally not debate prep you guys
2 3
149
22K
Mahonay replied
  • Locked
Politico: Democrats dread Hillary's book tour
2 3 4
187
16K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
The Democratic National Committee Chair Debate |OT| - Dem One: A Politics Story
2
79
8K
kirblar replied
  • Locked
RNC suspending GOP Feb '16 debate with NBC (Because lol CNBC)
2 3 4 5
212
19K
OuterLimits replied
  • Locked
GAF Elects: Help Elect a Democratic Senate
2 3
101
12K
jiggle replied
Top Bottom