Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Knicks Beat Lakers With Familiar Strategy

OT: Election Thread

IF YOU DON"T LIKE THIS THREAD, DON'T READ IT. There is plenty of baseball stuff here to keep  you busy if you don't want to read about the election.

Today is one of the most important days in American history. We are about to elect either the first African-American president, or the first female vice president. Interest in the election is sky-high, turnout should be excellent, and whoever wins is inheriting big messes on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts.

It will be on everyone's mind today, so here is a thread to discuss it.

DO NOT LET THIS DEVOLVE INTO A FLAME WAR. DO NOT ALLOW POLITICS TO INFILTRATE BASEBALL THREADS. BE CIVIL TO EACH OTHER!!!  I recent had a good dinner with a friend of mine who has diametrically opposed poltiical beliefs, and we had a political discussoin, and it was friendly and courteous even when we disagreed. Follow that example.

The only thing I am going to say about the election is that people should vote, people MUST vote. Democrats, Republicans, and independents have all fought and shed blood under the same flag. Do not let those brave men and women down. Fulfil your civic responsiblities.

 

Comment 266 comments  |  6 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I voted this morning

I voted in my first presidential election this morning. I’m proud to say that I voted for Obama and I’m hoping that all the polls predicting an Obama win will prove to be true. Regardless of who wins, though, I agree with John that it’s important for us as a nation to be able to discuss our differences without it turning into a name calling inflammatory mess. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing. What’s important is respecting each other and keeping an open mind, in my opinion.

by joltinjoe on Nov 4, 2008 9:21 AM EST reply actions  

And usually

on this site people have manage to keep things very civil. John you deserve an award or something…

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 9:42 AM EST up reply actions  

I voted McCain

But I agree that whoever wins we are still in the greatest country in the world and I will wish the best for our new president.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions  

McCain

The thing I don’t understand about his campaign is his desire to move from being essentially middle of the road to the right. The move appealled to the ultra-conservative republican base but alienated many other middlers. If he would have stayed in the middle (not picked Palin), he could have kept some of these people, and its not like the ultra-cons were going to jump ship and vote for Obama, were they?? Not that its over, but the polls certainly suggest a steep hill to climb.

We always did feel the same, We just saw it from a different point of view, Tangled up in blue.
-Bob Dylan

by Royal Kingdom on Nov 4, 2008 9:23 AM EST reply actions  

Sold his soul

to the devil to win an election…. But think about what a better place this would be if he won the Republican primaries in 2000.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 9:41 AM EST up reply actions  

yep.

We always did feel the same, We just saw it from a different point of view, Tangled up in blue.
-Bob Dylan

by Royal Kingdom on Nov 4, 2008 9:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Reformed Maverick

Anyone see that piece on the Daily Show? It was hilarious, but it was chilling.

by aap212 on Nov 4, 2008 10:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Move Right

McCain’s move right was necessary to get many base votes, though. While they weren’t going to go vote Obama, it’s very possible conservatives might have just stayed home, and McCain wasn’t drawing as many moderates as Obama was. He got caught between a rock and a hard place, it seems to me, and played to get surefire conservative votes instead of having to keep competing over moderates. Not sure if it was the right move, but I at least see what he (or his managers) was thinking. I’m just not sure the “Fire up the base” strategy would work for anybody in ‘08 the way it did in ’00 and ’04. We’ll find out tonight (or maybe tomorrow morning :) )!

by mookstra2 on Nov 4, 2008 9:49 AM EST up reply actions  

agreed

I fit into the category of people who were ‘energized’ by the selection of Palin and attempting to move to the right. I do believe that McCain was only doing so to get people like me on his side, and I don’t like that politicians do that, but it did make me feel better about voting for him.

You are right, that while I would not have voted for Obama I may have just not voted for a president at all(voted in the other races though) or I would have researched and picked an independant.

Still, looks like a long shot for McCain to win based on the polls. While I may not like Obama winning, perhaps it is good to switch parties in the White House now and again. It is not over yet, though, so we’ll see how it ends up.

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 10:00 AM EST up reply actions  

But there are so many better running mates he could have picked if he wanted to energize the base

There are plenty of conservatives who actually have credentials and a track record and who don’t come off as having an IQ around 100.

By the time he picked Palin, he was already losing enough that he needed a gamechanger. She did that for about a week or so, but the economic downturn really killed him.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions  

yep

You are right that there were people who would also have energized the base and been less risky… i.e. lower risk similar high reward…

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Didn’t he want Lieberman but the Republican party threatened to try and make him ineligible for not being a Republican? The whole VP selection process and days leading up to it were certainly an interesting time in these two campaigns.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Hindsight is 20/20

Sanford would have been a better choice, as would have Coburn, but only if you consider the economic crisls.

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

The Palin Pick

Solidified my dislike of McCain, one that I only recently adopted.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

Had McCain picked almost ANY other running mate, I would have voted for him, but because of the Palin selection, I voted for Obama this morning.

by lylew on Nov 4, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Agree

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. I felt he was a moderate when it came to the economy based on his resistance against the Bush tax cuts, but in this campaign, he is deepening the cuts on going further to the right. These kinds of inconsistencies make it hard for me to vote for him.

I am voting in about 2 hours. I am leaning Obama but I am still a little undecided.

Palin is one of the worst politicians I have ever seen. That could be the dealbreaker for me.

by count sutton on Nov 4, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions  

No matter who you vote for..........

PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!
On a side note I think John, Myself and a few of us posters could sit down and solve the countries problems better than people who are in politics for a living. But thats a side note….
Your vote counts… You cant complain if you dont vote!

by Maxima231 on Nov 4, 2008 9:35 AM EST reply actions  

It's nice to say but you know, that's really not true

I mean we can’t have a diplomatic deal to decide who is the #28 prospect in the game. Just imagine what would happen if we fought over whether to spend billions of dollars on health care or tax cuts.

TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems

by OldProspects on Nov 4, 2008 10:26 AM EST up reply actions  

Haha

I almost made a post in this thread a few times before deciding against it but thought this was pretty funny and spot on. Of course the anonymity we have when sitting behind a computer on the internet is part of the problem with the arguments we have here but still it’s fairly clear the community would have a heck of a time even coming to a consensus on where to eat if we were all going out together for the night without the discussion deteriorating to one huge flamefest. It’s sad but this site is one of the worst in terms of the community treating each other with respect that I frequent. Because of that, this thread will probably be locked before it’s all said and done but it should be an interesting read while it lasts.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 10:36 AM EST up reply actions  

Going Obama

I think the choice of Sarah Pailn as VP is an insult to the American public. She’s not stupid by any stretch, but the reality is that she is a hired skirt selling sex appeal. She’s Britney Spears on a ballot and now that it appears they are about to lose, the Republican’s have already started throwing her under the bus, when it’s their own fault for putting her there in the first place – you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

John McCain was electable in my eyes up until he sold his soul to the right. The way his campaign turned away from what he was about to an increasing attack on Obama has been a real turn off and speaks volumes about what he has become. When you have to rely on attacks in place of selling your platform, you’re desperate and dodn’t have a solid platform of your own. That and the whole premise of how hate/racism was allowed to endure at these Palin-lead rallies is offensive as anything I’ve ever seen. By not squashing these chants and allowing the ignorance to fester, the Republican party showed us all their true colors IMO. Some of those rallies were nothing more than stupid hicks that want to bang Palin – and the campaign fed off it, killing any respect I had left for McCain. The threat of Palin being one heartbeat away from the Presidency scares the fucking shit out of me. She is completely unqualified and clueless when it comes to an office that big.

McCain may not be Bush, but he voted with him 90% of the time. We need a change of direction.

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 9:50 AM EST reply actions  

Palin

I am not sure I agree with the Palin=Britney Spears comment. I believe it was more a ploy my McCain to do 2 things. 1, get people who are on the religous right engergized(like me) and 2 to do a ‘maverick’ thing, i.e. something not expected because thats what he likes to do.

Was it smart? I can’t say. Got me more comfortable with voting for someone who is left of my views. But, l do not think it gained any votes from a ‘shes a woman’ standpoint. In that, I mean if it gained any votes for that, it eaesily lost votes from others for the lack of experience side…

As someone who voted twice for Bush, I do agree with your last statement in needing a change of direction. McCain isnt the change I would have preferred(I voted for someone else in the primary) but I do not want the change Obama talks about. hope I’m wrong, though, and it is good for the country.

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 10:05 AM EST up reply actions  

Hmmm..

Earthquakes and lightning strikes are unexpected – doesn’t make them maverick / good. I whole-heartedly believe Palin was a calculated move selling sex appeal. She energized people alright – energized them right in their libido. Screw reason, they went right for the testosterone flood gates. It worked at first – she DOMINATED headlines that were firmly in Obama’s favor up until then. Problem was, there was too much time until the election and she was allowed to talk – cancelling any gains she made for the campaign.

It was at least an intersting choice initially. But then we found out who she is (and more importantly who she isn’t) it then became clear to me she was nothing more than a hired skirt. How anyone can vote to put her within realistic reach of the Presidency is beyond me. McCain could drop at anytime at his age – he doesn’t even have to die, just become debilitated by illness/stroke, etc. and whammo – we got pointin’ Palin winking at everybody running the country and the Constitution right into the ground. She is utterly clueless at the the Federal level of government. Utterly clueless.

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 10:22 AM EST up reply actions  

agree to disagree

we can agree to disagree about the ‘hired skirt’ comment.

just a note, on my ‘maverick’ comment, I did not say it was a good thing to be a maverick, just that he was doing that in his selection. IMO.

Personally, I like Palin. I think she speaks fairly well, better than many other politicians. I have no problem with the ‘you betcha’s’ and the winks, etc… Its her personality and it is different than what is common today. Different isn’t always good, but in this case I think so.

I suppose one big reason I like Palin is her religous views and how she is not afraid to state her opinion. I do understand how people would be opposed to her if they do not agree with her views. Much the same that I am opposed to H.Clinton. Difference of opinion.

The knock on Palin’s national security/foreign policy experience is valid. However, I would suggest that Obama isn’t much better prepared on that subject. The hope would be, for any president, that they have the proper people appointed to advise them on the issues.

For the record, while I do like Palin from a political standpoint, I do think it was a big risk for McCain to select her as his VP candidate. With all that has occured, it may not have worked.

Regarding how anyone can put her so close to the Presidency, I could say the same for Obama. He doesn’t have any more elected time in office than does Palin. In both cases, I would put faith in the proper people being selected to fill out the cabinet positions. Who is ready to lead in any and all areas? No one, that is why the cabinet positions are so important. Maybe more important…

Speaking on the Constitution, I do not see how people believe Palin would run it into the ground anymore than any of our past politicians have. It is being shredded so fast it is quite scary.

In the end, I hope the right person gets elected, and that they get elected without a major contention. i.e. the Bush/Gore 2000 election was terrible because it left a lot of people with bitter feelings. As a country, we need to unite to help fight off the problems we are facing. If the person to best do that is Obama, great then I hope he gets in. If McCain, then I hope for him. etc…

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 10:49 AM EST up reply actions  

My only problem with her “personality” is if say Hillary were to act and talk that way, the Republicans would have tore her apart. To take that one step further, what if a man were acting that way? She is basically just reinforcing predefined gender roles and norms which happens to appeal to a lot of people that think that is how a woman should act. On the flip side, going back to Hillary you can see this again when she comes off as a bitch for her personality.

I have nothing against Palin, I just think the Republicans played her card WAY to early and she simply wasn’t prepared well enough for what was to come. I don’t necessarily agree with the skirt-for-hire comment either but I definitely think it was a gimmick to sway voters (which you agree with only we have a different opinion on exactly what swaying they were trying to do) but with enough time to gain experience I imagine she could be just as qualified and able to do the job as the next person. I do however have to question someone who was quoted as saying she felt dinosaurs and man walked the Earth at the same time but I suppose that is better than my bible school teacher who told me dinosaurs didn’t exist and that it was basically all made up. Also her comments about earmarks (like the planetarium projector and the funding for fruit fly research which happens to be where a large percentage of our genetic research comes from) were pretty astonishing as well. In the end though, she simply wasn’t ready and I hope for her sake this whole experience doesn’t make her the scapegoat or crutch of the GOP.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 11:00 AM EST up reply actions  

Oof.

“Regarding how anyone can put her so close to the Presidency, I could say the same for Obama”

Are seriously going to put Palin’s “experience” as a mayor of BFA (Bum-Fuck Alaska) and being a Governor for less than 2 years of America’s 3rd smallest population state on par with someone who finished at the top of his Harvard Law class, has 2 terms serving as a state Senator and who has actual experience in Washington as a Senator? That’s not even close.

Sure Obama has ascended pretty quickly, but there is some substance there. I think he has enough experience to warrant the position, while at the same time, hasn’t been there long enough to become indoctrinated into the good ’ol boys network in Washington. A deadly combination to the status quo.

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 11:01 AM EST up reply actions  

I think the concerns about Obama’s experience are just as valid but I do really dislike how they seem to be using Obama’s education as an attack point and example of how he was elitist. Poor children earning their way into Harvard and leaving at the top of your class with a prestigious degree should be something EVERYONE should be encouraging all of our youth to accomplish not scoffing at it. I do think your posts are coming off incredibly extreme but I agree slightly with some of the points.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 11:06 AM EST up reply actions  

Voted this morning.

Longest lines I’ve ever seen. Hell, longest lines the election ladies have ever seen.

by Vlad on Nov 4, 2008 9:53 AM EST reply actions  

Where was this?

TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems

by OldProspects on Nov 4, 2008 10:27 AM EST up reply actions  

John is right

This is a very important day in American history. It’s just a complete shame that we have two terrible candidates to choose from. I am going with the “lesser of two evils” in McCain. I did not like his choice of VP in Palin at all, and she has proven to be a complete disaster for him.

My problem with Obama is simple. I live in Chicago – his home state and city. Chicago is probably the most politically corrupt city in the nation (scandals galore, with politicians being thrown into jail on a regular basis), and the state of Illinois is probably the most politically corrupt state in the country (thanks mainly to Chicago). Obama keeps preaching change – but what is he really going to do for the country if he has not even changed anything in his own home city and state? I really, really think those Americans that vote for Obama thinking he is going to change things are going to be terribly disappointed. I know he’s a wonderful speaker and all (reminds me a lot of Clinton actually), but is being a good speaker the main attribute we want in a President? Based on his track record, he is not going to change a darn thing.

by guru4u on Nov 4, 2008 10:01 AM EST reply actions  

Ehh..

I think this reasoningis terrible. The Chicago corruption machine has some deep roots that have been taking hold since before Obama was even born. Expecting a State Senator in his first 2 terms to solve the level and pervasiveness of the corruption you’re talking about is completely unrealistic. A President whose party will most likely control the House and Senate by a wide margin – now there is some hope for change.

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions  

congressional job approval ...

… hasn’t been above 25 percent in any poll tracked by RealClearPolitics since February. It hasn’t been above 20 percent in any poll in a month.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

More power for a body of legislators who gaze longingly at Bush’s ratings. Enjoy.

by whichthat on Nov 4, 2008 10:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Chicago is very Boss Tweed,

but honestly unless Obama’s been involved in any scandals, I’m not worried. If there was a scandal with substance involving Obama, it would have come up. Obama does have questionable associations, but really flimsy one. He got a house from a corrupt man, his preacher is critical of America, he served on a board with a man who was basically a large scale vandal (the word terrorist is used as a scare tactic — the man destroyed property, but he didn’t hurt anyone, it was actually protest of the Vietnam War).

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Advance Voting

I waited 3 hours on Friday for advance voting just outside Atlanta.

Atlantans may have enough enthusiasm to swing the whole state for Obama, but mostly I am hoping that the distastefully Saxby Chambliss gets his comeupance.

by aCone419 on Nov 4, 2008 10:07 AM EST reply actions  

I really want Chambliss out

I doubt Obama pulls enough to win the electoral votes in Georgia, but if he can help enough downticket to get Saxby Chambliss out of there, it will be a major victory. He’s probably an FBI probe waiting to happen anyway. There are few present-day politicians who are as morally corrupt as Chambliss.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions  

I voted...

Absentee… first time I was eligible.

I voted for Senator McCain and Governor Palin, though, so I think I’ll keep a low profile here…

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 10:39 AM EST reply actions  

Don't hesitate to say why

No one’s been too critical so far.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Sure, why not...

1. I’m a libertarian- smaller government, less invasive social restrictions. I differ with the LP on foreign policy and abortion, but I don’t really vote on abortion- I’m one of the few voters that could care less.
2. I chose McCain/Palin, but not for JSMIII- I preferred Gov. Palin.
3. Sen Obama is incredibly weak on international affairs- we don’t broadcast intentions to leave a country we’re occupying. Sure, the Iraqi government has authorized a timetable, but it’s dependant on the conditions on the ground. Without that dependancy clause, we risk screwing up the country and all the progress it’s made. I do like Sen. Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy, but I don’t think he’s willing to use the stick to back it up. He also stepped in it with his “invade Pakistan” sentiments- sure, both candidates would attack Pakistan if they had a chance to nab OBL, but you don’t broadcast that to the world. You bomb, and then deny it like we have been doing to avoid massive international crises.
4. McCain’s judicial picks were big for me. I don’t give a damn about Roe vs. Wade, but I do care about the recent reversal of the DC gun ban and property rights as defined in Kelo v. New London. We’ll see gun rights protected and Kelo reversed with a conservative shift on the USSC. I was also a fan of Gov. Palin signing legislation to allow same-sex couples the right to opt into state benefits in Alaska- I thought it was a great move, and kind of sounds to me like a “Nixon to China” move- only a Republican will be able to support and pass a gay rights package in today’s political climate.
5. The economy is mostly out of the hands of the president. Short of cutting massive amounts of useless government regulation, the USFG can’t do anything to help the economy, and neither candidate wants to do that (silly them!). I was more of a McCain guy here because of his insistence to draw the line when it comes to spending.
6. Gov. Palin was a deal maker for me- her stance on gay rights and a slightly more liberal stance on contraceptive education (despite what the media says) makes her a bit more of a libertarian, and she was a hardcore corruption buster in AK. Unfortunately, the McCain campaign didn’t handle her right, and she should have been briefed and prepped in a way that could accentuate her positions, as opposed to the positions in which she agreed with Sen. McCain.

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Very defensible positions

I think you voted for good reasons, generally. I don’t know that I agree that McCain has more libertarian tendencies than Obama in light of his Senate votes in the past 6 years and some of his recent policy statements (i.e. a housing bailout, etc.), but at least your stance seems well thought-out, which is more than the majority of voters out there.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions  

He doesn't...

Palin, however does. I want McCain as a placeholder for either her or Gov. Bobby Jindal, a man who I believe is one of the brightest minds in politics today.

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 5:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Go Jindal!

100% agreed, I have a man-crush on Jindal!

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Jindal, in favor of a good exorcism

He’s extreme. Wait till the Dems dump their oppo file on him.

by Flynn Blake on Nov 5, 2008 5:20 AM EST up reply actions  

Jindal

Brilliant man, great politician, but an extreme right winger.
He’ll make a run at president one day, hopefully a failed run.

by eastin on Nov 5, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Well said

You articulated the reasons to vote for McCain better than he did.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Gay rights?

Palin vetoed legislation denying same-sex couples to receive state benefits – because she was explicitly told by the state Attorney General that it was unconstitutional. Moreover, she expressly stated that she would support an initiative to amend the constitution and overturn that decision.

So if you think Palin is actually a social libertarian and espouses equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, I think you’ve been misled…

by ManConley on Nov 4, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Have not seen that...

I’ll have to look into it… it’s not one of my top issues, so I don’t really care that much, but it’s something. Thanks.

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions  

We Are Very Similar Politically

Have not heard the stuff about Palin and the same-sex marriage stuff – but that does agree with my political sentiment.

by Dfarth on Nov 4, 2008 6:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Voted last month

I was supposed to be out of town today, so I obtained an absentee ballot. Turns out, I got home from my business trip early enough to do early voting if I’d wanted to. Maybe I should have voted twice! I think that’s a felony, though, and with Texas going big for McCain, it wouldn’t have been worth it.

I voted for Obama, mainly for McCain’s dive to the extreme right and his choice of Palin as VP. Had McCain stayed as moderate as he had once been and not listened to the Rovian crowd (well, he probably wouldn’t still be running, Romney would), I might have been persuaded to vote for him.

I’m no Obamaniac, and I am concerned that his demeanor will be not be conducive to working with Congress and forcefully pushing through a renewable energy, education, and affordable health-care agenda that is needed. I think he has the smarts to articulate his policies, and that his policies will be sufficiently well-thought out that they might actually work, but that it will require far better knowledge of the Washington system than he currently has to make them happen. Still, I can tolerate that better than McCain’s kowtowing to the Christian Right, with which I vehemently disagree on almost every issue. I also think we need a more internationalist, law-enforcement approach to dealing with terrorism, shoring up our alliances with the other western democracies and friendly Arab countries to get them to help us round up the worst of the worst. The unilateralist, military-heavy tendencies of McCain, while slightly less egregious than Bush, are still not the right way to go.

by tim_l on Nov 4, 2008 10:47 AM EST reply actions  

I read this morning that democrats were getting text messages this morning in Texas telling them that democrats vote on Wednesday. :(

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Obama

I EASILY voted for Obama!
The thought of Sarah Palin as president is embarrassing to me as a U.S. citizen.
And deep down, I think its time to get the democrats back in power as the Republican side just hasnt been getting the job done.

by bkmhoxx on Nov 4, 2008 11:02 AM EST reply actions  

So you think that McCain is going to die in the next 4 years?

Because that is the only way Palin would ever become president if she were to win the VP.

by dougdirt on Nov 4, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah I definitely think it’s possible and something that is a valid concern. He is 72 so would be 76 when the term is up which happens to fall in line with the average life expectancy but he has lived a pretty hard life and already had a couple of scares with cancer. I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to think he might pass away before his first term was up…of course I hope that doesn’t happen. I know some reports say he is in great shape which is good to hear.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 11:15 AM EST up reply actions  

Then Again...

People didn’t think Cheney would make it.

Tim Lincecum is Baseball's Chuck Norris

by Azantor on Nov 4, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Cheney

Cheney right now is younger than McCain.

by aCone419 on Nov 4, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

And wouldnt have stood to be president so it wasnt as big a deal

I see the future, and it is Pablo

by CB30 on Nov 4, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions  

yes

what do you think the Vice President is for?
thats the first thing you learn in High School political science.
You must vote for the VP as if they would be the president.

McCain has had past health issues. That is a fact.
Cancer and Heart!

by bkmhoxx on Nov 4, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions  

What?

The Vice President is there for if the President dies.

I’d say that most of the times, a vice president is there as an advisor to the president. Yes, he is a replacement for the president if he dies, but that’s not his main job. Of course 8 years of Dick Cheney also made me rethink a “just advisor” thing as he’s taken a much more active role.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 4, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions  

yes

that is the end all purpose of the VP, is too replace the president.

this rarely happens of course (thank goodness) but it is crucial!

by bkmhoxx on Nov 4, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Yes..

This is the strict constitutional definition, but how many vice presidents will just sit at home and wait for the president to die in office while they’re just watching TV?

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 4, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions  

it doesnt matter

that is what the VP is for. You have to look at it like that, otherwise, whats the point of having one?

“The Constitution gives the vice president the role of presiding over the Senate, and voting in the Senate if there is a tie. The vice president’s only other formal responsibility is taking over the presidency if the president dies.”

Tiebreakers, going to important funerals and taking over if the president dies.
thats it.

by bkmhoxx on Nov 4, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I would like to see..

a VP then preside over the Senate and then go home and collect his money while just sitting in his house then.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 4, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions  

McCain

is not the one who is a lifelong smoker; to me that shows mental weakness, but alas I will stay out of this.

by uwbadger on Nov 4, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions  

So if you smoke, you are mentally weak? Is their a timeline cut off on this? Or does this statement go back through time? I just wonder what percentage of people on the planet (including presidents) this statement applies to dating back the last 3000 some years. :)

Besides someone in their late 40’s who smokes is probably less likely to keel over in the next 4 years than someone who is in their early 70’s who has actually had cancer already.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions  

bakcs up my point

Biden or Palin?

thats the easiest decision i will ever make!

by bkmhoxx on Nov 4, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Lots of

smart people smoke. In the 70s, 80s, cigarettes were a mainstay in every home. No one knew of the dire consequences that we do now.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions  

remember

9 out of 10 doctors smoke Pal-Malls
hehe

by bkmhoxx on Nov 4, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions  

That's totally bogus

According to the actuarial tables, he has an 85-90% chance of surviving his first term.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Not exactly

While the 33% number sounds made up, if we are using actuarial tables, the chance of him passing in the next 4 years is almost exactly 15%.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

However, those rates apply to the average member of the aggregate; John McCain has multiple bouts with cancer, and being president is much more stressful. I would speculate that his chances, if elected, would exceed that of the average 72 year old.

Just look at LBJ; he was younger and refused to run for re-election because he wasn’t sure he could handle another term, and died almost exactly for years later.

by aCone419 on Nov 4, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

You are misinterpreting

Those tables say that a male who has reached the age of 72 has a life expectancy of 12.01 years. Sounds about right.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Different statistic

I wasn’t referring to life expectancy. The poster above was referring to the chance of death in a four year period from 72-76.

The table shows that out of ~67,000 72 year old men, ~10,000 will die by the age of 76 which is approximately 15%.

by aCone419 on Nov 4, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Oops

I thought you were saying “passing” as in making it through, rather than passing away.

So he would have an 85% chance of surviving his first term, not 33%.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Sort of

That’s if he’s Johnny Average, not Cancerous McStressington.

by aCone419 on Nov 4, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Exactly

It’s a bit offensive, but you’re right.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 11:45 PM EST up reply actions  

What's totally bogus

Is trying to apply these completely generic probabilities to A.) someone who will have perhaps the most stressful job in the world and B.) already had some life-threating health issues.

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions  

ok

You somewhat have a point. Maybe it’s not 85, but unless there’s something shocking in his health report that we haven’t heard about, it’s a lot closer to 85 than 33%.

On the other hand, he seems to come from hardy genetic stock, with many relatives living into their 90s so maybe that cancels it out. Who’s to say?

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Who's to say...

I completely agree. Who the hell knows. At the same time, common sense/intuition makes me think it’s probably close to 60/40 if not 50/50 – and that’s just death. All kinds of shit can go wrong that would render him unable to perform his duties without actually dying. But regardless, I’m not even willing to take a 1% chance on Palin becoming president!

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 5:50 PM EST up reply actions  

OK

That’s your right to be scared out of your wits about Palin. I certainly am about Obama.

I’d like to know exactly why, though. Please reference my post below, in which I defended Palin. No one has yet even touched my points in favor of her. I’m not quite sure where this is coming from.

As far as I can tell, the argument goes that she’s dumb, because she had one or two bad interviews when she was getting used to the national stage. The interviews were made to look even worse than they really were by creative editing.

Anyway, please see my post below and then respond to it. I’m genuinely curious exactly what is so bad about her.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Palin

You don’t have top look much further than her views/party and I’m out. I said in my original post in this thread that she certainly isn’t stupid, so that’s not it. Say what you want about creative editing, she was just terrible in the interview I saw. When asked about the Bush Doctrine – she didn’t even know what it was! And it’s not like they edited / moved stuff around – she flat had no clue. I don’t want to hear how she was or wasn’t prepped, that’s just lame. Same with this “in charge of the Senate” nonsense… she may be a fine local politician, but she is in over her head when it comes to national government workings and structure. Maybe she’ll be ready in the future, but she’s not right now to be sure.

Say what you want about Obama’s experience – between his education and actual dealings within a larger government framework, he is exponentially more qualified than Palin is at this point IMO. I’m sorry, but the mayor of a town of less than 10,000 just isn’t anywhere in the same neighborhood as state Senator. Can’t find exact numbers, but I’m willing to bet Obama represented about as many people in the Illinois state senate than there are in the whole state of Alaska. In my hometown of 30,000, the mayors job is part time and is more ceremonial than anything.

Governor and US Senator may be a little closer, but c’mon – Alaska is the 47th state in pouplation – it’s not a very prestigious position to be jumping off into the White House. It’s a very laid-back state and if it doesn’t have something to do with wilderness preservation or oil, there’s not a lot of substance to their politics.

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 6:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Talking points, nothing but talking points

That’s all she had in this campaign. She is incurious and uneducated. Four colleges in six years? Who does that?

So she’s been busy raising four kids. (It’s not five — I’d bet dollars to pesos that she’s a recent grandma, and that’s Bristol’s kid. Otherwise why bury her health records?) Raising four kids is noble work, along with being governor, but they’re not a training ground to be #2 to the most powerful man in the world. What’s more, her husband doesn’t have an education, her future son in law doesn’t, her oldest son doesn’t and her preggo daughter doesn’t. The jury is still out on the two youngest daughters. That’s not my idea of an ideal presidential family.

“But people identify with her. She’s one of them.” It’s time to ditch this notion that the mediocre and the unremarkable deserve representation in government. If the last eight years didn’t disavow people of the notion that you should vote for president based on the guy you want to have a beer with, or who best represents your religious views, then nothing will.

by Flynn Blake on Nov 5, 2008 5:29 AM EST up reply actions  

+1

It’s impossible to trust that someone is going to uphold the Constitution when their grasp on it is sketchy at best. They must not stress it too much in the Alaskan school system. Hard to believe someone with her background was put in that position.

by slurve on Nov 5, 2008 8:47 AM EST up reply actions  

Interesting

I voted for Bob Barr. I voted for him not so much because I really like him – but I absolutely love the libertarian party and what it stands for (from Wikipedia):

    * Adoption of laissez-faire principles which would reduce the state’s role in the economy. This would include, among other things, markedly reduced taxation, privatization of Social Security and welfare (for individuals, as well as elimination of “corporate welfare”), markedly reduced regulation of business, rollbacks of labor regulations, and reduction of government interference in foreign trade.
    * Protection of property rights.
    * Minimal government bureaucracy. The Libertarian Party states that the government’s responsibilities should be limited to the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud.
    * Strong civil liberties positions, including privacy protection, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and sexual freedom.
    * Opposition to civil rights laws that regulate the private sector, such as affirmative action and non-discrimination laws.
    * Support for the unrestricted right to the means of self-defense (such as gun rights, the right to carry mace or pepper spray, etc).
    * Abolition of laws against “victimless crimes” (such as prostitution, driving without a seatbelt, use of controlled substances, fraternization, etc.).
    * Opposition to regulations on how businesses should run themselves (e.g., smoking bans)
    * A foreign policy of free trade and non-interventionism.
    * Support for a fiscally responsible government including a hard currency (commodity-based money supply as opposed to fiat currency).
    * Abolition of all forms of taxpayer-funded assistance (welfare, food stamps, public housing, Health care, etc.)

What I am just extremely disappointed in is that almost no one in this thread has said I voted for Obama (or McCain) because I really agree with his principles and believe that he will do good things for the country. Instead, most of the comments are I voted for Obama (or McCain) because I dislike his opponent in this way. Even worse, many of the votes are for a candidate because they dislike the opponent’s VP choice – that seems crazy to me. Did anyone not vote for Bill Clinton because they did not like Al Gore? Or for George Bush I because they didn’t like Michael Dukakis?

Anyways, this little rant is really just to encourage everyone to not feel obligated to vote for the major party candidates if you don’t agree with them. Sure, your vote may have less impact in this election but it feels pretty damn good voting for someone you agree with and it may actually make a big difference in the future.

by Dfarth on Nov 4, 2008 11:22 AM EST reply actions  

“What I am just extremely disappointed in is that almost no one in this thread has said I voted for Obama (or McCain) because I really agree with his principles…”

You opened your post up with “I voted for him not so much because I really like him – but I absolutely love the libertarian party.” That is great that you want to encourage people to vote for 3rd party candidates if they aren’t happy with McCain/Obama but I’m not sure you really supported your next to last paragraph when you open your post up with you don’t necessarily like the candidate you voted for.

I’ll just add that I think the country would have incredible problems if all of those things bulleted above actually happened. Basically zero regulation on anything but the government? I’m not saying we couldn’t afford to scale back a bit on assistance and regulation on some policies but I think that would be a disaster.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 11:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Libertarians oppose non-discrimination laws?

TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems

by OldProspects on Nov 4, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

3rd party vs 2 party

I can find one reason why I think highly of Obama – he went on record as opposing the war early on.

I do like the 3rd party candidates – their positions on a number of domestic issues resonate with me, and the things that Nader has done (either directly or as part of the process) have been outstanding – FOIA, the Safe Water Drinking Act, OSHA, the EPA, etc….the man is really very, very impressive. I can’t think of senators who have accomplished as much, for sure – I think gridlock is the default on the Hill. And I think keeping 3rd party voices in the shouting match is really good….helps keep the issues in front, at least somewhat. I think all qualified candidates should be in the debates.
  

by siddfynch on Nov 4, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions  

As someone who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000

I will never vote for a third-party candidate ever again.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Caveat:

Unless I really wouldn’t have voted anyway.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions  

I wouldn’t say that. The trick is that 2000 was such an important election to not let the left’s votes get split. There will be other opportunities to work at growing a multi party system. 2000 was just not a good year for it.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions  

I really considered voting Libertarian

I mean I pretty much go lock step with them on all positions. Unfortunately since they don’t have a shot at winning I had to go with the lesser of the two evils who was in my mind McCain. I want my vote to matter, and voting 3rd party is just throwing it away.

Why is McCain the lesser of the two evils in my mind? I’m just scared to see what a Democratic controlled Senate/House and a Dem President can do. I like check and balances between the legislative and executive branches and if the Bush first term told us anything it’s that if both branches are controlled by the same party all you can expect is spending, spending, spending. Just not good.

Plus as a person who is involved in health care I’m not wild about the government having control over my profession. They can’t deliver the mail on time, how do they think they can handle health care? For an idea just look at the VA hospitals… From the times I took my dad there it’s not pretty one bit. Sure there are problems in the health care industry but putting the government at the helm won’t fix them.

by TRanger on Nov 4, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Libertarian Party is awesome

But sometimes I think it’s a little naive in its foreign policy, and too isolationist. Isolationism didn’t do much for us the other times we’ve tried to achieve it, but if Obama wins, I’d like for him to have Barr as an advisor or something.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Libertarianism

in my opinion is about a bunch of people who were born on third base and think they hit triples, and want to be left alone after having won the genetic lottery. It seems naive. Anyone who has an idea of how much harder some people have it in this society than other people would not be a libertarian.

by Flynn Blake on Nov 5, 2008 5:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Election (long)

Voted for Obama. Would’ve loved to have had the chance to consider John McCain had he been content to run on his former platform of refusing to raise taxes while spending is through the roof. Unfortunately he caved to his party base and his adherence to Bushism economic policy just killed my enthusiasm for a guy who I used to see as one of the great hopes for transcending party lines in this country.

When I look back on this campaign and think of John McCain and his political legacy, I’m always going to be reminded that for all his talk of being a “maverick,” this guy has inexplicably reduced himself to pandering every single time the chips are down. For some reason he has never been able to say to the far right nutjobs, even after securing the nomination, “Wait a second, the people are voting for ME, we are going to do things as I want them to be.” He played a bizarre balancing act of attempting to repudiate the Bush years while at the same time trying to make nice with the party base, somehow managing to please nobody in the process. He switched his support to favoring Bush tax cuts when that was one of the few things that he could’ve made a clean break from the last 8 years on, not just on ideological terms but in terms of cultivating political support from real voters. Instead of choosing Joe Lieberman as his VP like he clearly wanted to, he chose somebody who was a virtual unknown to him and even less to the American people. She is ill-prepared by any standard, and there really is no comparison between her and Obama with regard to that criteria. I would feel comfortable asking Obama about any number of issues facing this country and getting an articulate, considerate reply – perhaps not the answer that one would be seeking (and there have been times in this campaign where that has happened in my case), but a reasonable answer. Palin is a bunch of talking points – I have no faith in this woman at all to approach the most pressing concerns of this country at this point. It doesn’t make her a bad person, it just means she shouldn’t be thinking about the highest offices in the land at this point.

I suppose one can make the argument that Palin’s biggest contribution to the ticket was financial – it’s not a coincidence that McCain had his best fundraising days after her selection. And certainly the money situation would’ve been drastically different had Lieberman been the pick (I suppose he would’ve seen very little/none of that money that poured out from the right wing of the party), but at the same time McCain would have seen money from other sources. In addition, his old argument that Obama is simply inexperienced would have retained its relevance, and personally I think it would’ve had considerable impact as the race dragged on.

Personally I voted for Obama because I tend to agree with most of his views, and – most importantly – I think he will be willing to shelve those views when necessary with a practical eye towards getting things done for the American people. But I will say this, and take note that I am someone who is admittedly very entrenched in his liberalism, the John McCain of 8 years ago would’ve been an intriguing and compelling choice as president. His old fiscal conservatism is something that would’ve been, quite frankly, refreshing given what we’ve seen out of our politics – and our economy, for that matter – over the last few years. Unfortunately, he never gave me that choice, and for that I have to say that I’m just really disappointed in how things turned out.

by mrkupe on Nov 4, 2008 11:42 AM EST reply actions  

Bushism economic policy?

Your first paragraph makes no sense. Do you realize that Bush has significantly lowered our taxes over the last 8 years? He has enacted 2 large rate cuts in his presidency. And yet, in your opening paragraph, you say:

"Would’ve loved to have had the chance to consider John McCain had he been content to run on his former platform of refusing to raise taxes while spending is through the roof. Unfortunately he caved to his party base and his adherence to Bushism economic policy "

A very contradictory statement given the facts.

by guru4u on Nov 4, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I think he meant to have a "not" in there

“not spending through the roof” makes perfect sense. McCain used to be a small government guy, but his proposed spending programs seem like more of the same economics, which isn’t actually conservative.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Okay, let me clarify

Yep, I’m aware that Bush has lowered taxes. Those are tax cuts that John McCain originally opposed and with good reason. He recognized that it is simply unwise to reduce the amount of money coming in while at the same time increasing the amount of money going out. It’d be like me buying a new car and then the next day quitting my job. And if it’s not feasible on the individual scale, I fail to see how it could make any sense on a much larger scale.

I don’t believe in trickle-down economics at all, but I certainly recognize the merit in practicing fiscal responsibility. This administration has completely abandoned all pretense there. John McCain once stood for something different: the politics of common sense. Now he’s just bought into the party line, deriding “tax and spend Democrats.”

Say what you will about “tax and spend,” but I’ll gladly take my chances with that over “don’t tax and still spend”. The way I see it, you can have it one of several ways:

1) Tax, don’t spend
2) Tax, spend
3) Don’t tax, don’t spend

McCain used to be firmly in that third camp, and I respected him for that. But he’s not anymore.

by mrkupe on Nov 4, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions  

mccain/obama

Anyone who has been reading my stuff for years can figure out where I tend to stand on things.

I voted for Obama without hesitation, as I agree with him more on most issues and find his life story compelling. But I will say this: the John McCain of 2000-2002 was someone I could have voted for….a choice between Obama and 00-02 version of McCain would have been very difficult.

Alas, once McCain started adopting the very Karl Rove tactics that he suffered from in 00, he lost me.

by John Sickels on Nov 4, 2008 11:52 AM EST reply actions  

Agreed on the McCain of 2000 point

There are some respects in which I’m a fiscal conservative, and I could have lived with the 2000 version of McCain, but his policies have changed so drastically since then that it wasn’t even a choice.

I almost didn’t end up voting at all. The line to vote was over 2 hours long, and I live in a district where every single race was decided at the primaries (Village NYC – the Dems win every race by about an 80-20 margin anyway).

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh, and in case you can't tell from the avatar

The selection of Sarah Palin really sealed the deal. It just proved he wasn’t taking things seriously.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:15 PM EST up reply actions  

I also agree on the McCain 2000 comment

I wanted him over Bush back then, and now McCain has changed a lot…

oh well, can’t cry over that anymore…

In some respects, an Obama landslide would be good for the GOP. Give them an opportunity to regroup and refocus on their core beliefs. Something that they have gotten away from these last 8 years.

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

This election is a win-win for me as a conservative/libertarian for that reason. Time in the wilderness will prove good for us.

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Can't Vote

I can’t vote because I’m 17, but I would have gone for Obama. Take it as you want, I know some people here may not take me seriously, but I desperately feel as though Obama is what this country needs. I knew I was liberal in advance before this election, but a website, myelectiondecision.org, really re-affirmed this point. The site had quotes from both McCain and Obama, but didn’t say who it was, which really helped determine where I stand on issues. Though I am Christian, I disagree with many of McCain and Palin’s views on ethical questions, such as abortion, but also on the wars. I did score higher on McCain’s energy policy, but overall, it was a landslide in favor of Obama.

One thing that really scares me though is Sarah Palin. Much like what many other people have said, I would be very scared if something were to happen to McCain if he was in office.

Though many people may not agree with Obama’s policies, which, I admit, we have to see fullfilled first, he will truly unite the country, which is crucial at this moment in time.

by prestonb1291 on Nov 4, 2008 12:16 PM EST reply actions  

Though I am Christian,

This comment interested me. Why do you think, because you’re Christian, you should have listened to McCain/Palin? Aren’t Obama and Biden plenty Christian enough?

Not trying to hammer you or anything. I just find it interesting. Obviously, you leaned towards Obama anyway so it’s a bit of a moot point.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

There certainly is a school of thought

That the Republican party is generally more aligned with Christian morals, and thus good Christians should vote Republican. The sentiment is particularly strong among Southern Baptists and born-again churches. Which I guess is nice if all you care about is abortion and gay marriage. However, if you’re more of a WWJD type of Christian, then there really isn’t much of an argument that the Republicans are the more “Christian” party. Jesus preached love and tolerance, and it’s a real stretch to peg that on either party these days.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Republicans are intolerant

But we Democrats can be intolerant AND hypocrites at times. We try to preach ethnocentrism and tolerance, but those who struggle with “taking off their sunglasses” are our mortal enemies. Democrats must learn that tolerance takes time for some people, but America has a natural tendency toward acceptance over time.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions  

I should've said

“some” before Republicans and Democrats, because without so I’d be making a generalization, which flat out isn’t true. Most Dems and GOP members I know are actually against the Christian Right.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Hence the last sentence

I’m not trying to claim the Democrats are much better, just that there are as many ‘un-Christian’ aspects of the Republican platform as their are of the Democrat platform.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Im also 17 and I would gone Obama also

I see the future, and it is Pablo

by CB30 on Nov 4, 2008 6:56 PM EST up reply actions  

would have gone*

I see the future, and it is Pablo

by CB30 on Nov 4, 2008 6:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Vote

Voted this morning in DC. Line was two blocks long. Didn’t get out for two hours. Definitely worth it though although I think the entire world knows how DC will end up voting.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:22 PM EST reply actions  

Not voting

I firmly believe the greatness of our country comes from millions of free and private individuals acting in their own self-interest; these actions are aggregated and woven together almost seamlessly by this thing we casually refer to as the market.

Politicians, like everybody else, act in their own self-interest; the difference is that they operate absent any mechanism like a market and are therefore led, as if by an invisible hand, to absolutely ruin everything that they touch.

by CapgrasDelusion on Nov 4, 2008 12:23 PM EST reply actions  

Yeah I was confused to; is it in our “best interest” not to vote?

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

predictions

Obama 52.5
McCain 47
Third Parties .5
 
Obama 353 including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio
McCain 185 including Missouri and Indiana
 
Democrats +7 senate seats
Democrats +25 house seats
 

by John Sickels on Nov 4, 2008 12:31 PM EST reply actions  

Senate

So, you think Franken isn’t going to pull out Minnesota?

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Dems +7 includes Franken

but not KY or GA

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions  

According to www.fivethirtyeight.com, 7 senate seats going red to blue are almost certain:

VA, NM, CO, AK, and NH with NC and OR only slightly less certain. He seems to think the only real Senate seat in play is Franken in MN.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions  

You're right

Sorry, I was thinking Dems currently caucused 52, but they only caucus 51.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Predictions

Obama 51.3 McCain 45.1
Obama 352 EVs (Kerry states plus Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Iowa and Missouri) McCain 186 EVs

Dems – 8 Senate seats (yep, even Al Franken!), 22 House seats

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 4, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Predictions

Obama 50.9, McCain 49.1

EV Count:

Obama: 291 (picks up CO, NV, IA, NM, VA)
McCain: 247

Senate:
VA: Warner def. Gilmore
NM: Udall def. Pearce
CO: Udall def. Schaefer
AK: Begich def Stevens
NH: Shaheen def. Sunnunu (unfortunately)
OR: Merkley def. Smith
NC: Hagan def. Dole
MN: Coleman def. Franken
GA: Chambliss def. Martin
KY: McConnel def. Lunsford
MS: Wicker def. Musgrove

House: Dems +15

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions  

My crazy predictions

I’m going out on a limb and saying that McCain will shock the world and win tonight with 49.5% compared to 48.7% for Obama.

Watch PA. If it goes red, as I expect, then you’ll know I’m probably right. It might be called early for Obama ala FLA 2000, but keep watching it. Even if PA is very close, I still may very well be right.

If Obama wins, chalk it up to wishful thinking, but I normally don’t let my hopes affect my reasoning. Obviously, I think the polls are way off.

I don’t care to predict the EV count, but I’ll say 280-290 for McCain.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Scary

Giants: World Series Champions...in 2011.

by Giants_Junkie on Nov 4, 2008 6:18 PM EST up reply actions  

voted McCain

because I don’t want anyone taking my money and giving it to anyone else. i work hard and so should everyone else. i also think that it is not my responsibility to pay for the healthcare of those people who refuse to get off their sorry asses. as an aside, i was shocked when i saw that i had to bubble in my votes with an ink pen. i thought we had made advancements in technology.

by psugator on Nov 4, 2008 12:32 PM EST reply actions  

Okay

So, I’m assuming then you make $200+?

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions  

$250,000+

People in the $200,000-$249,999 bracket simply pay what they currently are I believe.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 12:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow.

" i also think that it is not my responsibility to pay for the healthcare of those people who refuse to get off their sorry asses."

Agreed. However there is a problem. There are a good percentage of American’s the DO work and are still unable to get insurance. The current system isn’t working. We’re are the only industrialized nation with health insurance so terrible.

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions  

"i work hard and so should everyone else"

I don’t even know where to start on this one. I realize that nothing will probably change your mind here, so I’ll just say that there are VERY few people out there who don’t want to work hard, and this type of attitude tends to screw a lot of people who DO work very hard or at least do what they can, but still end up poor because of their circumstances.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I worked for years as both an actor and then as an independent theater technician. You could work every day of your life but no company you work for would give you health insurance.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions  

And I have relatives with preexisting conditions who CAN'T get insured

And my folks worked their entire lives without having health insurance, and barely scraping by even without paying for insurance.

If nearly 25% of the country doesn’t have any health insurance (and about another 20% only has partial), then it’s more than just the lazy people who don’t have insurance. And that’s not even counting the 7% of people currently looking for work who can’t get it because the economy is in the crapper.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions  

The whole “preexisting condition” loophole is a bunch of crap. In theory it makes sense but it’s abused. Almost anything can be made to be preexisting it seems.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I can see..

Preexisting conditions transforming into a huge thing. I don’t want to be turned down for health care just because my grandma had a heart attack and that could be hereditary.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 4, 2008 2:09 PM EST up reply actions  

So Work Hard=Insurance.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 4, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Ack..Only got the title in.

I used to work about 55+ hours a week, then started going back to school full time while doing that. After a few weeks I had to cut it down to around 35 hours a week. I didn’t have health insurance at either of these, and wasn’t making enough to buy health insurance. I think I worked hard enough for it.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 4, 2008 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Sorry, not an excuse for me

I am in College and thankfully under my parent health coverage still. However, I worked in the summer at a golf course, like 75 hours a week. Since I was over 18, I was offered full time benefits. I’m obviously not going to take them because its a summer job, but if I can get health insurance while making 10 bucks an hour at a golf course, I don’t think it is that hard to find a job that will provide those benefits.

by uwbadger on Nov 4, 2008 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I averaged 70 hours one month bussing tables when I was 18. I was also on my parents plan but certainly couldn’t have afforded my own at the time. I was without health care from the time I was 21 until this year, it was offered and I probably could have made it work somehow but it would have required no spending on anything that was not a necessity and having multiple roomates to help pay bills.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah

5 to 5 Mon-Sat, then 5-8 on Sundays, sometimes working later or shorter depending on what was going on Sunday. Redoing the course so it was straight manual labor.
It sucked ass but made money and allows me to not work during school

by uwbadger on Nov 4, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Honestly

That job doesn’t sound like a longterm feasible job for most people. It isn’t a very good example.

by aCone419 on Nov 4, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Awesome! A golf course that offered insurance! That must mean EVERY employment must offer insurance! Oh, wait, the golf course I worked at didn’t. Oh wait, almost every job I’ve ever had didn’t. Strange.

Maybe…. JUST MAYBE… your personal experience isn’t the rule. Maybe?

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

not saying everything does

I’m just saying they are out there, and even for someone making 10 bucks an hour, I would have had health insurance and benefits. I was doing manual labor, something anyone can do, and I would have had insurance. Just because you don’t have a high paying job doesn’t mean you can’t get insurance is all that I am saying.

by uwbadger on Nov 4, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

No

But likewise, just because you have a good job it doesn’t mean you get insurance. It’s a decision the business makes in most cases, and just as often as not the business doesn’t insure its employees.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

And there are very few jobs like you had to go around. How did you get that job? You think some random guy off the street gets it?

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions  

yes

We had about 20+ illegal mexicans working there, so yes anyone could have had that job

by uwbadger on Nov 4, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Well then you and about 20+ illegal Mexicans were extremely lucky to have found that place. Also, I just called immigration.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Wait...

Are you saying that the “illegal Mexicans” received healthcare benefits?

by ToddyBaseball on Nov 4, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions  

of course not

They didn’t get the benefits because I doubt they had the proper documentation. There is no reason for them to try and risk any further probe into their documentation. The policy of the workplace was that any 18+ person that worked full time was eligible for benefits including 401k, healthcare. My bosses w/ families were under the coverage so I doubt it was bad coverage.

I’m not going to say any more on this. All I am saying is that a 20 year old kid working a 10/hr job could have gotten health care. Sure, you may not be getting health care everywhere, but there are places that provide healthcare if you bust your ass and work hard. They probably wouldn’t have retained me if I couldn’t commit to the type of hours they needed.

by uwbadger on Nov 4, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions  

The argument that places that do the right thing exist

Isn’t a good counterargument for why the government shouldn’t make businesses do the right thing. They already do it with minimum wage, child labor laws, etc. The fact that some businesses do it voluntarily without being unionized speaks to the point that it’s feasible that that it wouldn’t put a whole bunch of small businesses out of business.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

Allow me to expand on these arguments:

“because I don’t want anyone taking my money and giving it to anyone else”
I may not make $250,000 a year yet, but if I someday do, or if my children do, I don’t want them punished for it. Plus, the Obama “tax cuts” are a sham- they’re government rebates, which essentially makes them government spending instead of a rate cut.
i also think that it is not my responsibility to pay for the healthcare of those people who refuse to get off their sorry asses
If you need emergency care in the US, you can get it from any emergency room or hospital. Hospitals cannot turn you away because you can’t pay for their services- it’s against the law. What we need to solve this problem is deregulation of the insurance industry and a way to make medicine much more competitive.

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions  

ALL tax cuts are government spending

Unless you cut spending more than you cut taxes. There is no difference.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions  

+1

well put

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Not a rate cut

In that case, the government just cuts what’s coming in.

by David Tokarz on Nov 4, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Ahhh, the “One day I’ll be rich” argument. That’s a good one.

Yes, anyone can go to the emergency room in the U.S. And then anyone can either die or go into massive debt for the rest of their lives keeping themselves from dying. It’s a great choice, really.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Emergency rooms

are flawed systems. They cover anything from small cuts to heart attacks, and people with critical conditions have to wait for hours. If they have to stay overnight, a hospital bed is around $3,000 a night. Even if they can’t turn you away, it’s still a crapload of debt.

As for the freaking tax argument, it’s first grade. The government needs taxes to function. Without capital, the government can’t fix anything. It couldn’t provide its employees with working benefits, so smart people would get higher paying jobs. It wouldn’t provide anything. If the gov’t taxes a small amount, then it still has very little to work with, and it costs citizens as well. Just like when we invaded Iraq, we had little troops. Fiscally it cost us less, but it might as well have been nothing because we didn’t accomplish anything. So somewhat larger taxes are necessary.

Now who’s to pay the taxes? Well currently, because of our tax code’s generalization, the people who pay the most in federal taxes are the middle class, followed by poor people, followed by the rich. This order is absolutely unfair. Americans in every tax bracket work hard one way or another. It only makes sense that if you make the most, you have more to lose, so you must be taxed at least slightly more than your middle class neighbor.

Take it from me. I’m willing to say that I’m rich. I retired at 42, selling my clothing manufacturing business. I live in an affluent neighborhood where my kids go to great schools. I pay up the wazoo in taxes just from my town, but I’m willing to pay even more if my dollars go to health insurances programs for those who needs it.

In fact, one of the reasons I’m voting for Obama is that he’s taxing me more and doing more for a green infrastructure, which will boost our economy to levels similar to that of when the US was a major oil producer. So while I’m getting taxed more, I’ll get more for my dollar and there will be more sound investment oppotunities. I knew that this recession would occur a decade ago. It wasn’t really a secret. The US imports everything and exports nothing. However, Obama will help our economy self sustain.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions  

here here +1

By the way, can I have a large, interest free loan? :)

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Obama.

As someone who has lived without health insurance (and who currently has a very limited, bare-bones policy), I can’t afford not to vote for someone who will remove the ability of insurance companies to deny health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.

There are 50 million people without health insurance. If any one of them develops treatable illnesses that are fatal if untreated, they will never be able to receive medical treatment. Barack Obama has promised to change that. John McCain believes the free market will take care of all of our healthcare needs.

I quite literally cannot afford a McCain presidency, and I’m willing to bet each and every one of you knows someone in the same boat.

by slamcactus on Nov 4, 2008 12:35 PM EST reply actions  

Limited health insurance? Stop being lazy. ;)

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions  

lol

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah...

All snark aside, though, I’m lucky. I go to a high-ranking law school, which I am paying for with huge amounts of student loans. Economy willing, I should have decent employment opportunities when I graduate in three years. Any kind of serious illness in that time would put me well above the cap for the Student Health Insurance Program, though. That terrifies me, and I’m in a better position than virtually everyone else in my age/income/insurance bracket.

John McCain’s healthcare policy will quite literally kill people. Barack Obama’s will help people get treatment. That’s a pretty big deal for me.

by slamcactus on Nov 4, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions  

How long is your wait to vote?

Kudos to everyone who waits on line to vote! I voted in my ninth presidential election today and have never had to wait more than 20 minutes to vote. My town on Long Island, New York has about 40,000 people. I’m wondering if my experience is rare or commonplace. Where do you live and how long does it take you to cast your vote?

by red257 on Nov 4, 2008 12:37 PM EST reply actions  

Posted earlier but might as well add to this particular thread. Voted in DC, got in line a 7:30, voted at 9:30.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions  

I live in WV and didn’t have to wait. Some precincts had rather long lines but I guess we were lucky to land in with the slackers. Walked right in the door, lady asked us what precinct and went straight to a voting machine. I feel for those who say that had to wait hours though. :(

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Voting time

I live just outside Chicago . . .walked right in, ended up using an electronic ballot, walked out 15 minutes later. Place was full of people but nobody waiting from what I could tell. Do note that I voted around 9:30 AM Central.

by mrkupe on Nov 4, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Manhattan

two solid hours

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Lutz

0 minutes. I walked in and voted. The only time it took was showing my ID and filling out the ballot.

Tools Whore

Sign Bonds!

by Tyler on Nov 4, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions  

mn

I live in a smaller town in MN, just outside the bigger suburbs of the Twin Cities. No waiting at 7:45am. although, even when there is waiting, its not very long. A perfect situation…

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 1:12 PM EST up reply actions  

not bad here

seemed like a storm was about to hit so i think people were staying away. i live in a suburb of fort lauderdale, fla….i had to wait exactly one hour…there were even people walking through the line giving out bottles of water……and to think that some of the people who voted early had to wait almost four hours.

by psugator on Nov 4, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Had my absentee ballot filled out, so went to front of the line & dropped it off. 5 minutes flat.

Looked like those waiting to vote were in for an hour or so wait…that was as of 8:15 AM in Santa Barbara, California.

Giants: World Series Champions...in 2011.

by Giants_Junkie on Nov 4, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions  

30 seconds

Lincoln NE

Haha.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Nov 5, 2008 1:23 AM EST up reply actions  

I was done in 10 min

I live in a northern suburb of Chicago and walked into the polling place at aroudn 7 AM. Although it helped that I only voted on a few contests (I don’t feel right voting in contests in which I know nothing about, so I stuck to the ones I was informed on.)

by joltinjoe on Nov 4, 2008 1:38 PM EST reply actions  

informed voters/get out the vote

A lot people say, EVERYONE MUST VOTE!

I say, everyone who is INFORMED must vote!

I also say, EVERYONE SHOULD BE INFORMED.

I don’t want people randomly voting. That is not upholding the American Way. That is not your patriotic duty. Your duty is to be informed, and then and only then vote. Today, there is plenty of info at the ready.

So, I applaud your voting in only the races you were informed. I did the same. I did not vote in all the judge races. I did vote for some, but some of them I didn’t know anything about. my bad on that.

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Obama

I agree with his ideological views on most things and really that’s all I am looking for in a candidate. Things change when they get in office and realize all they are up against in getting things accomplished but I feel good that his base he returns to lines up fairly well with what I hold true.

I’m also a firm believer that his background will allow him to overcome any real or perceived shortcomings in Foreign Relations. I think he has mixed and balanced cultural and racial beliefs his whole life and will bring an understanding of opposing views that we have been sorely lacking. As we see on this site every day, the best posters aren’t the ones who get on here and bash your head in until you agree with them but rather find the common grounds and agree to disagree where prudent and applicable.

Personally, I find people who use taxation percentages as a reason for their vote as laughable. 99% of America would not have a discernable difference in their lifestyle either way. Good grief, $4/gal gas (and all its raised prices for goods) didn’t change life for most. A percent or two on the tax code isn’t going to make a difference to you either.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 2:51 PM EST reply actions  

OBAMA ALL THE WAY!

And don’t forget to learn your local issues and candidates and vote on them. Even if you think your vote doesn’t matter for President, it likely DOES matter for local elections, and those are also much more likely to affect you than who you see on TV in the White House the next four years.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Nov 4, 2008 3:07 PM EST reply actions  

+1

amen.

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Voted for McCain/Palin

Mainly because I’m a social and economic conservative. McCain is not perfect on either plank, but he’s way better than Obama.

I’d like to comment on what I consider deranged views of Palin. As far as I can tell, her unforgivable mistakes consist of a bad interview with Katie Couric, which looked even worse because of the editing. Well, this is easily explained. Usually, VP candidates are long-time political veterans who often were running for President themselves. They are usually “safe” choices. Palin was none of the above, so it’s not surprising that she had some bumps in the road, especially in dealing with the media at a national level. She seems to be acquitting herself rather nicely now.

She’s a very savvy politician, and to deride her political accomplishments is simply ignorant. How many politicians do you know who have quit their cushy high paying jobs in order to expose corruption in her own party’s ranks? That alone gives her more cred than any of the other candidates in my book. For all of the guffawing about the relevance of her status as commander of Alaska’s National Guard, that status did give her a higher security clearance than ANY of the other candidates had. She also has more executive experience than ANY of the other candidates.

Sure, she’s not a member of the Beltway “elite”. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Many of the charges brought against her by the media were so ridiculous, anyone of good will should have seen through them.

It would seem that before putting someone in charge of the most powerful executive office in the world, that one would expect some executive experience on his/her resume, or in the absence of that, at least a long record of experience to substitute in its place. Apparently, though, for some, a good GPA at Harvard is all one needs to be President. BTW, what is that GPA? I was under the impression that BO hadn’t released his academic records.

Seriously, are very many people here over the age of 25? I’m 43, and no one has given a rip about my college GPA for a very long time now. They just care whether I am getting the job done.

There are no circumstances in which I would have voted for Obama. He’s simply way too far left of center for me, with his former Communist connections in Frank Marshall Davis, terrorist connections in Ayers, socialist party membership in the recent past, etc. He’s a typical Chicago Machine pol.

Anyway, I think this race is going to be a lot closer than the polls are saying. We’ll see what happens tonight.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 4:22 PM EST reply actions  

"I was under the impression that BO hadn’t released his academic records."

I don’t believe he had, but it’s confirmed that he graduated with honors and that, when in law school, he was on the law review, neither of which you can do without being near the top of your class. I do agree that it’s not really that relevant anyway though, other than to show that he’s always been fairly motivated.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Deranged?

You pass off on character views of Palin, which is really all they are, nothing that has ever been criminal or particularly viscious in any way.

Then you proceed to call Obama a Communist, Socialist Terrorist.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 4:30 PM EST reply actions  

Although

I guess I’ll have to agree with you calling Obama a “Chicago Machine pol.” Because throughout the history of Chicago politics the ones you REALLY have to watch out for are those blacks with muslim sounding names, those are definitely the guys with ties.

LOL

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions  

I didn't say......

that BO was a Communist or a Terrorist. I said that he had been influenced by those who are or were Communists and terrorists. He was, however, a Socialist at one time in the relatively recent past. He ran for election in 1996 under the New Party, which is a socialist party. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m telling the truth here…you can look it up.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Your Implications were clear

Along the same lines I might suggest that McCain was also “influenced” by Communists, he was in fact held captive by them.

I’m telling the truth here, you can look it up.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Ummmm....

….I’m not really sure what to say to this.

If you can’t see the difference between being held captive for six years by Communists and being mentored by one, I guess I’ll just move on.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 4:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Mocking

your inference that in some way Obama’s past “influences” suggest he brings a Communist, Socialist or Terrorist agenda to the White House. Your post is propaganda, pure and simple and carries no more value than my (mocking) post about McCain’s communist captors.

The whole thing is humorous and maybe just slightly “deranged”.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Socialist

Nationalizing health care, property insurance, mortgages and banking?

That and his redistribution of wealth comments move him pretty strongly in the Socialist direction.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 4:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Taxation is the redistribution of wealth. That’s some Socialism for you.

And what the crap are you talking about property insurance, mortgages, and banking? McCain is the one that wanted to take over everyone’s mortgages.

Reaching.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Not reaching

Obama was one of 8 senators that voted to add wind to the NFIP, a program that is already $20B in debt.

He also has come out in favor of a National Catastrophe program taking, allowing the government to take over the role of the private reinsurance marketplace and effectively asking those who do not live on the coast to subsidize the property insurance of those who do.

Yeah, McCain went for the mrtgages and banking too, but he did try to curb the acitivities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while Obama stood in the way.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Pay for it Now

or pay for it later in terms of protecting coastal areas. You don’t think you paid for Katrina?

And how exactly does one “add wind” to anything. Grandma added wind in church once, man was that embarassing.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Adding wind

Is an insurance term for adding the peril of wind to the National Flood Insurance Program.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions  

owned

Accidentally not thedude925 anymore. I do hate this new name.

by wildthang on Nov 4, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions  

LOL

By “adding wind” you literally meant adding wind. haha, my bad.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 5, 2008 9:19 AM EST up reply actions  

He’s a socialist because he was trying to find a way for hurricane victims to not get anally raped?

Both candidates have taken money from Fannie Mae (Obama more, yes). Obama further ties to Fannie Mae are largely fictional.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Not sure what you mean

By the first comment.

As to the second, I am really not talking about the contributions Obama received from the two big Government Sponsored Entities at the center of our subprime crisis. Thanks for bringing that up, though.

I was actually talking about his actions in committee, also part of the public record.

Are you guys trying to say he is a moderate?

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions  

You're regurgitating Fox News

There is nothing that I can find that has Obama linked to Fannie Mae in any way other than being on the Senate Banking Committee other than wild crap thrown about by the conservative media. But ignore the part where I said McCain has taken money from them as well.

No one says Obama is moderate. Thank God for that.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I do love how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are suddenly the center of the economic crisis and that the private banking institutions are suddenly innocent victims.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Who said anything about innocent victims?

Also, who holds most of the subprime mortgages in the country? At least before they resold them as MBSs.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Admittedly, I saw it on Fox

Why would any of the biased news agencies report it?

But it was a video of the Senate Baning Committee addressing Fannie and Freddie in 2006. Every Republican called to rein them in. Every Democrat said “no.”

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Why would any of the biased news agencies report it?

hahahah Yeah, okay, I’m done. Bye!

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions  

The truth hurts

Try to smile. I am obviously just having a little fun.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions  

ha

I read more articles in the foreign press pointing out the importance that the Fannie/Freddie debacle had on the overall economic mess, than I read here in the U.S.

Being in the tank for Obama tends to limit stories like that from seeing the light of day.

I actually did most of my “newspaper” reading on election issues in foreign papers, where they didn’t have a vested interest in the outcome.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Wow I leave for a few hours and the whole thread goes to hell. This is by far the worst post in the entire thread though. “Why would and of the biased news agencies report it?” As if Fox wasn’t the most biased station on TV? Just absolutely unbelievable.

by jfish26101 on Nov 4, 2008 5:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Obama, a LOT MORE, yes

“Obama more’ yes”

That’s got to be the understatement of the year. According to Open Secrets, Obama received $126,000+ just in the four years he’s been in the Senate, while McCain has received less than $22,000 in his 22+ years in the Senate.

So that’s $30,000+ a year for Obama vs. $1,000 a year for McCain.

Yeah, that’s definitely MORE.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Ummmm

You threw the money back at me which I agreed with.

But, yes, keep disregarding that McCain took money. Because Obama took MORE money, it absolves McCain.

by Lunkwill Fook on Nov 4, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Pretty much

Pretty much every senator and congressperson took some money from them, but the amounts are important and revealing.

The truth is that McCain tried to stop the Fannie/Freddie mess from exploding with collateral damage across the economy but the Dems stopped them.

Surprisingly, it was the ones who had taken the most money from F&F that put the kibosh on it!

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Sorry man

but the Nationalizing of the banking system has already started.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions  

This is true

But we need to get government hands out as soon as we can.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Agree to a point

this housing/banking mess can’t ever happen again.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions  

And McCain was in support of it far more than Obama

After all, he took the time off to try and broker this solution.

Deregulation of the banking industry due to Gramm-Leach-Bliley has indirectly led to most of the BS that’s going on with the banks right now, the same way that deregulation of the airlines indirectly led to half the airlines going belly up. When a company is performing a public service, they shouldn’t be deregulated, simply because market factors and public interest are inherently at odds with each other.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 6:01 PM EST up reply actions  

For one thing

Nationalizing mortgages has essentially already been done by a Republican Administration, and England, one of the most conservative nations in the world, has nationalized banks.

It’s not that Obama isn’t leaning toward socialism, but you yell “Socialist” at the top of your lungs like its the end of life. The world has been moving more toward socialism every day since World War I. It’s inevitable. And the move of Canada and the EU toward Socialism has been successful until our deregulated economy ruined just about everything. While I’m not a socialist, per sei, we shouldn’t fear it.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I lean towards socialist views

I make a decent living, I am probably the definition of lower middle class. I just don’t see why socialism gets such a black eye. I will never understand why it is considered a bad thing that some of our wealth gets redistributed. Helping your fellow humans out is not exactly a bad thing, is it?

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Nov 5, 2008 8:51 AM EST up reply actions  

I'd say....

that Obama has views that are, or border on, socialist, yes. I would not call him a communist or a terrorist, and I have not called him those things. With the limited record he has to make judgments on, his associations are something that scared me off, yes.

He moved more to the middle during his Presidential campaign, but whether that was a feint or a real move, who can say?

I also agree with those who say that McCain isn’t exactly pristine in this sense, of nationalizing or semi-nationalizing certain industries. He’s more of a liberal than I’d prefer….at least he wants to rein in spending.

I also don’t like McCain’s health care plan, or Obama’s for that matter. A pox on both their houses on that issue.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Obama is not evil

But, to claim he is moderate is a stretch.

I expect him to be elected and hope for the best. Let’s see what the liberals do with all the power legislative and executive.

by parish on Nov 4, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Propaganda techniques

Democrats are masters of pandering to minorities, and look like they’re always taking the high road.

But Republicans are masters at name calling and scare tactics. Never before have I heard the term “socialist” with such fear in every letter. And “terrorist?” The Republicans want to link Obama to bin Laden or Saddam (who isn’t a terrorist, but still). If they explained exactly what Bill Ayers did, they wouldn’t care. “HE BLEW UP CONGRESS…. WITH NOBODY IN IT! HE HURT ZERO PEOPLE! HE WAS AGAINST A TERRIBLE POINTLESS WAR AND WENT OVER THE TOP!”

Not as scary as “terrorist,” no?

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions  

ook

“HE HURT ZERO PEOPLE!”

Yes, but it certainly wasn’t for lack of trying.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 5:58 PM EST up reply actions  

He didn't try to.

At all. He was a terrorist in the pre-9/11 sense of the word — someone who wants to scare someone else. He wanted to scare congress out of Vietnam.

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Where are the facts?

For Obama being a part of the “Chicago Machine”

Maybe not quite “telling the truth” on that one, but I guess I’ll look it up.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions  

IMO

That’s just my opinion, and that of many others. You are free to disagree, and apparently you do!

He certainly went through the typical Chicago progression to power, and never upset any apple carts along the way.

I really hope that if he wins, he comes closer to your expectations than mine.

by BaseballBrain on Nov 4, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Just plain off base

Really. What is a typical “Chicago progression to power”? Please name me one other minority candidate from Chicago that has followed this progression. Obama is just about as far from a historical Chicago politics/big boss man candidate as you can be.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions  

But... but

he’s from Chicago… it’s automatic!!!

by slurve on Nov 4, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Vote Early

Vote Often!!!

I used to live 2 houses down from Mayor Daley’s “home” in Bridgeport on Emerald. My memory is sketchy some times from all the beer in college but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t a talk skinny black dude.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Nov 4, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions  

In New York, McCain was listed as the candidate for the ultra-right wing Freedom Party

Most of these third parties can assign whatever candidate they want to as their nominee, and the candidate would generally be dumb not to consent, as it’s one more spot where they can be elected on the ballot. This is an extremely misleading argument. Obama has never registered under any party other than the Democrats.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 4, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Entire household:

5 Votes for Obama in CA.

5 Votes for No on 8. No on 4, and 5 votes for yes on 2.

"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-

by future on Nov 4, 2008 5:15 PM EST reply actions  

California...

+1!

Was wondering if it appropriate to bring up local / regional stuff in “Election” thread, but thanks for mentioning Prop 8. I wonder how much press it’s getting outside CA… What a crock. I have been saying for months — to anyone who’d listen — that a vote for 8 is a vote for HATE. When I read the text of that proposition early on, my first thought was, “How could anything like this get on a ballot?” but lately it seems to be pickin up momentum…and I’m frightened.

For the record, I am 110% straight, happily married, and raising two kids with my beautiful wife…but Prop 8 isn’t about “saving marriage” or “freedom of religion”, it’s about basic civil and human rights. The fact that it might pass is possibly one of the saddest realities in our state (& nation) today.

I am confident Barack will win, and I am glad for that. But to echo an earlier poster, some of the most important issues are the local initiatives and elections that will directly affect us on a daily basis. If you’re in California and undecided on Prop 8, please READ IT…and whatever your religious or political affiliation, I hope you will see that it is UNFAIR and WRONG.

GOBAMA!!!!

Giants: World Series Champions...in 2011.

by Giants_Junkie on Nov 4, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Clarification

When I said “Prop 8 isn’t about ‘saving marriage’ or ‘freedom of religion’, it’s about basic civil and human rights….” I should have had the word “DENYING” in front of “basic civil and humamn rights…”

Giants: World Series Champions...in 2011.

by Giants_Junkie on Nov 4, 2008 6:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Its weird to think that someone would want to take marriage away from a group of people, its not like it affects them

I see the future, and it is Pablo

by CB30 on Nov 4, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions  

I voted 3rd party for President

Mostly because I’m sick of the 2 party system and I hope Libertarian gets enough vote to get federal funding next cycle.

I also voted ‘no’ on every Prop except 11.

by mikev on Nov 4, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Ron Paul

Wrote in for him and voted no on Prop 8. Those were basically my main concerns this election cycle. Hopefully the libertarians get enough of the vote, but I wanted RP to get some pub :).

Carlos Quentin's time has arrived.

by Team Moneyball on Nov 4, 2008 9:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Congrats

To newly elected President Barack Obama, now he faces perhaps one of the greatest cleanup jobs in our country’s history. But this night belongs to Obama, congratulations once again

by MartyMcFly on Nov 4, 2008 11:06 PM EST reply actions  

mccain's concession speech...

…reminded me why i liked him so much before this campaign. i think he’s a genuinely great american, but once the republican campaign machine got their hooks into him, he turned into something different in 2008. much of what’s happened in the past 11 months left a bad taste in my mouth, but hopefully we can just put it behind us. congratulations to president-elect obama.

by jpahk on Nov 4, 2008 11:32 PM EST reply actions  

+1

I like McCain better when he has nothing to lose

by METSMETSMETS on Nov 4, 2008 11:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Congrats to Obama

I didn’t vote for him, but I’ll get behind him.

Congrats Obama, and the DFL. your hard work has paid off. Enjoy.

Support the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society by supporting my endurance training through Team In Training! http://www.active.com/donate/tntmn/tntmnDBimber

by dbimberg on Nov 4, 2008 11:55 PM EST reply actions  

Congrats Obama

What a great acceptance speech. It’s nice to have a president I can rally behind and feel patriotic again.

The 2008 Rogelio Moret League Fantasy Baseball Champions!

by The Congo Hammer on Nov 5, 2008 12:23 AM EST reply actions  

Eh

I’m 110% for Obama, but didn’t really dig the acceptance speech that much. Maybe I was busy updating the newspaper website, but it just didn’t strike me as all that special. However, I truly did enjoy his speech in Virginia from the previous night, reprising the whole “Fired up!” “Ready to go!” bit:

http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/obama-fired-up-ready-to-go.html

by Flynn Blake on Nov 5, 2008 5:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Very gratious on both ends

McCain was very dignified and genuine in his concession speech – the crowd not so much, as booing and chants rose from the audience on several occassions. I thought McCain did a very good job of nipping that in the bud while trying to get his party behind the new President. McCain was more gratious in defeat than Bush was in either of his two election wins.

Wasn’t all that crazy about the Obama speech – especially how he started sounding like he was delivering a church service with the whole “yes we can” catch phrase, but again he was dignified and genuine and there definately were some very good points. He praised McCain’s long history of service to the country and that really seemed to highlight just how historic this election was.

Possibly the most important theme was Obama’s reaching out to those who voted for McCain with his promise to listen to them and “be their President” as well. This is in stark contrast to what we saw with Bush 4 years ago who took his “political capital” and shoved it into the faces of his dissenters – a move that surely contributed to this country becoming as divided as it has. Hopefully Obama is able to live up to that promise and we are much better off four years from now and completely recovered form the Bush administration in eight years – a lofty task but I think there is a new found optimism in America, both here and abroad and that shouldn’t be under estimated.

We’re going to see a massive overhaul in the Republican party – they have no choice at this point. This country is moving towards the minorities becoming the majority in the coming years. The Obama crowd was as diverse of a crowd as I’ve seen assembled – the McCain crowd was a sea of milk. I actively looked at that crowd on multiple stations last night – I didn’t see a SINGLE person of color. It’s going to be interesting to see how the new Republican party takes shape in the next 5-10 years. It’s so fragmented right now, it’s hard to imagine them fixing things enough in the next 4 years to have a legitimate shot at regaining seats in Congress, let alone at the Presidency.

by slurve on Nov 5, 2008 8:31 AM EST reply actions  

Election

I am going to close the thread now since the election is over.

Congratulations to President-Elect Obama. I genuinely hope that both sides can come together now. McCain’s concession was very gracious, and Obama extended an olive branch in his own address. Hopefully this is a sign of good things to come.

by John Sickels on Nov 5, 2008 11:59 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Catch-22: Is Travis D’Arnaud the ‘Next One?’
Bullpen_banter_logo_small
Bullpen Banter's Top 100 Prospects: 100-51
Hal2_small
AA and MLB hitting production by AA batters between 1995-2002

Recent FanPosts

Small
Community Pitching Prospect #62
Small
Community Positional Prospect #65
Small
Overall Community Prospect #93
Small
New Cubs Draft Strategy/Player Development
Small
Stride Length, release point, and Drag
Small
Community Pitching Prospect #61 RUNOFF
Small
Community Positional Prospect #64
Small
5 yrold Dynasty Fantasy League team openings
Ryan_pic_small
Super Sickels Keeper League has one more opening
Small
Overall Community Prospect #92

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

March2111_084_small John Sickels

Jeri_avatar_small mssickels

Authors

Headshot_small dougdirt

Mblpglogo_small Matt Garrioch

Small SethSpeaks

Osnation2_small Jordan Tuwiner

Img00006-20101226-1702_small Ray Guilfoyle

Lax-xl_small Marisa Ingemi

Small Marc Hulet

Moderators

Small mrkupe


Site Meter