Ed Campaigning for Barack Obama Options

[Existentialist]

I think you may have misread a headline, as I saw that Obama opened a 7 point lead on McCain among women voters, not overall. Still, the national popular vote, and thus the national polls, don't mean anything. The election is all but settled in but a few states, and those will decide the election. McCain absolutely must win Florida, Ohio, and either Pennsylvania or NC+Virginia to have a chance. According to the polls, he's losing in all of those states but is within striking distance. You better believe that come election day, the polls go out the window and anything can happen in those battleground states. Fortunately for McCain, the makers of the voting machines are big Republicans. Also, as terrible as this is, you also better believe that Obama's race will likely cost him votes across the board once people get in that private voting both. It'll be a pretty tight race.

This post has been edited by Existentialist: Oct 1 2008, 7:34 pm

[Badman]

An honest post if I ever did see one!

Just remember, Just because everyone around you is doing something doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. I call it the Indie factor. I know some people that are voting for McCain simply to spite all the Obama supporters that tout hope, peace, and all that crap. Obama isn't going to fix anything, we know this, and we also know McCain isn't going to fix anything.

Don't vote to spite people... You are lucky enough to live in a state where you get to choose who wins. If you truly support republicans and everything they stand for then do it but if you just hate the hype learn to move past it. As a young person I bet you aren't crazy about the Reps social voting record or the fact that the church crazies who think god whispers into a president's ear ALWAYS vote republican.

[Hoodstock]

you might want to re-edit this last sentence as i am trying to follow your points but lost me with the contradictary nature of your conclusion.

I'll clarify -

The point is they both do the exact same damn thing. Whether you've been on a job 6 years or 22 you have it down at that point. Arguing because you've been there longer you are better is idiotic. There are a lot of people who have been doing my job for a long time and I do it better than any of them. I'm sure many of you can say the same thing about some of your elder co-workers.

If experience means stuck at the maximum position you can reach for the longest McCain wins by a landslide.

The fact that this is McCain's first time as the republican nominee, despite numerous attempts, during his lengthy career should speak volumes to the fact that he never has been and never will be presidential.

In fact, McCain does have a lot more experience in one key area, losing presidential elections!

Also, as terrible as this is, you also better believe that Obama's race will likely cost him votes across the board once people get in that private voting both. It'll be a pretty tight race.

Sadly this is a true statement.

This post has been edited by Hoodstock: Oct 1 2008, 9:17 pm

[Existentialist]

Don't vote to spite people... You are lucky enough to live in a state where you get to choose who wins. If you truly support republicans and everything they stand for then do it but if you just hate the hype learn to move past it. As a young person I bet you aren't crazy about the Reps social voting record or the fact that the church crazies who think god whispers into a president's ear ALWAYS vote republican.

I don't even come close to supporting most things Republicans stand for. I know that most people who vote for them are backwoods rednecks with conservative social agendas. Will that stop me from voting for McCain? No way. I get to choose between two people, so it would be highly unusual if one of them had beliefs that aligned perfectly with mine.

It really comes down to the issues that matter to me, which are primarily economical. This will be the first time I get to vote for a president who will be in office when I start earning significant money. I want the economy to be as good as possible and I want my taxes to be as low as possible. I fundamentally disagree that taxes should be raised on the rich. Last time I checked, we are a capitalist country and punishing those who are the best capitalists and make the most money simply doesn't make sense. The top 1% of Americans already shoulder a whopping 40% of the tax load, and the top 10% shoulder 77% of the tax load. That's insane and makes absolutely no sense if you're an unbiased capitalist. On top of being unfair and incongruent with our capitalist ways, raising taxes on the rich will hammer small businesses as I described earlier in this thread. Seeing as how they are responsible for 75% of the country's new jobs, I fail to see how Obama's plan will help us at all in that respect.

Obama also plans to crack down on the lending practices that led to our crisis, but what's ironic is that the lending practices employed were made possible (read: forced) by initiatives like the CRA which are exactly the type of thing Obama supports. Even though Bush has been in office for a long time, it's classic Democratic-like policies that have led to our mortgage and subsequent economic crises. When Obama says we don't need "more of the same," it plays to the lack of knowledge of voters who make the incorrect assumption that our current troubles are results of typical Republican policies simply because a Republican is in office. It's impossible to see how both candidates will do in the real world since only one will be elected, but I will bet my entire first four years of earnings that if Obama wins, at the end of his first and only term our economy will be in even worse shape and I think there is good evidence to support that. His types of policies aren't ever favorable to the economy, but are tolerable when the economy is booming (see Clinton) and work very poorly when the economy is not.

This post has been edited by Existentialist: Oct 1 2008, 9:38 pm

[Hoodstock]

I can't wait to watch Palin in the trainwreck she's about to create tomorrow (a.k.a. Vice Presidential Debate).

It's going to be so ugly you won't be able to help but watch.

[Existentialist]

Who really cares who the better debater is between vice presidential candidates? There's an insanely small chance either will end up as president, and even if one of them did, what difference does it make how well they debated one night in October 2008? I personally witnessed the 2004 VP debate and saw Cheney manhandle Edwards, so does that mean I should have voted for Bush/Cheney instead of Kerry/Edwards? We're up to page 9, Hoodie, and I have yet to see a coherent argument for why Obama is the guy to vote for.

[Badman]

I guess the only thing I can say is that I am glad we live in a Republic and not a democracy. Vote for McCain with the old people, rednecks, Fundies, and Suits. I think this election I'm comfortable with the Hippy, tree hugging, gay, atheist, pot smoking poor people. I'm really glad that your vote won't mean anymore than mine after Obama wins.

[Existentialist]

Funny stuff. You've really fallen trap to the game of a two party system, to the point where you are voting for allegedly the more liberal party yet you are generalizing and stereotyping as much as the backwoods racists you purport to be so different from. Your vote is based entirely on how you identify yourself in relation to society and how your group in society tends to vote. You're the epitome of a sheep.

I guess you could call me a suit since I wear one to school when I go, but I would also consider myself a hippie in the sense that I am extremely socially liberal and anti war, a tree hugger to the point that I talk to all the trees I've planted at home over the years to see how they're doing, an atheist in the sense that I don't believe there is a god, and also smoke pot probably more than anyone on this board. I just do all those things and know a better candidate when I see one. It's debatable about whether or not my vote "counts" for more since you're voting in a state that's already decided and I am not, but at least my vote is as informed as possible.

This post has been edited by Existentialist: Oct 1 2008, 11:48 pm

[Badman]

Funny stuff. You've really fallen trap to the game of a two party system,

&

at least my vote is as informed as possible.

I thought of trying to implore you to vote for Barr over McCain but that's a dumb idea since you said you actually want McCain's specific Economics and not republican economics. I am no slave to the 2 party system either, The only thing I disagree with Obama is regulation and Gun control.

Yeah, our votes are more informed than about 90% of the population. Go us.

In any case, I'm going to post this picture again because it is just too damn good.

[Existentialist]

McCain's economics are the same as the average Republican. Lower taxes, support a free market. It's about that simple. All the details really don't matter. We're in a time of really severe economic crisis, possibly on the verge of a depression, we have little industry anymore and our jobs are being exported right and left. We have two candidates, one promising to keep taxes low for the top 5% (and thus 75% of small businesses set up as S corps) and lower taxes for corporations keeping jobs in America. The other will raise taxes on both. I would love to hear the rationale behind voting for the guy who supports the latter.

You guys have to see the big picture. I'm assuming you're both not in the top 5% of Americans based on wealth, and you're probably delighted that your taxes will be lower and government programs will be more available to you under Obama. Is that what you really want? I think if you're responsible, it's not. You should be supporting a candidate whose policies will strengthen the overall economy and thus better enable you to go out and succeed on your own in the future, rather than cash in a slightly larger paycheck today.

[Badman]

You guys have to see the big picture.

Argh, this has dissolved into a Youtube argument.

I already told you why Democratic Economics work this time around.

1) If you take the fact that the rich invest outside the country or aren't investing in high risk ventures as frequently you could see how little of an effect they have.

2) If you could see how high the average poor person invests in things from Wal mart you could see why it's good to give them money

3) There is a widening gap between rich and poor. We must maintain a middle class!

4) Republican economics have had 8 years to work... they have gotten us bigger debt and less social programs to show for it.

5) The average Ceo makes at least 85 times more than the worker citation

6) The federal reserve cannot continue to deflate our dollar by constantly giving tax breaks to the poor. It gives us less credibility on the global scale and has attributed to the current failures. We should have no tax breaks across the board.

7) We have one of the lowest tax systems in the western world for all brackets. The rest of the world has caught on to social programs and progressive taxation. Whether you like it or not, we still have a progressive tax system Republican or not.

Oh yeah, and I did not read that article wrong. It wasn't just in one demographic, it was in all people but these figures come from the swing states.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081002/ap_on_...esidential_race

[Existentialist]

**edit: don't have time to fix the quote thing, sorry. No more debating for me, either. It's a waste of time and time is something I don't have right now. Back in a week!

[quote name='Badman' date='Oct 2 2008, 10:11 am' post='42176'] I already told you why Democratic Economics work this time around.

1) If you take the fact that the rich invest outside the country or aren't investing in high risk ventures as frequently you could see how little of an effect they have.[/quote]

The rich invest where the market is good. If that means they are investing outside the U.S. right now, which I still would love to see data on, then the problem is not with the rich but with our horrible market. Our market is currently failing due to Democratic policies set in the late 70s and revised under Clinton that made it too easy for people to get loans they couldn't afford. My argument was not that the rich have some sort of "effect," but rather that they deserve to keep the same percentage of the money they earn as everyone else.

[quote] 2) If you could see how high the average poor person invests in things from Wal mart you could see why it's good to give them money. [/quote]

I really think you need to turn your brain on if you think poor people shopping at Walmart, buying rims or buying rap albums is the answer to our economic problems. This is why the recent economic stimulus plan, where every rim-buying poor person was handed a $600 check, did absolutely nothing to avert further economic downturn. Capitalism is, believe it or not, NOT based on buying loads of shit. It's about SAVING, and thus building CAPITAL. The answer to our economic problems is largely to reverse this trend of buying rims and other useless things that have no utility, and start spending our money wisely. Poor people buying rims and shopping at Walmart only perpetuates our problems.

[quote name='Badman' date='Oct 2 2008, 10:11 am' post='42176']3) There is a widening gap between rich and poor. We must maintain a middle class! [/quote]

Cool, I'm all for middle class. How do we maintain one? Do we cut their taxes by an insignificant amount and load up on small business and corporate taxes? Sure, that sounds good. The middle class will save money and oh wait, shit, all their employers now are getting hammered and have much less incentive to employ them. The way to maintain a middle class is to recreate middle class JOBS, so the middle class can earn their money and not just save a little on taxes. I fail to see how raising taxes on just about every business imaginable, as is Obama's plan, will help create more middle class jobs in America.

[quote name='Badman' date='Oct 2 2008, 10:11 am' post='42176']4) Republican economics have had 8 years to work... they have gotten us bigger debt and less social programs to show for it. [/quote]

You're right, McCain is absolutely just like Bush because they're both Republicans. They are totally identical, just the way Obama will be COMPLETELY identical to every other Democrat in the history of the U.S. The only reason we're in more debt is because of the war, period. The war is essentially over, it's time to regroup and balance the budget for once, and that's McCain's plan.

[quote name='Badman' date='Oct 2 2008, 10:11 am' post='42176']5) The average Ceo makes at least 85 times more than the worker citation [/quote]

Picking on CEOs is really grasping at straws. Sure they make too much money, but how many people in this country are CEOs of major corporations? Is it really a huge problem?

[quote name='Badman' date='Oct 2 2008, 10:11 am' post='42176']6) The federal reserve cannot continue to deflate our dollar by constantly giving tax breaks to the poor. It gives us less credibility on the global scale and has attributed to the current failures. We should have no tax breaks across the board. [/quote]

Not even going to touch this one. If you think tax breaks for the poor are deflating our dollar, I won't even argue.

[quote name='Badman' date='Oct 2 2008, 10:11 am' post='42176']7) We have one of the lowest tax systems in the western world for all brackets. The rest of the world has caught on to social programs and progressive taxation. Whether you like it or not, we still have a progressive tax system Republican or not. [/quote]

The bottom line is that years and years of bad policy in America are catching up with us big time. It mainly is attributable to our lack of industry and high expectations for living. We need a president who will create jobs and also keep the jobs we have. Obama's very clear about raising taxes on all businesses, and no matter what else he says that is sure to doom any chance we have of improving the situation. We also need a president who has the balls to say that not everyone is entitled to the same things. If someone can't afford a house, there shouldn't be government policies in place to make sure they get the house. Let the free market take over and let people get only what they can afford. If we'd simply done this, guess what, no housing and mortgage crisis. Obama is pretty clear that he's going to increase government control of markets and use the government to try to equalize these markets. Big mistake.

Electing someone like Obama is like climbing into the back of a van because the nice looking man in the driver's seat promises you candy once you're inside. You'll probably get that candy and you'll be happy for it, but it's not really doing you any good to let that guy control the situation. Pretty much without fail, every time the government has gotten involved in a market it has completely fucked it up. Everybody thought it was a great idea to create social security and let the government cover our retirement that way, and look where that got us. One on the verge of bankruptcy cocksucking mess and still tons of poor elderly people. Everybody thought it was a great idea to let the government cover our health care for us, and loved the idea of Medicaid and Medicare. Look where it got us -- two on the verge of bankruptcy cocksucking messes and still tons of poor people without health care. Everybody thought it was a great idea to create Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and just let the government guarantee absurd bank loans, and look where it got us -- much more than two on the verge of, or in, bankruptcy cocksucking messes and even more people in poverty and without housing. Seeing a pattern? You don't want the government involved, even though it might seem tempting. Our core problems in America go way beyond Bush and are primarily rooted in government involvement in markets, which is exactly what Obama supports. I'm still willing to bet my entire earnings during Obama's term on his hurting our economy further, if there are any takers.

This post has been edited by Existentialist: Oct 2 2008, 1:57 pm

[Hoodstock]

Who really cares who the better debater is between vice presidential candidates? There's an insanely small chance either will end up as president

Apparently you haven't noticed that McCain is months away from a stroke. There is no way he will survive 4 years in office with the stress he's going to face.

[Existentialist]

Apparently you haven't noticed that McCain is months away from a stroke. There is no way he will survive 4 years in office with the stress he's going to face.

Apparently you're completely ignorant about health care. Anyone with unrestricted access to health care and the unbelievable technology available today can live well beyond what most people would believe. You obviously have no idea how advanced health care is. McCain will live to be over 100 without breaking a sweat if he has the presidential workup.

Also, as a word of caution, be careful what you say anytime you imply that a president may not "survive" through a term. The Secret Service doesn't mess around with that, as expected.

This post has been edited by Existentialist: Oct 2 2008, 10:40 pm

[Badman]

The only reason we're in more debt is because of the war, period. The war is essentially over,

You're right... the war is over. I'm sure that no candidate wants to spend 100 years in Iraq. I'm sure that no candidate preys on the fears of the average american.

On a completely different note, I completely understand where you are coming at from the free market thing. The rich do deserve to keep their money because they worked for it. I also mostly agree with you on the government intervention thing. The government keeps stepping in and messing with the markets. The only good time I can recall is the New Deal and that is because it built infrastructure and provided jobs at the same time.

But anyways, onto the gov intervention thing. Republicans need to stick to their word and stop messing around with the markets. You probably agree with me here. We didn't need either of bush's 2 tax cuts changing the markets and we can see they didn't help. I guess they do it b/c they have the power to apparently which kinda sucks because we get things like this. As soon as I realized both parties love to intervene in the markets I dropped that whole argument b/c I realize they are the same party with a different name.