fuzzy math?
that's a grossly inaccurate statement that really has no merit at all.
Obama, our party's candidate of change, is arguing math that is hardly fuzzy. in fact, its hatd to get more clear cut. he's arguing three points:
he's won more states.
he's winning the popular vote.
he's winning the delegate count.
how in the world is that fuzzy? its only fuzzy if don't know how to count.
quickly from dream to nightmare.
Moderator: DBacks
Was that Bush's platform in '04? Seemed to me it was more a matter of fearmongering...Pirates wrote:every presidential candidate is about "change."
Jake, you talk about fuzzy math, let's talk about some 'fuzzy graphics' because that's what that map is. A LOT of those heavy red sections are areas of the country where the population density is miniscule, lending highest visual value to areas with the smallest Actual value. That map is worse than inaccurate, it's deceitful.
Obama is bringing out more independents and getting a larger share of the independent vote. The Clintonites are going to vote for Obama in the GE, there's no doubt there.
You can talk about Ifs with Clinton all you want, but Obama is winning the popular vote, the delegate count and in GE polls is matching up better against McCain than Clinton is even in the states that Clinton is winning because Obama has more appeal to independent voters than Clinton does. The hardcore Dems are going to vote for whichever democrat is on the ticket, ditto the hardcore republicans. The real question is who is going to do a better job of exciting and energizing the populace to vote (unquestionably Obama) and who is going to fare better among independents (Obama again).
Clinton, to many people, including democrats, represents an extension of divisive politics and, in some eyes, the extension of a two family 'dynasty'. 28 years of a Clinton or Bush running the country? Don't think people haven't considered that.
Bren, my point by posting that map was exactly that, nothing is really as it seems in politics. You can stop talking about how Obama is winning the popular vote, my point over and over and over and over has been that this becomes an issue IF Hillary catches up in the popular vote. Meanwhile, while Obama leads the popular vote over McCain and better than Hillary in general election polls, according to RealClearPolitics in the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, Hillary polls several points better than Obama vs. McCain, which is really what's important. Whether Obama wins California by 15 points or 20, or loses Texas by 20 points or 15, is completely irrelevant, as I said, just ask Al Gore how much the popular vote means in a general election. I'm not Pro-Hillary by any stretch, everyone here knows I'm a McCainiac (by the way, big advantage for McCain as there are several clever nicknames you can create from his name that flow. Obamamania's got an extra syllable and there really isn't much you can do with Hillary), but the Obama campaign is relying on superficial voters who won't dig deeper, and so I'm doing that. Remember that in politics nothing is as simple as it seems or as Barack Obama would like you to believe.
"Obama" by itself makes for a great chant. "McCain" not so much. Even "Hillary" works better than "McCain", it's too short.
As far as Obama being superficial... what do you want from a candidate, really? Presidents don't MAKE laws (something people, especially Bush, keep forgetting), they enforce them and represent the citizenry (theoretically). It's a position where judgment counts more than anything else. Hillary ran an ad that was about the phone ringing at 3 am, who do you want answering it? Obama, unquestionably. I trust him far more to not cave into the insiders in Washington, to actually protect those most in need of protection and to make the right decision. I don't have any question about his loyalty being divided between the people he serves and the corporations that put him there. I trust his judgment and intelligence to put intelligent people in the right positions of authority and advisement and to consider those advisers intelligently. What made Bush such a disaster wasn't his relative inexperience or his religious views, it was his consistently poor judgment (something he has displayed throughout his life and careers) and the fact that the advisers he surrounded himself with were corrupt, power/money hungry pieces of filth who put the pursuit and maintenance of power ahead of doing what was right.
McCain used to be a stand-up guy but he's lost a lot of stock and integrity with his war-hawking and pandering to the religious right and to Bush. McCain sold out. I'm not thrilled about Hillary but I'd still take her leadership over McCain's but there is no question in my mind that Obama is going to be the next President of the United States of America (if no redneck racist kills him first).
As far as Obama being superficial... what do you want from a candidate, really? Presidents don't MAKE laws (something people, especially Bush, keep forgetting), they enforce them and represent the citizenry (theoretically). It's a position where judgment counts more than anything else. Hillary ran an ad that was about the phone ringing at 3 am, who do you want answering it? Obama, unquestionably. I trust him far more to not cave into the insiders in Washington, to actually protect those most in need of protection and to make the right decision. I don't have any question about his loyalty being divided between the people he serves and the corporations that put him there. I trust his judgment and intelligence to put intelligent people in the right positions of authority and advisement and to consider those advisers intelligently. What made Bush such a disaster wasn't his relative inexperience or his religious views, it was his consistently poor judgment (something he has displayed throughout his life and careers) and the fact that the advisers he surrounded himself with were corrupt, power/money hungry pieces of filth who put the pursuit and maintenance of power ahead of doing what was right.
McCain used to be a stand-up guy but he's lost a lot of stock and integrity with his war-hawking and pandering to the religious right and to Bush. McCain sold out. I'm not thrilled about Hillary but I'd still take her leadership over McCain's but there is no question in my mind that Obama is going to be the next President of the United States of America (if no redneck racist kills him first).
First of all, the chant is John-Mc-Cain, three syllables that run together and work just as well as O-ba-ma, in fact, its the same rhythm only the consonants make it sound stronger. My question to you is why exactly do you trust Obama not to cave? Where does his record reflect that? Check out how he caved on the Nuclear Regulatory legislation (and then check out how the nuclear power companies responded with donations to his campaign).
You used to respect John McCain's independence until he disagreed with you on the war and so now he's a sellout? If anything, supporting the war as strongly as he did has COST John McCain political capital rather than gaining it for him. He's gone so far as to say that he would give up his presidential ambitions if it meant success in Iraq. How is that selling out? If anything it sounds to me like a man with the courage of his convictions to back an unpopular but reasonable stance that generals should fight the war, not politicians. I'm also not clear on what you consider pandering to the religious right, he voted against the life amendment, would not support a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage. Disagreeing with Bren Dillon on the war in Iraq is not a criteria for "selling out."
You used to respect John McCain's independence until he disagreed with you on the war and so now he's a sellout? If anything, supporting the war as strongly as he did has COST John McCain political capital rather than gaining it for him. He's gone so far as to say that he would give up his presidential ambitions if it meant success in Iraq. How is that selling out? If anything it sounds to me like a man with the courage of his convictions to back an unpopular but reasonable stance that generals should fight the war, not politicians. I'm also not clear on what you consider pandering to the religious right, he voted against the life amendment, would not support a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage. Disagreeing with Bren Dillon on the war in Iraq is not a criteria for "selling out."
I don't disagree for the most part, but those appointments were still his decisions, as were the decisions to not remove those people when it was clear they were screwing up. A good leader shouldn't be afraid to change course when it's clear he set the wrong one.Cardinals wrote:Bush in a lot of ways is like Warren G. Harding. His big mistakes weren't his decisions, but who he appointed and who in turn, ended up screwing him over
Jake, saying he'd stay in Iraq for a hundred years if that's what it took to win is not the rhetoric of a wise leader. That's pure stubbornness and stupidity. Politicians started the war with a case built on lies and politicians continued the war. This is a war purely and simply because we're there. No other reason. Standing by a bad decision is not wisdom or good leadership.
Make no mistake, I think that of the possible republican candidates, McCain was the best choice, though that's not a hard choice given that his competition was a Southern Baptist minister and a lying, power-hungry snake-in-the-grass piece of shit dressed up in a $2000 suit (I'm referring to mitt Romney in case you couldn't guess).
On the sunny side, as a nation, we can't lose this November because no matter who wins (Obama), it will be the end of George W. Bush and none of the remaining candidates could possibly be a worse president than he was.
Aaron using a rapper analogy?Cardinals wrote:Bush in a lot of ways is like Warren G. Harding. His big mistakes weren't his decisions, but who he appointed and who in turn, ended up screwing him over
What is this world coming too?
"Hating the Yankees is as American as pizza pie, unwed mothers, and cheating on your income tax."
Since Barack Obama is all about changing the process and not letting politics as usual distract us let's ignore the politics as usual sound bite and focus on what McCain actually said. When he was talking about American troops in Iraq he was referring to the kind of stabilizing troops that we still have in Japan, Germany, South Korea, and other past volatile war-zones. Obviously if the situation that exists today is going on in 100 years we will have a serious problem, but you make it sound like McCain is advocating status quo for the next century which is certainly not what he meant. His point simply was that as long as there is Al-Qaeda and that pulling out American troops will result in instability that we shouldn't rush to set a date for a politically expedient withdrawal. What exactly do you think is going to happen in Iraq if all the American troops are gone? Rules for the answer to this question: you don't get to attack Bush's original decision to send in troops, you can't unring that bell. What exactly do you think will happen in Iraq if we put all the American troops on a plane and take them out of there?
if you, or McCain, actually think there is going to be anything even slightly stabilizing about haivng US troops in Iraq then you are on crack. Do you know what a green zone is? A green zone, like the one we have in Iraq, is the term used for the area controlled by an imperialist foreign government. It's the same term that was used in India, South Africa and many other nations for the areas occupied by the British Empire. I worked for two companies that do embassy work for the US Government and the 'Embassy' in Iraq, isn't an embassy, it's a large, permanent military base.Athletics wrote:Since Barack Obama is all about changing the process and not letting politics as usual distract us let's ignore the politics as usual sound bite and focus on what McCain actually said. When he was talking about American troops in Iraq he was referring to the kind of stabilizing troops that we still have in Japan, Germany, South Korea, and other past volatile war-zones. Obviously if the situation that exists today is going on in 100 years we will have a serious problem, but you make it sound like McCain is advocating status quo for the next century which is certainly not what he meant. His point simply was that as long as there is Al-Qaeda and that pulling out American troops will result in instability that we shouldn't rush to set a date for a politically expedient withdrawal. What exactly do you think is going to happen in Iraq if all the American troops are gone? Rules for the answer to this question: you don't get to attack Bush's original decision to send in troops, you can't unring that bell. What exactly do you think will happen in Iraq if we put all the American troops on a plane and take them out of there?
Japan? Japan started their war. Germany as well. South Korea is a different situation, but still not a war that we started. Iraq was a stable nation that we invaded, disrupted and occupied which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians. I see a difference between those situations and Iraq.
I don't know what will happen if we pull out, but I do know what will happen if we remain there. More American soldiers getting killed every day, Al-Qaeda gaining strength rallying around the US Occupation of Iraq (anyone who suggests it's anything other than an occupation is a fool or a liar) and more money getting flushed into the military-industrial complex and away from real services like education, infrastructure and emergency services.
Pull out (all the way out), let the Iraqis stand on their own legs. If it doesn't work out we can always invade again.
You broke the rules of the question. Like I said, you can't unring the bell. Al-Qaeda is in fact losing strength in Iraq as their territory is being shrunk by our troops and there is now very little Al-Qaeda activity outside of their base in Mosul. If we leave Iraq, they are free to operate. The Iraqis are not able to stand on their own legs, if we leave it becomes an unstable terrorist haven under the influence of Iran. The message sent to the entire world (which by the way was first sent in Vietnam) is "when the going gets tough the Americans quit." Giving up in Iraq, especially under the circumstance of bowing to political pressure , sends that message loud and clear. It tells the terrorists that we don't have the stomach to fight them, it tells the European Union that we bow to their political pressure, in a war whose total death toll STILL hasn't reached the average daily death toll of World War II. The consequences of a pullout are certainly complicated and we aren't going to solve them here, but you also haven't explained how McCain's support of the war at great political cost to himself makes him a sellout.RedSox wrote:if you, or McCain, actually think there is going to be anything even slightly stabilizing about haivng US troops in Iraq then you are on crack. Do you know what a green zone is? A green zone, like the one we have in Iraq, is the term used for the area controlled by an imperialist foreign government. It's the same term that was used in India, South Africa and many other nations for the areas occupied by the British Empire. I worked for two companies that do embassy work for the US Government and the 'Embassy' in Iraq, isn't an embassy, it's a large, permanent military base.Athletics wrote:Since Barack Obama is all about changing the process and not letting politics as usual distract us let's ignore the politics as usual sound bite and focus on what McCain actually said. When he was talking about American troops in Iraq he was referring to the kind of stabilizing troops that we still have in Japan, Germany, South Korea, and other past volatile war-zones. Obviously if the situation that exists today is going on in 100 years we will have a serious problem, but you make it sound like McCain is advocating status quo for the next century which is certainly not what he meant. His point simply was that as long as there is Al-Qaeda and that pulling out American troops will result in instability that we shouldn't rush to set a date for a politically expedient withdrawal. What exactly do you think is going to happen in Iraq if all the American troops are gone? Rules for the answer to this question: you don't get to attack Bush's original decision to send in troops, you can't unring that bell. What exactly do you think will happen in Iraq if we put all the American troops on a plane and take them out of there?
Japan? Japan started their war. Germany as well. South Korea is a different situation, but still not a war that we started. Iraq was a stable nation that we invaded, disrupted and occupied which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians. I see a difference between those situations and Iraq.
I don't know what will happen if we pull out, but I do know what will happen if we remain there. More American soldiers getting killed every day, Al-Qaeda gaining strength rallying around the US Occupation of Iraq (anyone who suggests it's anything other than an occupation is a fool or a liar) and more money getting flushed into the military-industrial complex and away from real services like education, infrastructure and emergency services.
Pull out (all the way out), let the Iraqis stand on their own legs. If it doesn't work out we can always invade again.
Meanwhile, interesting article up on realclearpolitics today about your buddy Obama's Iraq record. I particularly like
I sure hope that one doesn't come back to bite him in the ass, oh wait hell yeah I do.More than a year after the initial success of the invasion, Obama explained, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."
unring what freaking bell? This surge that everyone seems so thrilled about will require a constant, MAJOR military presence in Iraq (i.e. continued occupation) for an indefinite period. That isn't a 'solution' and whatever it may do to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, it will increase American antipathy globally, fueling Al-Qaeda's cause and filling their ranks. The Iraqis need to learn to stand on their own two legs, that isn't going to happen when they have an invading army patrolling the streets on a daily basis.
Jake, a year after the invasion, we were STUCK with Iraq, there was nothing we could do other than rebuild the country we had blown apart. Now, Iraq has been rebuilt to the point where they should at least attempt to stand on their own. The government has a budget SURPLUS fer crying out loud while we shell out billions of dollars...
As a side note: anyone who calls the invasion of Iraq any kind of 'success' has to be psychotic. Mistake, disaster, folly... those are proper descriptors for the invasion of Iraq. i would seriously question the perspective and objectivity of that report and by extension, that website.
Jake, a year after the invasion, we were STUCK with Iraq, there was nothing we could do other than rebuild the country we had blown apart. Now, Iraq has been rebuilt to the point where they should at least attempt to stand on their own. The government has a budget SURPLUS fer crying out loud while we shell out billions of dollars...
As a side note: anyone who calls the invasion of Iraq any kind of 'success' has to be psychotic. Mistake, disaster, folly... those are proper descriptors for the invasion of Iraq. i would seriously question the perspective and objectivity of that report and by extension, that website.
"Unring the bell" I keep harping on it because your main point seems to be "the invasion of Iraq was a mistake in the first place so we should pull the troops out now." It sounds like you're proposing that we undo the invasion (unring the bell), but we can't undo the invasion, its already happened. So the decisions that get made have to be made based on looking forward (Do we abandon promises that we've made, do we let a nation plunge into civil war, do we hand the oil fields over to Iran) as opposed to just coming up with reasons why the invasion was a bad idea.
