Last Night's Debate

[Yankees]

Winner - Obama on the sole fact that McCain didn't win.

Loser(s) - The American Public.

That was just a fucking embarassment last night. I'm about 90% sure I'm writing in for Bill Richardson at the moment. I don't care if my vote doesn't matter because of that, it's better than voting for those two clowns.

They were constantly petty. They were constantly defensive. They both talked down to the American people. Neither offered any REAL solutions. The only breakthrough of the night seemed to be McCain saying that he'd give the Secretary of the Treasury $300 billion to resolve defaulted house loans, only to be informed that that money was already in the bailout, and the Secretary of the Treasury already had that power.

And then he said he may appoint Meg Whitman as the Secretary of the Treasury - Meg, who does have an incredible story, also just laid off 10% of her US workforce.

Obama had an opportunity to end this election by offering solid, forward-thinking solutions while remaining above the petty jabs that McCain was throwing at him. Instead he was no better than McCain.

Just a sad, sad night for America...

I'd love to hear if others had the same take my friends and I did...

[Athletics]

I agree 100%. It seems they were more interested in pointing the finger at who didn't do what instead of how to fix our problems.

[Mariners]

How embarrasing it must be for you Brett to admit you are an "Undecided Voter"!

[Giants]

I was also depressed by last night's debate, and by this whole election cycle in general. Unlike 2004, which was a essentially a referendum on George W. Bush, we really had an opportunity this year with the two candidates running to have a meaningful election in which policy issued were explored and the high road was taken, and both campaigns have chosen to play crappy partisan politics. Z, it's worth noting that Meg Whitman left EBay in March, it was the new CEO who made the decision to lay off 10% of the workforce, what is likely to be a common refrain in the next few months.

The truth is that this current party setup can't last, we have two parties both dealing with fundamental hypocrisies in their core domestic philosophies. You have a Republican party who believes that government shouldn't tell you how you earn your money, how you spend your money (in terms of lower taxes), whether or not you own a gun, in fact their pretty much in favor of free everything, except that the government does get to make the most intimate decisions in your life (who you marry, how much control you can have over your family planning, how you pray to some degree, whether or not science is true if you're in Kansas). And then you have a Democratic party who thinks that everything the Republicans say the government shouldn't control it should, and everything the Republicans say the government should control it shouldn't. Neither philosophy hangs together, which is why the country struggles the most when one party is in power in both Legislative and Executive Branches (see Carter, Jimmy and Bush, George W., and we're probably headed for the same thing with Obama, Barack), groupthink takes over and bad laws get passed. On balance you can't even call the Bush Administration conservative, and it was supposed to be the most conservative administration ever. I believe that the parties and going to evolve, and one party will end up being the less restriction on everything party and the other one will end up being the more restriction on everything party. I believe that most Americans are generally more fiscally conservative (we all want low taxes right?) and socially progressive, and whichever party is able to accurately and honestly take that position is the one that's going to hold sway in this country for the long haul. It won't be the Democrats as long as they want to blame Wall Street and big corporations for all the world's problems, and it won't be the Republicans as long as they put forth Sarah Palin types as the rising stars of the party.

Ironically, in last night's debate McCain finally began forcefully making the argument that should have been the centerpiece of his candidacy all along, comparing his bipartisan record to that of Obama's (most liberal in the Senate), and actively working to separate himself from the Bush Administration. Probably too little too late at this point.

[Yankees]

Two quick things:
1) I'm a liberal - and most of my friends are liberals - and the fact that most everyone I've talked was totally put-off by the debate and even the election, to this point, should make a strong statement to both parties. Honestly, I think I'd rather just have McCain drop out on the condition he can take over as VP for Biden - so we can get back to that Lincoln Bipartisan cabinet that was the most effective in our nation's history. Honestly, if we don't kick it old school, I fear that Jake is 100% right on the above (Zalaski successfully dodges lightning bolt).

I was LITERALLY attacked personally on gchat today about my views on this election to date - which makes me think I'm even more correct at this point.

2) I don't necessarily disagree with the view on McCain pushing his bipartisanship, but there's no way, with the current economic climate and his support of the Bush financial policies, that that would have mattered. It may have made it closer, but so long as the Dow keeps dropping, so do McCain's chances of winning - no matter how well he was doing.

If you put them side by side:
8 Years of Clinton (Democrat): Biggest Surplus in Our Nation's History
8 Years of Bush (Republican): Worst Economic Climate Since The Great Depression

I'm not naive enough to think it's entirely Bush's fault on the economy (who knows, some may have been due to a Clinton policy gone sour), but it's a damning result that's too big a mountain for McCain to climb - regardless of his effectiveness (or ineffectiveness as it were) in this campaign season.

Ultimately, of course I'm fucking voting for Obama. The above was a post describing my disgust with the debate last night, including a knee-jerk reaction about voting for Bill Richardson. Ultimately, though, this election is going to be like taking down an ugly girl as a last option at 3 pm. Sure, I'm getting ass (Bush leaving the White House), which is the most important thing, but it's not like I'm going to wake up in the morning and be really happy (having to vote for Obama).

Did that make sense? Did to me...

[Tigers]

8 Years of Bush (Republican): Worst Economic Climate Since The Great Depression

That is as misleading a statement as one can produce, given your criticism of extreme politics these days. That may apply to the last 18 months of the Bush Administration, but is not accurate in describing the prior 6.5 years.

Funny how people forget that the economy was churning along at a record pace up until about 18 months ago. Yes, it was fraught with fatal flaws which guaranteed its doom at some point, but none the less, that had very little to do with the current administration and more to do with the development of a series of perfect storms in the financial world.

Just for the record, if I haven't already stated such in the past, I hate the current administration and voted against them in the last election.

[Tigers]

Ultimately, of course I'm fucking voting for Obama. The above was a post describing my disgust with the debate last night, including a knee-jerk reaction about voting for Bill Richardson. Ultimately, though, this election is going to be like taking down an ugly girl as a last option at 3 AM. Sure, I'm getting ass (Bush leaving the White House), which is the most important thing, but it's not like I'm going to wake up in the morning and be really happy (having to vote for Obama).

Did that make sense? Did to me...

There, fixed. Now it makes sense.

[Astros]

Right now is why I wish there was a viable 3rd party candidate, because I would vote for them. There hasn't been a 3rd party candidate win electoral votes since Wallace in 68, and even though Perot got like 15% of the popular vote in 92, he didn't win any electoral votes. I wish Paul would run as an independant and get on the ballot in every state, but he was never given a fair shake in the primaries because the media just dismissed him as an old coot that didn't know what he was talking about, when in fact he knew more about what he was talking about than anybody else

[Yankees]

Ropers - think you're totally misrepresenting what I said on the economy. I'm not saying this IS the case, in fact, in the next line, I say it's not totally Bush's fault. But the last 18 months are the most relevant to the voting public (as can be seen by how the voting has trended in the polls).

If the public didn't think they were relevant (again, not saying they're right), then the voting would not have slid as precipitously as they have towards Obama. Obama didn't gain 8 points in the polls because the American public now thinks Palin's an idiot. He gained 8 points in the polls because of the economy. I mean, is there even an argument there?

I was saying, when put side by side, as the Obama group has done a good job of doing, the Clinton vs. Bush White House years - at their end game - aren't a pretty comparison. AGAIN, not saying it's a good comparison to begin with.

[Mariners]

I'd like to make a public apology for private comments. First, I would like to thank both Brett & Jake (Zalaski & Hamlin) for always sharing their thoughts with the rest of us and trying to promote healthy debate within our league. I now would like to apologize to both Brett & Jake because even though I have disagreed with some/many things they have said, I have been too lazy in responding to those things that I disagreed with. Instead I have fired off one-liners, and private email/chats that don't offer anything constructive in debate. You guys have taken the time to share with us and if I disagreed with you I should have not been lazy in responding, you guys deserve better than that.

[Tigers]

Ropers - think you're totally misrepresenting what I said on the economy. I'm not saying this IS the case, in fact, in the next line, I say it's not totally Bush's fault. But the last 18 months are the most relevant to the voting public (as can be seen by how the voting has trended in the polls).

I don't think I'm misrepresenting it, I think you said it is a very poor manner resulting in a situation where it can be easily mis-interpreted. Much like the way both candidates these days chose to portray their opponent.

You took one very wide and extreme reaching statement and stuck it next to each president. It makes it appear you are summing up the entirety of each presidency with that single overriding topic. Which, as I stated, is very misleading and unfortunately the overriding characteristic of both political parties today.

I was saying, when put side by side, as the Obama group has done a good job of doing, the Clinton vs. Bush White House years - at their end game - aren't a pretty comparison. AGAIN, not saying it's a good comparison to begin with.

So, you are basically saying you are just continuing on with the current political methods of swaying opinions by use of misleading information presentation.

Good job.

[Tigers]

Right now is why I wish there was a viable 3rd party candidate, because I would vote for them.

Welcome to what America likes to toute as the Greatest "Democracy" in the world.

I think America would more accurately be described as a two party Republic.

[Astros]

In reading a biography on George Wallace this summer, it made me realize that I'm more of a populist than anything and that I agreed with his platform and ideas (go ahead and make your jokes, I'm not counting segregation here folks) more than any candidate I've ever read about. I think what we need now is a new Wallace, someone to burst on the national scene and, as he would have put it, "shake our eyeteeth" and actually come through on campaign promises and help the average person. That's a lot better than Obama repeating the exact same thing 40 times in a 90 minute debate and John McCain trying to make unfunny jokes and having both candidates take pot shots at each other the whole time

[Giants]

Aaron, it didn't take a George Wallace biography to get you supporting segregation (come on league, that one wasn't creative someone else come up with something better). If you're a populist then the prominent political figure who's your guy is probably Mike Huckabee, who represents the probably the exact opposite of the growth of the Republican Party that I was proposing in my first post (and to me is best represented by Arnold). The problem with populism is that populist economics doesn't really support any sort of growth, and because of it's us vs. them mentality when it comes to rich vs. poor it actually discourages ambition. I'm not a believer in pure trickle-down economics by any stretch, but I believe that you have to support the people that will create jobs for others, not the people who are desperately trying to hold on to the job they have. The other problem is that Right-Wing populism is a necessary precursor to Fascism and Left-Wing populism is a necessary precursor to Communism, both of which are bad.

[Astros]

My bad, I didn't mean I was a supporter of populist economic policies, but populist social policies. Wallace started up dozens of vocational colleges and the University of South Alabama while he was in office in Alabama, making college more affordable for the common people. He did a lot of stuff to help blue collar workers and living where I live, that's very important because once you get out in the county, blue collar jobs are all you have. That's the kind of stuff I'm a supporter of. I won't pretend to know anything about economics so I won't make any comments on that. And that was a disappointing burn Jake, I expected more from you

[Giants]

Eh, I only had like two minutes to type that post out in between meetings. I'm thinking if I had a chance to do it over I'd do something along the lines of Aaron absolutely believes in segregation, he wants to sit on the side of the bus reserved for people who fuck their cousins, or something along those lines, which is only slightly better.

I totally agree with the need for more vocational training and education and that sort of thing, it's a joke how expensive college is in many places. Another thing the political correctness machine has fucked up is this idea that everyone should go to college, which has caused the funding to dry up for many vocational programs in California. Education is not a one size fits all proposition and the more options around the better, there's nothing wrong with graduating high school and spending two years in a vocational program to become a carpenter rather than four years at a university becoming an English major (one could argue that the carpenter is actually more valuable than the English major, especially if the English major is a Democrat ), whatever life you want should be open to you if you have the drive and the talent to live it.

On the other hand, programs that support blue collar workers absolutely have a major economic impact, and should not be advocated without understanding the economic implications. In a nutshell, the more compensation and benefits you require the more expensive it is to hire an employee and therefore the fewer jobs that are available. Obviously there is an opposite extreme (read the Grapes of Wrath or any similar Steinbeck book to see what happens when unskilled labor has no power), but here's a basic example to get you to understand what I mean:

Suppose the local government enacts a law that employers are required to give their workers an extra $1000 per year Christmas bonus. Great for the workers, they know their holiday gifts and parties are taken care of and all of that. But now suppose this law is enacted in a West Virginia coal mining town, and the local mine, which is central to the town's economy, employs 1000 employees who all of a sudden qualify for this bonus. Well next thing you know, that's $1,000,000 that the company has to pay out which results in a benefit of only $1,000 for each employee. So the cost to the company vs. the benefit to the employee has become small win-big loss. Now suppose that there is an economic downturn, you've lopped $1,000,000 off of the companies income, which is pretty significant in their ability to fend off the hard times, increasing the likelihood of massive layoffs. Now the company is down $1,000,000 and the employee is down a job, so that's big loss-big loss. Also, because the cost of labor has increased $1000, there is a disincentive to hire new employees when times get better (this is what's happened in France, where it's so expensive to hire and fire someone that companies just don't hire domestically) so it's lose-lose again as the company doesn't have enough employees and the employee is still out of a job. I could write a book playing out this thought experiment about economic implications farther (and I'm sure someone already has), but the point is that supporting blue collar workers who themselves create no new jobs in policy has serious economic consequences and it tends to be people who don't study economics who support those policies precisely because of a lack of understanding about the consequences.

[Astros]

I agree with you 100% about the everyone should go to college kick everyone is on now. When I was in high school, vocational school was only pushed on the kids that were obviously not going to college. Had I known how much money plumbers make, I would have considered going into that. Sitting in a classroom isn't for everyone. Not everyone is cut out for college and that is something that high school counselors need to flat out tell students. You shouldn't tell a high school student that gets C's when they're trying that they should go to a 4 year school because they aren't cut out for college. Have them learn a trade so they have a way to earn a living.

Its kind of going back to the Booker T. Washington/W.E.B. DuBois arguement, is it better for people to learn a vocation and be able to support themselves or to get a liberal arts degree. Of course, it all depends on the person. In that situation, I back Washington's thinking but today everyone thinks everyone should have a college degree. Well, it's not viable for everyone to have a degree, because then who is going to be the garbagemen, janitors and other manual labor jobs most people don't want to do. I have no problem with manual labor but for some people, they're so lazy that's the main reason they go to college, so they can sit behind a desk instead of doing a job for a living that makes them break a sweat

[Yankees]

Ropers - apologies if it seemed I was trying to misrepresent anything. All I was trying to point out that McCain really has nothing to do with this election - it might actually be a race if the economy wasn't this bad.

On to Aaron and Jake's thoughts - I'm a bit lost. It's certainly a shame that vocational schools are going under. They provide an incredible benefit to society. But I'm not sure how you can say the desire of students to go to college is not a good thing. There are plenty of my friends who were C students in high school, went to a decent/bad college who have gone on to have more successful careers than some of my friends who were A students and went to excellent colleges.

The people who are most to blame are the colleges. There are plenty of colleges who have tremendous endowments that still raise the cost of tuition every year, without providing anything of value back to the school. I'm not sure why the government doesn't look into these situations - except of course they're scared shitless of pissing off these institutions. Ultimately, you really aren't going to make me see continuing education as anything but a positive for the American society.

[Tigers]

Ropers - apologies if it seemed I was trying to misrepresent anything. All I was trying to point out that McCain really has nothing to do with this election - it might actually be a race if the economy wasn't this bad.

You have a very valid point regarding McCain's chances in this election heading south with the economy, no matter how much he tries to distance himself from the current administration. However, you were making your point like most politicains seem to be doing these days.

[Yankees]

Huh? I'm making the point that this election is about the economy because of the spin the liberals have stuck on the economic trends of the past 16 years and NOT the politics in a way that politicians would do it? Either I'm in the Matrix, or just thinking about your characterization of what I was simply trying to say is giving me a headache.

I guess I should have written "it's a damning result the Liberals have burned into the brains of the American public...," but, then again, if anyone on this board believes that the shape of the economy is totally the fault of the President and his party's politics, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them.

[Tigers]

.....but, then again, if anyone on this board believes that the shape of the economy is totally the fault of the President and his party's politics, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them.

On this board, you'd hope not but it wouldn't surprise me, but I think you'd be surprised how many people out there in American society today believe the economic problems are the fault of the current administration.

[Yankees]

No, trust me, I'm talking with the American public everyday - they are morons - which is why the economy is winning this election. I just took this as a little more enlightened audience.

[DBacks]

I guess the easy thing is to pretend everyone is stupid, but I'm not sure that is the case. I don't see how you can blame average americans for holding President Bush responsible for the situation we're in, even if thats not exactly true. The economy is complex and hard to understand, and most average americans don't have the time or desire to learn about its details. That's why they elect officials - to understand it for them, and put it in plain language and terms that they understand, and can process in the span of a 4 minute news story or 10 minute news conference. So, when the current President is one of the most, if not the most unpopular President ever, and this happens under his watch, its pretty easy to blame it on him. Especially if you're a Democrat and the leaders of the party you've aligned yourself with keep telling you thats the case.

So, I guess we can call the public stupid for not being economics experts, but to me that's pretty fucking arrogant. People don't always have the time to invest in researching and learning on their own, and whether or not you believe its stupid, they have to trust the people in charge to give them the information they need. Thats the only way it works. So, of course people blame George Bush, rightly or wrongly. It's not stupidity, it's common sense.

[Tigers]

Especially if you're a Democrat and the leaders of the party you've aligned yourself with keep telling you thats the case.

Anyone who takes a politician's word at face value without doing their own research is an idiot/stupid/moron, whatever you want to call them it would fit.

[DBacks]

So they're supposed to assume its a lie? The single mom with three kids and two jobs is supposed to find some time to research and figure out the economic crisis on her own? No one is saying that people think politicians are 100% honest, but yes, you do have to be able to pick the ones you're going to trust and then listen to what they have to say. Thats just the way it has to work. Otherwise, there's no point. You can be as cynical about the system as you want, but if you choose not to believe anyone in Washington ever, then you've got to learn and research everything for yourself. Some people dont have time for that. That doesn't make them stupid, it just makes them busy.