http://gamingtrend.com
September 16, 2014, 11:32:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hmmm. What if: Hilary = VP? Does That Sway Your Vote to McCain?  (Read 12148 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15414


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: June 06, 2008, 05:57:17 PM »

Not looking good.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2008, 06:24:40 PM »

Quote from: ATB on June 06, 2008, 05:57:17 PM


Bah - I'm so sick of all these polls making headlines as if they represent the will of the people

You have no idea how leading the question was stated
The sampling sizes are always so small (Oh look they asked a whole 900 people)
No good information on how these people were selected, when they called, what size of city they live in
etc
etc
etc

It's just something to make a headline

Logged
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 06, 2008, 06:43:46 PM »

Let's poll 300 people and call the outcome "the will of all Democrats in the USA".
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1339


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: June 06, 2008, 07:25:15 PM »

VP preference polls are dramatically influenced by name-recognition. They rarely reflect the most effective ticket for a general election. By the end of the campaign, whoever is picked in the VP slot will be a big name even if he/she is not now. 
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8984


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: June 06, 2008, 07:51:52 PM »

Not that my vote matters since I live in California, but the Democratic VP candidate is the deciding factor on if I vote this year.  I like Obama and what he stands for, but everything I've seen/read about his politics screams that he could really need someone with a lot more experience and a bit less idealism as a running mate.  I hate Hillary.  I cannot see myself voting for McCain under any circumstances. 

Obama gets my vote provided he a) clarifies some of the squishy parts of his platform (which is an awful lot of it) and/or b) names a VP that makes me comfortable.  Otherwise, I abstain from voting.  Or I vote for Babar.  Yes, the cartoon elephant.

gellar
Logged
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2008, 07:59:57 PM »

Quote from: gellar on June 06, 2008, 07:51:52 PM

Obama gets my vote provided he a) clarifies some of the squishy parts of his platform (which is an awful lot of it) and/or b) names a VP that makes me comfortable.  Otherwise, I abstain from voting.  Or I vote for Babar.  Yes, the cartoon elephant.

gellar

Make that two for Babar. I refuse to vote for a Democrat and refuse to vote for McCain.
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: June 06, 2008, 08:18:01 PM »

I think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama is going to win in November no matter who he picks.  That being said a Clinton VP pick would signify that Obama has abandoned his "New Deal in Washington" ideals at least somewhat.  I am fairly certain that if left to make his choice in a vacuum, he wouldn't want Hillary anywhere near the White House.  She is about as much of a Washington insider as the Democrats have.  But he may be forced to bend to the will of party insiders and political expediency and take her anyway.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: June 06, 2008, 09:34:16 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on June 06, 2008, 06:24:40 PM

The sampling sizes are always so small (Oh look they asked a whole 900 people)
No good information on how these people were selected, when they called, what size of city they live in
Obviously the more in the sample the better, but a whole 900 people is easily a large enough statistical sample to be representative of the national democratic party if done properly.
Logged
mikeg
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2549


View Profile WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 06, 2008, 09:58:06 PM »

No, it did not sway my vote cuz I was gonna vote for ANYONE but Obama anyway.
Logged

I am Xboxalot on Live.
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 06, 2008, 11:04:09 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on June 06, 2008, 09:34:16 PM

Quote from: DarkEL on June 06, 2008, 06:24:40 PM

The sampling sizes are always so small (Oh look they asked a whole 900 people)
No good information on how these people were selected, when they called, what size of city they live in
Obviously the more in the sample the better, but a whole 900 people is easily a large enough statistical sample to be representative of the national democratic party if done properly.

But they didn't state where those 900 were from. Picking 900 people from states that went for Clinton strongly would make a good headline even if it's not true.

or how about the fact that they even stated that not all 900 were democrats but also included independents who said they lean towards the democrats.

What about a survey of conservatives who planned to vote democrat this year. I bet we would see a VERY different skew if those were surveyed.

And as i said - it doesn't state how directly or indirectly the questions were worded?  It could have been "Would you be upset if Obama picked Clinton as his VP?" which would get a lot more positive votes.

Or it could have been "Do you feel that Obama MUST pick Clinton as his VP in order to win" - which I doubt would have gotten near the votes.

All in all - I think the poll is meaningless. It's just another thing to keep the controversy going so that the newspapers can sell more ads.

Bah humbug to them all I say.
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3095



View Profile
« Reply #90 on: June 07, 2008, 06:11:57 AM »

Quote
I think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama is going to win in November no matter who he picks. 

Those are some dangerous words...

I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion. Obama's only leading by 5 points right now, and we haven't seen a single debate between the candidates, we don't know who VPs are; we're a loong way from the finish line. The Democrats believing that they could coast to victory off the wake of an unpopular President failed them in 2004, and it could fail them again.

Granted, I think it's more likely than not that Obama will win it all in November, but I think it will be a lot closer than people expected.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3391



View Profile WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 07, 2008, 03:57:42 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on June 07, 2008, 06:11:57 AM

Quote
I think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama is going to win in November no matter who he picks. 

Those are some dangerous words...

I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion. Obama's only leading by 5 points right now, and we haven't seen a single debate between the candidates, we don't know who VPs are; we're a loong way from the finish line. The Democrats believing that they could coast to victory off the wake of an unpopular President failed them in 2004, and it could fail them again.

Granted, I think it's more likely than not that Obama will win it all in November, but I think it will be a lot closer than people expected.

It's going to be an entertaining race, that's for sure. Many old assumptions are being challenged. ATM I also believe that it will be very close, but I give the edge to McCain. Obama needs a VP who can deliver the lower-class white, less educated, and older voters. He can't win based on intellectuals, blacks, and youth. The person best positioned to deliver those voters is Hillary...and she obviously comes with a lot of negatives.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15414


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: June 07, 2008, 07:47:13 PM »

The poll should be of independents. I wonder what percentage of people will abandon Obama if he goes Hilary.

I for one will...and I won't like it.
Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: June 08, 2008, 12:23:11 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing on June 07, 2008, 06:11:57 AM

Quote
I think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama is going to win in November no matter who he picks. 

Those are some dangerous words...

I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion. Obama's only leading by 5 points right now, and we haven't seen a single debate between the candidates, we don't know who VPs are; we're a loong way from the finish line. The Democrats believing that they could coast to victory off the wake of an unpopular President failed them in 2004, and it could fail them again.

Granted, I think it's more likely than not that Obama will win it all in November, but I think it will be a lot closer than people expected.

I agree with you YK, it's far from a foregone conclusion.  However, Obama is nothing like Kerry; Kerry was about the perfect definition of an empty suit.  Obama's got a shit-ton of charisma and at the very least he makes people passionate about him (really, the reason most folks voted for Kerry is he wasn't Bush....)
Logged
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: June 08, 2008, 12:53:02 AM »

The Democrats managed to find ways to lose what looked like sure fire opportunities in the last two elections.  Until they prove otherwise I have to pass on believing it's a foregone conclusion that they can win even in this election(which superficially at least looks as surefire as any election could ever be).

Plus I'll believe Americans in general will elect a guy named Barack Obama(a black guy no less) President when I see it.

Call me a cynic but I just don't think we, as a country, have come that far just yet.    It's one thing for people to support him when even if he 'wins' all he gets is a nomination.   It's a way of being trendy without risk.   Will they still vote for him when a win means he's actually President?  I remain unconvinced of that.

I also remain unconvinced that the people he's counting on to conteract the, to be polite, 'unfriendly to nonwhite candidate' voters will actually turn out in sufficient numbers.  A lot of those are people who don't normally take part in voting since no one who really represents them is ever on the Presidential ballot.  That's a tough habit to break, ignoring elections.

This is why I think he needs to pick someone to run with as VP who contributes to the need for change mentality, not someone like Hilary.  He really needs to sell this election to his base.  It's gotta be a "if you've never voted before, you MUST vote now" full court press of a message.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: June 08, 2008, 01:00:56 AM »

Quote from: gameoverman on June 08, 2008, 12:53:02 AM

Call me a cynic but I just don't think we, as a country, have come that far just yet.    It's one thing for people to support him when even if he 'wins' all he gets is a nomination.   It's a way of being trendy without risk.   Will they still vote for him when a win means he's actually President?  I remain unconvinced of that.
This is actually why I'm very strongly considering voting for Obama, even though I lean conservative. It would be nice to show the country and the world that we have indeed come "that far." Perhaps then we'd have the moral authority needed to rid the country of institutionalized racism like Affirmative Action.
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3095



View Profile
« Reply #96 on: June 08, 2008, 02:26:32 PM »

Quote
This is actually why I'm very strongly considering voting for Obama, even though I lean conservative.

If I did vote for Obama, it would be along the same lines, but more on a global level than a US level. I think having a charismatic young guy like him who so obviously doesn't fit the mold of past presidents would do wonders for America's global image. I know the knee-jerk reaction from conservatives when I talk like that is "who gives a f*** what Europe thinks?" but I truly feel that Bush has eroded the American reputation to the point that it has become a real threat. While I believe McCain has a huge foreign policy advantage over Obama, in the end he's one more old white guy in a string of old white guys, and he's going to be instantly pigeonholed by the world as a continuation of Bush's legacy.

Really tough. I wish I could take Obama's personality and charisma and merge it with McCain's experience and conservative principles. The decision I'll have to make in the fall is whether character trumps experience. I don't have a 100% clear answer on that right now.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: June 09, 2008, 02:55:45 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on June 08, 2008, 01:00:56 AM

Quote from: gameoverman on June 08, 2008, 12:53:02 AM

Call me a cynic but I just don't think we, as a country, have come that far just yet.    It's one thing for people to support him when even if he 'wins' all he gets is a nomination.   It's a way of being trendy without risk.   Will they still vote for him when a win means he's actually President?  I remain unconvinced of that.
This is actually why I'm very strongly considering voting for Obama, even though I lean conservative. It would be nice to show the country and the world that we have indeed come "that far." Perhaps then we'd have the moral authority needed to rid the country of institutionalized racism like Affirmative Action.

I'd be all for that, except that I think his proposals would send a country teetering on the edge economically right over the cliff.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: June 09, 2008, 02:57:18 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing on June 08, 2008, 02:26:32 PM

Quote
This is actually why I'm very strongly considering voting for Obama, even though I lean conservative.

If I did vote for Obama, it would be along the same lines, but more on a global level than a US level. I think having a charismatic young guy like him who so obviously doesn't fit the mold of past presidents would do wonders for America's global image. I know the knee-jerk reaction from conservatives when I talk like that is "who gives a f*** what Europe thinks?" but I truly feel that Bush has eroded the American reputation to the point that it has become a real threat. While I believe McCain has a huge foreign policy advantage over Obama, in the end he's one more old white guy in a string of old white guys, and he's going to be instantly pigeonholed by the world as a continuation of Bush's legacy.

Really tough. I wish I could take Obama's personality and charisma and merge it with McCain's experience and conservative principles. The decision I'll have to make in the fall is whether character trumps experience. I don't have a 100% clear answer on that right now.

Just take a look at your finances and let that guide you.     Obama's policies will mean less money you get to keep out of your paycheck.   We'll be working until June or July to pay off our tax debt.
Logged
Electronic Dan
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 95


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: June 09, 2008, 03:19:58 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing on June 08, 2008, 02:26:32 PM

The decision I'll have to make in the fall is whether character trumps experience.

If character trumps experience, Carter would have been one of the best presidents evar.
If experience trumps character, Buchanan would have been one of the best president evar.

Clearly, you should consider more relevent criterea, like the height of the candidates.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 03:23:06 AM by Electronic Dan » Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: June 09, 2008, 03:22:04 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 02:55:45 AM

I'd be all for that, except that I think his proposals would send a country teetering on the edge economically right over the cliff.

This is the most unintentionally hilarious thing you've written yet.  If our country is just on "the edge economically," rather than "already careening down the cliffside economically," it's entirely driven by republican domestic and foreign policy.  Clinton handed over a $5 trillion dollar surplus over 10 years, and Bush, at the end of his second term, will have given us an additional $3-4 trillion added to the national debt, created an elective war that'll cost us over $1 trillion, presided over a fed which didn't intervene as the subprime mortgage grew, weakened the dollar precipitously to prop up exports, shifted the tax burden towards middle and low-income taxpayers, and handed the keys to our economy to the Chinese who happily invested their trade surplus in t-bonds until they finally burst the real estate bubble.  Crude oil prices are at their highest level ever and the unemployment rate just jumped the highest amount since the mid-eighties.

If the economy is to be a guide for voting, you can't do worse than McCain.  Phil Gramm, his economic adviser, was being paid by UBS to lobby congress on the mortgage crisis, while simultaneously advising McCain.  What'd Gramm do for UBS?  He lobbied "specifically to help kill the Emergency Home Ownership And Mortgage Equity Protection Act and the Helping Families Save Their Homes and Bankruptcy Act, a bill that would have let bankruptcy judges adjust mortgages terms so American families facing foreclosure could repay their loans and keep their homes."

It's inconceivable to me that anyone could do a worse job than a republican at managing our country's economy.  They even duplicated their incompetence in Iraq as further evidence that they have no idea what they're doing.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: June 09, 2008, 04:52:41 AM »

Brendan stubbed his toe once. Upon consulting several liberal blogs he discovered it was the Republicans' fault.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3391



View Profile WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 09, 2008, 05:08:56 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 02:57:18 AM

Obama's policies will mean less money you get to keep out of your paycheck. 

That depends on how big your paycheck is.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 09, 2008, 01:10:10 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 02:57:18 AM

Just take a look at your finances and let that guide you.     Obama's policies will mean less money you get to keep out of your paycheck.   We'll be working until June or July to pay off our tax debt.

Great. I've already got my local government digging deeper into my wallet in the last year and threatening to do it more next year. Just what I need. I might as well go stake my claim under a bridge now while there's plenty to choose from.
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
McBa1n
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 331



View Profile
« Reply #104 on: June 09, 2008, 03:03:48 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on June 06, 2008, 08:18:01 PM

I think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama is going to win in November no matter who he picks.  That being said a Clinton VP pick would signify that Obama has abandoned his "New Deal in Washington" ideals at least somewhat.  I am fairly certain that if left to make his choice in a vacuum, he wouldn't want Hillary anywhere near the White House.  She is about as much of a Washington insider as the Democrats have.  But he may be forced to bend to the will of party insiders and political expediency and take her anyway.

Really good point about picking Hil-dog as VP. You're so right that Obama would lose his 'new Washington' platform, despite it being a strong ticket. Also, I don't see the sense in losing not one Senator - but TWO to a presidential rates. The Senate lines are razor thin as is - even if Hil-Dog's seat would likely be filled by a Dem, it's still not worth the risk IMO.

As for Richardson, he fits the bill in so many ways - HOWEVER, he's not a name that's going to deliver that many votes. Even if it gives Obama more robust latino support, is that enough to win a few battleground states? That's tough to say. I, personally, love Richardson (being someone in the SW) - aside from his handling of illegals - and my feeling is so strong on that topic, would not want to see him in any part of our government. I also don't think Richardson nails down enough name recognition nationally to give Obama just a little bit of 'push' (even though I don't know how much he'll need). Amazing how contradictory I am there... I just don't want to see Richardson's policies anyway near Washington dealing with immigration. It's hard enough to find work here even with so many illegals leaving for greener pastures.

I think Edwards is a solid guy, he's whom I've supported now since he entered the race in '04. I got into it at the Nevada caucus with many Hildog supporters (who knew 0 on any of her positions at the time, funny) over Edwards - luckily I got one more person in our district to go Edwards so we could achieve a state delegate and 'viability' by the exact number we needed hehe. That aside, his strong points are obvious. His weak point is - he did NOTHING for Kerry in '04. Kerry was a joke of a candidate to begin with - and Edwards did so little to help him. I love his positions, but he won't help anyone get elected... But, I'm not so sure Obama needs a strong VP.

One guy that keeps popping up is Ed Rendell. He's been on TV more than Seinfeld re-runs during the primary season. He denies wanting to be VP - but he's on TV ALL DAY being interviewed. I think Pennsylvania is going Obama no matter what, so he's semi-useless.

Sheesh, is there one governor out there?
I was never much of a fan, but what about Al Gore? He's got a rock-star persona now... That really would be a ridiculous ticket. VPs dont have term limits do they?
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: June 09, 2008, 05:27:18 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 02:55:45 AM

I'd be all for that, except that I think his proposals would send a country teetering on the edge economically right over the cliff.

Actually, we're already over the cliff due to this administration's (lack of an) economic policy.

Quote from: msduncan
Just take a look at your finances and let that guide you.     Obama's policies will mean less money you get to keep out of your paycheck.   We'll be working until June or July to pay off our tax debt.

A continuation of this administration's economic policies will have your children working to pay off that tax debt...
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5101



View Profile
« Reply #106 on: June 09, 2008, 05:28:05 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 03:22:04 AM

presided over a fed which didn't intervene as the subprime mortgage grew, weakened the dollar precipitously to prop up exports, shifted the tax burden towards middle and low-income taxpayers, and handed the keys to our economy to the Chinese who happily invested their trade surplus in t-bonds until they finally burst the real estate bubble. 

Government intervention isn't always the right answer.

Quote
In their concerted attempt to “keep Americans in their homes,” Clinton, Obama, and McCain have called for the federal government to spend billions of dollars to curtail foreclosures and shield Americans from the consequences of their own risky investment decisions. Makes you think the candidates are on your side.

Not if you’re a renter. Foreclosures boost the supply of housing at a faster than expected clip. With supply for potential buyers (i.e., renters) increasing, home prices stand to fall (albeit modestly) to less insane levels, particularly in overheated areas such as Southern California, the region I call home. That increasing supply of housing and those lower prices could be why a Zogby poll released in April showed that, despite the economy’s tailspin, most Americans think now is a good time to buy a home.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: June 09, 2008, 05:38:44 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on June 09, 2008, 05:28:05 PM

Government intervention isn't always the right answer.

I agree - it's not always the right answer.  In the case of Phil Gramm, I suspect you might agree that he probably doesn't have the interests of American homeowners foremost in his mind - and, given that he's paid by UBS to make them money, that's fine.  He just shouldn't be advising a presidential candidate on how to handle the economic crisis that his policies helped to create.

The opinion piece you've linked to is interesting, and certainly one premise is correct - if we prevent foreclosures, rents won't drop as much.  If you're a pure free-marketer like the guys at Reason, that's anathema.  From my perspective, we have so many other dependencies on the housing market that we can't just let it collapse.  The problems should've been headed off in the first place by the fed.
Logged
Exodor
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 482


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: June 09, 2008, 06:25:33 PM »

Quote from: PaulBot on June 09, 2008, 01:10:10 PM

Great. I've already got my local government digging deeper into my wallet in the last year and threatening to do it more next year. Just what I need. I might as well go stake my claim under a bridge now while there's plenty to choose from.

Haven't many state and local governments been facing revenue shortfalls partially caused by less federal financing due to Bush's tax cut and shift in spending towards defense?

I know I've heard that argument before but my google-Fu is failing me.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: June 09, 2008, 06:25:53 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 05:38:44 PM

From my perspective, we have so many other dependencies on the housing market that we can't just let it collapse.  The problems should've been headed off in the first place by the fed.

The housing market is not going to collapse.  The most likely outcome is that mortgage companies will become much more selective about who they give loans too, rogue loan officers who where falsifying docmentation in order to get commissions will get fired, and property values which were way too high in many cases, will start to normalize. A lot of people received home loans who should not have.  Certainly much of the blame goes to the mortgage companies.  But some of the blame also has to go to the borrowers themselves who were either at worst complicant or at best negligent in doing research on their loans.  A massive government bailout will not fix the problem in the long run.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 09, 2008, 06:35:17 PM »

Quote from: McBa1n on June 09, 2008, 03:03:48 PM

but what about Al Gore?

Isn't he busy running the Internet?
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: June 09, 2008, 07:03:31 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on June 09, 2008, 06:25:53 PM

A massive government bailout will not fix the problem in the long run.

Did I argue for a massive bailout somewhere?
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: June 09, 2008, 08:49:44 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 02:57:18 AM

Quote from: YellowKing on June 08, 2008, 02:26:32 PM

Quote
This is actually why I'm very strongly considering voting for Obama, even though I lean conservative.

If I did vote for Obama, it would be along the same lines, but more on a global level than a US level. I think having a charismatic young guy like him who so obviously doesn't fit the mold of past presidents would do wonders for America's global image. I know the knee-jerk reaction from conservatives when I talk like that is "who gives a f*** what Europe thinks?" but I truly feel that Bush has eroded the American reputation to the point that it has become a real threat. While I believe McCain has a huge foreign policy advantage over Obama, in the end he's one more old white guy in a string of old white guys, and he's going to be instantly pigeonholed by the world as a continuation of Bush's legacy.

Really tough. I wish I could take Obama's personality and charisma and merge it with McCain's experience and conservative principles. The decision I'll have to make in the fall is whether character trumps experience. I don't have a 100% clear answer on that right now.

Just take a look at your finances and let that guide you.     Obama's policies will mean less money you get to keep out of your paycheck.   We'll be working until June or July to pay off our tax debt.

There's a lot more to my vote (and my life) than how I make the most money, thankfully.  In this case, I simply can't in good conscience vote for a party that wants to use anti-gay legislation as a focal point, wants to put religion into science, or wants to continue killing innocent people in some remote corner of the world because they've demonized a religion and a region they clearly don't understand.

I suppose we're ultimately all whores, but I'm a ton more expensive than a few percentage points on my Federal return.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: June 09, 2008, 09:06:22 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on June 09, 2008, 08:49:44 PM

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 02:57:18 AM

Quote from: YellowKing on June 08, 2008, 02:26:32 PM

Quote
This is actually why I'm very strongly considering voting for Obama, even though I lean conservative.

If I did vote for Obama, it would be along the same lines, but more on a global level than a US level. I think having a charismatic young guy like him who so obviously doesn't fit the mold of past presidents would do wonders for America's global image. I know the knee-jerk reaction from conservatives when I talk like that is "who gives a f*** what Europe thinks?" but I truly feel that Bush has eroded the American reputation to the point that it has become a real threat. While I believe McCain has a huge foreign policy advantage over Obama, in the end he's one more old white guy in a string of old white guys, and he's going to be instantly pigeonholed by the world as a continuation of Bush's legacy.

Really tough. I wish I could take Obama's personality and charisma and merge it with McCain's experience and conservative principles. The decision I'll have to make in the fall is whether character trumps experience. I don't have a 100% clear answer on that right now.

Just take a look at your finances and let that guide you.     Obama's policies will mean less money you get to keep out of your paycheck.   We'll be working until June or July to pay off our tax debt.

There's a lot more to my vote (and my life) than how I make the most money, thankfully.  In this case, I simply can't in good conscience vote for a party that wants to use anti-gay legislation as a focal point, wants to put religion into science, or wants to continue killing innocent people in some remote corner of the world because they've demonized a religion and a region they clearly don't understand.

I suppose we're ultimately all whores, but I'm a ton more expensive than a few percentage points on my Federal return.

Not to mention the "OH NO, MORE TAXES!" objection is bullshit anyway, as anyone who's spent the requisite five minutes ctrl-F'ing for "tax" in Obama's plan can attest to.
Logged
McBa1n
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 331



View Profile
« Reply #114 on: June 09, 2008, 09:28:23 PM »

Quote from: PaulBot on June 09, 2008, 06:35:17 PM

Quote from: McBa1n on June 09, 2008, 03:03:48 PM

but what about Al Gore?

Isn't he busy running the Internet?

funny.
Free 0 day /msg AlGore !list !!!!
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 09:06:22 PM

Quote from: Geezer on June 09, 2008, 08:49:44 PM

Quote from: msduncan on June 09, 2008, 02:57:18 AM

Quote from: YellowKing on June 08, 2008, 02:26:32 PM

Quote
This is actually why I'm very strongly considering voting for Obama, even though I lean conservative.

If I did vote for Obama, it would be along the same lines, but more on a global level than a US level. I think having a charismatic young guy like him who so obviously doesn't fit the mold of past presidents would do wonders for America's global image. I know the knee-jerk reaction from conservatives when I talk like that is "who gives a f*** what Europe thinks?" but I truly feel that Bush has eroded the American reputation to the point that it has become a real threat. While I believe McCain has a huge foreign policy advantage over Obama, in the end he's one more old white guy in a string of old white guys, and he's going to be instantly pigeonholed by the world as a continuation of Bush's legacy.

Really tough. I wish I could take Obama's personality and charisma and merge it with McCain's experience and conservative principles. The decision I'll have to make in the fall is whether character trumps experience. I don't have a 100% clear answer on that right now.

Just take a look at your finances and let that guide you.     Obama's policies will mean less money you get to keep out of your paycheck.   We'll be working until June or July to pay off our tax debt.

There's a lot more to my vote (and my life) than how I make the most money, thankfully.  In this case, I simply can't in good conscience vote for a party that wants to use anti-gay legislation as a focal point, wants to put religion into science, or wants to continue killing innocent people in some remote corner of the world because they've demonized a religion and a region they clearly don't understand.

I suppose we're ultimately all whores, but I'm a ton more expensive than a few percentage points on my Federal return.

Not to mention the "OH NO, MORE TAXES!" objection is bullshit anyway, as anyone who's spent the requisite five minutes ctrl-F'ing for "tax" in Obama's plan can attest to.

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: June 09, 2008, 09:48:13 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

Not hated, just disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: June 09, 2008, 09:54:07 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

brettmcd, your usual cogent analysis is lacking in this response - particularly because there's a large section in Obama's plan that describes his support for PAYGO, which he's voted for three times in the senate.  Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country will expire - but normal people in low and middle-income tax brackets (who actually need tax breaks) will see a larger child and dependent care tax credit, an expanded EITC, a payroll tax credit of $500, no taxes on seniors making under 50k a year, a $4,000 tax credit for college students who do 100 volunteer hours, tax credits to incent new farmers, etc.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: June 09, 2008, 10:00:06 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

brettmcd, your usual cogent analysis is lacking in this response - particularly because there's a large section in Obama's plan that describes his support for PAYGO, which he's voted for three times in the senate.  Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country will expire - but normal people in low and middle-income tax brackets (who actually need tax breaks) will see a larger child and dependent care tax credit, an expanded EITC, a payroll tax credit of $500, no taxes on seniors making under 50k a year, a $4,000 tax credit for college students who do 100 volunteer hours, tax credits to incent new farmers, etc.

You claimed that saying there would not be more taxes, you claimed that saying there would be more taxes is, as a bs claim.   It took me 2 seconds to find that yes there will be new taxes. on the hated 'wealthy' in this country.   So would you like to retract your statement that saying there will be more taxes is bs?
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: June 09, 2008, 10:05:24 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on June 09, 2008, 09:54:07 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on June 09, 2008, 09:43:47 PM

Sorry all the stuff Obama wants to have the government pay for isnt going to be free.  So yes there will be some tax increases to pay for it, it will just be on the 'wealthy' which we all know is a hated class of people by his party.   And it took me about 2 seconds to find that information on his website.

brettmcd, your usual cogent analysis is lacking in this response - particularly because there's a large section in Obama's plan that describes his support for PAYGO, which he's voted for three times in the senate.  Yes, the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the country will expire - but normal people in low and middle-income tax brackets (who actually need tax breaks) will see a larger child and dependent care tax credit, an expanded EITC, a payroll tax credit of $500, no taxes on seniors making under 50k a year, a $4,000 tax credit for college students who do 100 volunteer hours, tax credits to incent new farmers, etc.

I have some issues with this  as well though.  First, and I'm just going to be blunt, I'm sick of politicians pandering to the AARP folks.  There's absolutely no reason why senior citizens shouldn't be taxed just like everyone else.  Pay your fair share, and deal with it.  Particularly when you also want free drugs and health care, AND you are a greater draw on our resources than the younger folks.

Likewise, enough with paying people to have more kids.  You want to have kids?  You should damn well be able to afford them.  No tax credits for you.  We all have a duty to support our government and our country, and it should not necessarily by contingent upon the wealthier members of society to foot an unfair percentage of that burden if it can be avoided.

Take the federal budget, divide it by the adult population, and work from there.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.188 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.056s, 2q)