Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My impression is that the 'tax and spend liberal' gravy train has finally ended. Polls that break down into economic factors show that Obama was favored by 22 points "Who will handle the economic disaster better?". Unless the stock market takes off and starts giving a free pony to American children...I think it's over.

McCain looked angry that he was there, Obama was somewhat muted. I didn't see any major changes based off foreign policy or body language (Although McCain had some strange moments)....but I think Obama buried the hatchet on the economy.

/What's the over/under of Petraeus getting political in 5 years?

The only thing that will stop Obama being president now is that democrat voters think he'll romp it in and not turn up to vote (as many of the centerist/independent voter bloc who've flocked to him are wont to to).

I've been ignoring this subject for a good week now... nice to see things have turned around again.

Even if the "tax and spend" label stuck, McCain has gotten tattooed in his sleep with the "don't tax (my friends) but spend even more" label.

Also: the out-of-nowhere "we're gonna buy up your mortgages and make it all OK" bit? Pure Pandering. If you're looking to cut spending and talking about freezing government spending to "fix" the problem, then SPENDING billions to buy up bad loans is kinda the ultimate anti-thing to do. Who'd pay for it? In the main, those of us who DIDN'T follow the white banker rabbit down the hole to Bad-Credit-No-Problem-Wonderland would be footing the bill, just like the bailout.

Some people are making a thing out of McCain calling Obama "that one", but I feel it's a non-starter. It might seem racist, it's certainly disrespectful not to use his name, but it's just an artifact of McCain's upbringing and style of speaking. No malice, no racism (other than that of someone who lived before civil rights, nebulous but part of his childhood make-up), no issue.

lord_sutekh wrote:
Some people are making a thing out of McCain calling Obama "that one", but I feel it's a non-starter. It might seem racist, it's certainly disrespectful not to use his name, but it's just an artifact of McCain's upbringing and style of speaking. No malice, no racism (other than that of someone who lived before civil rights, nebulous but part of his childhood make-up), no issue.

It doesn't make McCain a racist, but it certainly marks him as man who cannot adapt his experience to the modern world.

By European, even UK, standards both parties in the US are right wing.

The Republicans are just more right wing (especially the neo-cons and fundamentalists) than the Democrats.

They have a system of endless debt.

Kilkrazy wrote:By European, even UK, standards both parties in the US are right wing.

The Republicans are just more right wing (especially the neo-cons and fundamentalists) than the Democrats.

From what little I've read it looks as if the right of center positions are held by many different parties rather than being lumped together as we have here.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:By European, even UK, standards both parties in the US are right wing.

The Republicans are just more right wing (especially the neo-cons and fundamentalists) than the Democrats.

From what little I've read it looks as if the right of center positions are held by many different parties rather than being lumped together as we have here.

Don't forget the shouting. Oh the shouting.

If Obama wins it won't be the complete end of the world. Just don't mess with the 2nd Amendment.

2nd Amendment?

It keeps the First Amendment legal.

Plus we need it in case you redcoats try to attack again.You never can be sure that Dr. Who might get a little wrong in the head and try to open up a time gate from England to Waco, Texas 1780 - 2008. You thought Bunker Hill and New Orleans were bad, wait until your Brownbesses meet up with a bunch of good ole' boys with high powered deer rifles. We'll have you speaking with a drawl in no time.

Keep and bear arms.

Frazzled wrote:It keeps the First Amendment legal.

It also keeps people more fascinated with 40k than Fantasy here in the US

At least that's a theory. Okay my theory. That I thought of while I'm supposed to be
writing something down.

Frazzled wrote:It keeps the First Amendment legal.

Plus we need it in case you redcoats try to attack again.You never can be sure that Dr. Who might get a little wrong in the head and try to open up a time gate from England to Waco, Texas 1780 - 2008. You thought Bunker Hill and New Orleans were bad, wait until your Brownbesses meet up with a bunch of good ole' boys with high powered deer rifles. We'll have you speaking with a drawl in no time.

Plus, if Putin rears his head and violates Alaskan airspace to invade our country!


Wolverines!

Ah Red Dawn, the 1980s must see movie for all US teenaged boys.

Just my 2 cents.
The 2nd Amendment has been functionally 'clipped' since a the time when our citizens lost the arms race with a government separated military.
Now our population (as a whole) would not be able to cope with the responsibility of the 2nd being truly reinstated. Arms does not equate to just guns.

He the Republican party has been crap since the Regan dynasty took control in the 80's.
I'm glad the economic fallout from the "trickle-down" mentality is showing and I'm glad to have visual confirmation that McCain is choking on it.

Thank you interweb broadcasted debates

Red Dawn, the 80's movie with the most acts of violence, at least according to one right wing 'save our children' group.

I thought the second amendment just gave us the right to arm bears. Shot, I need to get my 12 gauge back from Yogi........

Honestly, no taxes are fair. The poor want the wealthy to pay more. The wealthy think that they should be rewarded for success, not punished. Both sides are equally right - or wrong.

Obama will win due to the economy. I predict that he has a democratic congress for 1-2 sessions, and then the Republicans take back Congress.

Secretary of the Treasury Paulsen could buy mortgages now. It was part of the Wall Street bailout bill. He doesn't half to, but he has the authority to do so right now.

I didn't watch the debate, but it sounds like they both made a number of, if not false, misleading accusations. I don't think either one of them has an answer for the economy. There's plenty of people smarter than either one of them, and they haven't figured out the right answer either.

I'm convinced that Obama will be a mouthpiece for the democrats and do what the liberal sections of the party want. Eight years ago, I know that McCain would have stood up to his party, but now, I think he'd bow down to the right wingers, at least until his re-election would be over.

McCain - 'He doesn't know what he's doing.' Oh, and you do?
Obama - 'It's time for a change.' Hey, things are bad, but this isn't Great Depression bad. We're talking good change, not bad change, right? Right?

I heard an Obama ad on the radio promoting change. There's a number of speakers, 'We need a change in the economy. We need a change in oil prices.' etc. One of the voices, 'It's my body, and people need to respect that. It's time for change.' Really? Last time I checked, abortion was legal. Don't tell me the dems are now anti-abortion. What change do you want? Great rheotoric - we need change, except that this needs to stay legal.

Sigh. I'm totally disappointed with both parties. As South Park would say, 'You have to realize, that in elections, your choice is usually between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. They're the only people who suck up enough to get nominated.'

On abortion, the change they're talking about is the general conservative assault on Roe v. Wade as bad law and the religious initiative to make abortion illegal, among other things. It's a trend that's been going for a while.

There are two reasons for taxes; one is to raise the revenue required by government to perform public works, the other is to modify consumer behaviour.

Yes but it's not the figure-head your truly electing.

Your choosing which supporting groups receive a political advantage.

Example:
If you want the people that spend their time working on more sustainable environmental policies to have a political advantage, you vote for the Democratic figurehead.
Since environmentalists are almost always politically on the left, and that would enable them indirectly to enable more environmentally sound policies and control the inclusion of less sound policies.
It does matter so much that a candidate may have profited personally from polluting businesses, what's more important is the greater shift in power.

dietrich wrote:...
...
...

McCain - 'He doesn't know what he's doing.' Oh, and you do?
Obama - 'It's time for a change.' Hey, things are bad, but this isn't Great Depression bad. We're talking good change, not bad change, right? Right?

I heard an Obama ad on the radio promoting change. There's a number of speakers, 'We need a change in the economy. We need a change in oil prices.' etc. One of the voices, 'It's my body, and people need to respect that. It's time for change.' Really? Last time I checked, abortion was legal. Don't tell me the dems are now anti-abortion. What change do you want? Great rheotoric - we need change, except that this needs to stay legal.

...
.'

Change is just a campaign slogan. It plays to the feeling that the Republicans have been in charge for long enough and screwed up enough that people are tired of them.

Does anyone think the current economic and social conditions are so dislocated as to push the US electorate significantly leftwards?

(I am a UK citizen.)

Two voices were shouting in anger, and they were both alike. The creatures outside looked from donkey to elephant, and from elephant to donkey, and from donkey to elephant again; but it was impossible to say which was which...

Kilkrazy wrote:

dietrich wrote:...
...
...

McCain - 'He doesn't know what he's doing.' Oh, and you do?
Obama - 'It's time for a change.' Hey, things are bad, but this isn't Great Depression bad. We're talking good change, not bad change, right? Right?

I heard an Obama ad on the radio promoting change. There's a number of speakers, 'We need a change in the economy. We need a change in oil prices.' etc. One of the voices, 'It's my body, and people need to respect that. It's time for change.' Really? Last time I checked, abortion was legal. Don't tell me the dems are now anti-abortion. What change do you want? Great rheotoric - we need change, except that this needs to stay legal.

...
.'

Change is just a campaign slogan. It plays to the feeling that the Republicans have been in charge for long enough and screwed up enough that people are tired of them.

Does anyone think the current economic and social conditions are so dislocated as to push the US electorate significantly leftwards?

(I am a UK citizen.)

'Left' of our center, yes. There is a general zeitgeist I can't put into words in our society. Abortion, homosexual unions, the atheist movement...there is a detectable shift.

Unfortunately that is also accompanied by the rise of Libertarian economic thinking, and the conversion of the free market into fetish. Blast the myopic self-interest of the 'New Globals'.

Though if the current situation gets bad enough it may well knock some kind of long-term sense into people.

lord_sutekh wrote:On abortion, the change they're talking about is the general conservative assault on Roe v. Wade as bad law and the religious initiative to make abortion illegal, among other things. It's a trend that's been going for a while.

Kilkrazy wrote:Change is just a campaign slogan. It plays to the feeling that the Republicans have been in charge for long enough and screwed up enough that people are tired of them.

Does anyone think the current economic and social conditions are so dislocated as to push the US electorate significantly leftwards?

I totally get that it's a campaign slogan. I don't understand how more people don't understand it's empty rheotoric. Change, it's good for you! Unless it's bad. The change 'they're' talking about (I'm assuming that sutekh means the left-wing) isn't going to happen. People aren't going to change their opinion on it being right or wrong. Now, if Obama wants to come out and say that he would never appoint a Supreme Court Justice that doesn't support Roe vs. Wade - well, that's change. But, it's controversial, so he won't say it. So he throws out this rheotoric - and people are dumb enough to buy it! It's like the seagulls in Finding Nemo - Change. Change. Change. Change!

As Nixon would say, the silent majority in American is pretty socially conservative. If a democrat was in office, and the economy was tanking, they'd vote Republican (just ask Jimmy Carter, a great human being, not a great President). So, if Al Gore or John Kerry was President, I wouldn't say the electorate is being pushed to the right - they're still in the middle of the bell curve, just voting for the 'other guy'.

I think there's big social issues out there which need to be addressed. There always will be. iirc, most of Clinton's social reforms were when the Republicans controlled Congress. I think health care in the US is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. It needs addressed, but like the economy, no one has 'the answer'. I don't want medicine socialized, but I think it's a national embarrasement that we have the best (or at least one of the best) health care service in the world, and a sizable portion of our population doesn't have easy access to it. Yes, you can walk into an ER anytime, but getting a $2,000 bill doesn't count as 'easy access'.

dietrich wrote:
People aren't going to change their opinion on it being right or wrong. Now, if Obama wants to come out and say that he would never appoint a Supreme Court Justice that doesn't support Roe vs. Wade - well, that's change. But, it's controversial, so he won't say it. So he throws out this rheotoric - and people are dumb enough to buy it! It's like the seagulls in Finding Nemo - Change. Change. Change. Change!

People don't have to change, they just have to die. Most of the socially conservative force in America lies in the baby boom. As they start taking dirt naps, and being bought off by socially liberal candidates who help them economically, I suspect we'll start to see a shift towards non-invasive, Liberal, social policy.

dogma wrote:Unfortunately that is also accompanied by the rise of Libertarian economic thinking, and the conversion of the free market into fetish. Blast the myopic self-interest of the 'New Globals'.

Though if the current situation gets bad enough it may well knock some kind of long-term sense into people.

I think the current debacle was the coup de grace to laissez faire markets. I hope. On the other hand...

RON PAUL

/Glad that meme is dead

dogma wrote:
People don't have to change, they just have to die.

I farking lol'd. I agree completely and if anyone examines the generation gap in the current polls...I think it's impossible to disagree with Dogmas position.

dogma wrote:

dietrich wrote:
People aren't going to change their opinion on it being right or wrong. Now, if Obama wants to come out and say that he would never appoint a Supreme Court Justice that doesn't support Roe vs. Wade - well, that's change. But, it's controversial, so he won't say it. So he throws out this rheotoric - and people are dumb enough to buy it! It's like the seagulls in Finding Nemo - Change. Change. Change. Change!

People don't have to change, they just have to die. Most of the socially conservative force in America lies in the baby boom. As they start taking dirt naps, and being bought off by socially liberal candidates who help them economically, I suspect we'll start to see a shift towards non-invasive, Liberal, social policy.

Respectfully I have to disagree Dogma. Studies have shown that as people age, they tend towards conservativism, if only in conserving what their values are vs. those youngins with their wacky newfangled ideas. The Israeli saying is an apt one (that probably represents you and I): Liberal at 20, conservative at 40. I'd also note the average age of the population is rising, not getting younger.

Dietrich-agreed yelling change doesn't make me want to vote for you. The older you get-the more likely change means something bad to you personally. For example: people rarely change from young, weak and sickly to old, healthy and strong. Things wind down. Whats the Chinese curse? May you live in changing times.