Jae Onasi Posted September 29, 2008 Author Share Posted September 29, 2008 "The Dems" didn't reject her. Obama did. If the Dem leadership really wanted to press the issue they could have. In any case, Clinton isn't on the ticket. Trooper-gate? Fired for insubordination. It's also not a serious election-busting skeleton like catching her in an orgy or smoking meth. No teleprompter in interviews That's why I didn't say 'interviews'. She's way out of her element on TV interviews. "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"This is not the same question as 'Should we finish what we started in Iraq', which will give very different numbers. I also see that the poll number have widen since the debate. I don't know that it was the debate that did it, because I don't think McCain did poorly. I think the banking crisis is making people say to themselves 'this happened on Bush's watch, McCain's a Republican, I don't want another Republican in office'. I'd like to see some study/poll asking if the debate or the banking crisis had more of an influence on the poll change. Palin saying something stupid will not shock me either.If the past week has been any indication, I won't be shocked either. Does anyone think either of them will do really well, or do we expect both of them to say something really stupid? I'm leaning more to the 'stupid' expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Watch the polls. Aproximately 50% do agree with the Iraq war. I may not agree with the original intell, but I absolutely agree that it was the right thing to do. Why are people ignoring the polls? McCain and Barrack are only seperated by the margin of error. Estimated 50% for McCain and 50% for Barrack. The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 If the Dem leadership really wanted to press the issue they could have. In any case, Clinton isn't on the ticket.So they're guilty because they were complicit with his decision (it being his decision and all)? I'm having a great deal of difficulty making sense of this argument, Jae. Fired for insubordination."Innocent until proven guilty" would have been much more persuasive. Considering that she's stonewalling the investigation (after agreeing to cooperate), I don't see how you can determine the outcome. It's also not a serious election-busting skeleton like catching her in an orgy or smoking meth.Interestingly, some of us consider abuse of power and cronyism more important than private issues or a prior drug conviction. That's why I didn't say 'interviews'. She's way out of her element on TV interviews. Yep, because she doesn't have a teleprompter. If I have two instances of someone speaking and one is favorable and the other is not and one of the main variables is the presence of a teleprompter, I'm going to begin making some very broad assumptions about said person's ability to speak "articulately". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us? Watch the evening news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverNight Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 That, and even Approximate numbers give ideas as to where the race is currently leaning. No poll is going to be 100% accurate, that's just impossible since the survey group size is going to have to be ~300M, not the usual ~1000-2000 crap the media shoves down our throats as "fact". So, just as long as its disclaimered as an Estimate, I'll take it as an estimate for where the race is at... after all, its the best we can do so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us? First I personally don't think polls are that important and a poll that involves a question of race is questionable because people may lie so they do not appear racist. That should be taken into account by the margin of error, but I do not know how idealist those that took the statistics were. Therefore, I take all polls, especially those in this Presidential election with a grain of salt. I would say I only trust the election count, but since the election of 2000, I know that is flawed too. Gallup 09/28/2008 - Obama 50% to McCain 42% Real Clear Politics - Poll Averages 9/21/2008 - 9/28/2008 PollingReport.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Watch the evening news. As much as i'd like to, I'm not on the same continent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Watch the evening news. No. And polls are not important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 No. And polls are not important. Bad kitty! You are most likely right though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 In my opinion if you actually knew the facts and had been following things with sources other than the "mainstream media" McCain clearly won, but he didn't utilize several opportunities to blow Obama out of the water. Like the Fact the earmark for ACORN being in the bailout bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 In my opinion if you actually knew the facts and had been following things with sources other than the "mainstream media" McCain clearly won, but he didn't utilize several opportunities to blow Obama out of the water.. So Gallop is the “mainstream media”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 Pundits gave the edge to McCain in terms of points won. The average person watching thought Obama won, and there are more 'average people' than pundits voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Palin started off strong, but quickly began to lose the debate, IMHO. She eventually stopped making convincing counter arguemnts, whilst Biden seemed very savvy with knowledge on all of the topics... I heard 'I beleive' and 'I think' and and many imperatives about Mccain from Palin. Palin's 'energy independence' and 'mccain knows how to win a war' and 'Maverick blah blah blah' statements didn't prove anything. Biden completely explained his positions and backed them all up quite well. Also, at the end, it turns out Biden knew what the VP did and Palin misunderstood what powers that position would give her. If only we could have had Biden as our Democratic POTUS Candidate... He would make a pretty good POTUS. Much better than Obama. I asked my parents who they like the best, and they, being very conservative republicans, admitted that they like Joe Biden the best... Maybe they will vote for Obama this year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I think they both did well. Palin and Biden both did what it was suggested they do. Biden was to not concentrate on Palin. Keep the focus on McCain and his "failed Bush policies" and to talk about Obama and his plan. And Sarah to well be the Sarah people saw during the 2006 Alaskan governor election. At least that's what I've heard. Now there has been some speculation about Biden saying some factually incorrect statements. I think we need to get the VP candidates' statements and compare with facts. Maybe something from fact checker. But all in all I did not see any big blunders from either that would appear on you tube the next day. They both got done what they were suggested to do, they both seemed relaxed, and I think it went quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Now there has been some speculation about Biden saying some factually incorrect statements. I think we need to get the VP candidates' statements and compare with facts. Maybe something from fact checker. They seem to have gotten this one out rather quick. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html Personally I thought the VP debates were somewhat uneventful (in a watching a car race and no accidents kind of way ). Though I do agree that it went quite smoothly. Over all, not bad, it's just unfortunate this is the only one for VP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I recall some funny parts of the debate... Biden: Charact- char char character act characterization. Palin: Soccer moms (blah blah blah) Palin: My kids get extra credit for watching this debate Oh, and the times when Biden smiled really big a whole lot and sometimes laughed as he became more and more aggravated with Palin's weak arguements... Stewart and Colbert are going to love making a show out of those things today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 They seem to have gotten this one out rather quick. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html Personally I thought the VP debates were somewhat uneventful (in a watching a car race and no accidents kind of way ). Though I do agree that it went quite smoothly. Over all, not bad, it's just unfortunate this is the only one for VP's. Thank you. I'll have to check that link o꺳ut. But yeah it went well. Yeah like you've said I wish there were more VP debates. Even Sarah at the end said she enjoyed it and wished they could have more debates. I do have a complaint about both Biden and Palin though. Is it just me or did Biden have plastic surgery on his upper eye lids? I mean looking down he looked normal, but when he was looking into the camera he looked like he had cat eyes. lol. Not trying to be a superficial guy, it's just did anyone else notice the top lids like I did? Also Sarah needed to push the hair out of her face. Of course there is the other side that's going to say that hair in the face is an appealing look. I respectfully disagree. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I watched the debate in its entirety, and Governor Palin hit it out of the park. First Senator Biden said some things that were not only indisputably factually incorrect, but some things are things he has absolutely no excuse in messing up. Such as when he said the Executive branch is Article I of the Constitution, when it is Article II that is the Executive Branch. Article I is the Legislative branch ie the House and the Senate. He also lied about votes that Obama, McCain, and himself have made. Including votes on supporting the troops, votes on taxes, etc. Senator Joe Biden and Senator Barack Obama voted for raising taxes on families earning $42,000 dollars a year, while Senator McCain voted against it. Senator Biden tried to paint a different picture but the facts are the facts. Governor Palin ran circles around around him the entire debate, even with the moderator actively trying to throw the debate to Senator Biden. Did anyone else catch Senator Biden giving the moderator hand signals to cut Governor Palin off and give him extra rebuttals. He was also making faces, the whole nine yards. You could tell that the moderator was not impartial (putting it mildly) and despite that Governor Palin still won the debate handily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 ChAiNz have a good source in my opinion in what both of the VPs either lied(Biden) or made a mistake on (Palin). If I may I'l like to give reference to it again: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html I agree she did real wel in her speach for someone who hasn't done this for a long time like Biden. I think that says something great about her that she can match him and in some areas correct Biden on where he was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 ChAiNz have a good source in my opinion in what both of the VPs either lied(Biden) or made a mistake on (Palin). If I may I'l like to give reference to it again: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html I agree she did real wel in her speach for someone who hasn't done this for a long time like Biden. I think that says something great about her that she can match him and in some areas correct Biden on where he was wrong. Correction: Okay didn't read through the entirety, apparently that tax thing was for individuals making $42,000 a year. Fact Check says McCain didn't support legislation for more oversight until the crisis was well underway and that isn't true. Senator McCain supported a bill in 2005-2006 that would have fixed this, if they are going after the second bill fine, but he was calling for reform long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Correction: Okay didn't read through the entirety, apparently that tax thing was for individuals making $42,000 a year. Fact Check says McCain didn't support legislation for more oversight until the crisis was well underway and that isn't true. Senator McCain supported a bill in 2005-2006 that would have fixed this, if they are going after the second bill fine, but he was calling for reform long ago. Alight then. If Fact Checker is wrong, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they an un biased fact producing source? But if they are wrong do you have a fact source that shows the candidates comments with comparison to facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Alight then. If Fact Checker is wrong, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they an un biased fact producing source? But if they are wrong do you have a fact source that shows the candidates comments with comparison to facts? They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003. Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary. Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003. Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary. Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate. Listen, I believe you. But for the benefit of everyone here and also if Fact Checker is wrong I'd like to have a better source about which candidate was factully wrong on what. Meaning do you have a source, as in a link please? Also if Fact Checker was incorrect, are they not supposed to be an un biased fact producing site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003. Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary. Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate. By all means, I welcome any and all fact-checking services... but I'm more in tune to believe something with viable sources. "the bill", "2005-2006 bill" and " 2007 bill" = Specifics please. I don't discount what you're saying, but at least I can find source links with FactCheck Here's another site other may find of interest. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ However I can't really ascertain how legitimate it is since they also take in user articles/submissions If anyone else has any experience with the site, feedback would be welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Listen, I believe you. But for the benefit of everyone here and also if Fact Checker is wrong I'd like to have a better source about which candidate was factully wrong on what. Meaning do you have a source, as in a link please? Also if Fact Checker was incorrect, are they not supposed to be an un biased fact producing site? That's really hard to find these days, I can't think of anyone that is unbiased really. However, I'd find the conservative leaning sources to be better at actually telling the truth. NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, Associated Press, Reuters, my home Newspaper, New York Times, ABC, Newsweek, etc. all are actively supporting Barack Obama. Hell my home newspaper has actually outright lied on at least one story to in order to explain why Obama did poorly in the Saddleback showdown. Conservative Sources: Fox News, Washington Post, a few other smalltime papers. I'm not including commentators, but you see the mismatch. Concerning the Bill: Letter to the Editor: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/23/mccain-was-warned-financial-debacle/ Will try to find some other sources, there were a few on you tube but they were deleted. Some sources that are quoting McCain I had some others but need to hunt them down. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-co-sponsored-reforms-fannie-freddie http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/democrats-blocked-financial-reforms-that-mccain-and-gop-proposed-in-2005/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.