SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Next President of the United States

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Next President of the United States (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141533)

Sorry Fish, but the New York Times has less credibility than the National Enquirer in this election cycle.

The upcoming debates will be crucial.

If McCain can come accross as a maverick capable of making changes in washington and addressing the out of control spending of the Bush Administration, then Obama could be in trouble. If, on the other hand, McCain comes accross as just more of the same from the GOP, then the Messiah will flourish.

On the VP side, Biden has to walk a fine line in showing Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience, without coming accross as a bully. I think Palin will give him some real problems.

Of all the people to misquote, why FactCheck?

Nice to know that McCain has integrity..

Straight talk, right.

He approves this message.

This and the Sex-Ed one. - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...he-fact-c.html

Good grief.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...r_finding.html

On the other hand, there was this speech.

Quote:

It was in St. Paul last week that Palin drew raucous cheers when she delivered this put-down of Obama: "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," Obama said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"
The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."
"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

Guess which one taught constitutional law.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...ock_the_c.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

Sorry Fish, but the New York Times has less credibility than the National Enquirer in this election cycle.

Whats the most neutral, dean? If there is one. :-?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK1044

Just one week from friday:

Quote:

The University of Mississippi community is pleased to host the first presidential debate of 2008 on September 26. Foreign policy and national security issues will be the focus of the 8:00 p.m. debate.

Well, I guess these two points are not necessarily contridictory, in that there are centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence that gives citizens the right to habeas corpus, but nowhere in our Common Law system have POWs been given these rights.

The fact that some of the justices seem to value stare decisis in cases that they like it, Roe, and dump it when they don't, Bowers v. Hardwick, and now Hamdi and Hamden doesn't mean that Johnson v. Eisentrager is bad law.

Strange times are afoot at the USSC, in my view. But I think a discussion on National Secuity law decisions are a bit OT for this board.

I know some of these words are mis-spelled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

On the other hand, there was this speech.

Quote:

Guess which one taught constitutional law.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...ock_the_c.html

I would think the NE. They are clear about their desires.

...But I'm sure that John Edwards would disagree. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

Sorry Fish, but the New York Times has less credibility than the National Enquirer in this election cycle.

Whats the most neutral, dean? If there is one. :-?

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monica Lewinsky

One big reason i hope Obama and Biden will win, i expect politicians to have a certain degree of verified ability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

i expect politicians to have a certain degree of verified ability.

Who needs enemies with friends like this :lol:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091602228.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...fiorina&st=cse

Seems that there are some nasty phone polls going around.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...oll/index.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

As a big state governor, she has more familiarity with executive administrations than Obama, and his disciples are setting him up to be President, not VP.

Yes, but either Biden or Palin would be little more than a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It is not pleasant to say, but given McCain's age and medical history, this is a much greater concern than it is for the younger and healthier Obama.

Alaska is certainly ranked first in geographic area, but 47th in populace, so it's hardly Texas, California or the states of the northeast. I'd venture to say that it's more than a leap from management of a tiny state to Commander in Chief of the free world. She's also been in the job for less than two years. Prior to this, she was clearly in the pocket of special interest, even going as far to support the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'. This flies in the face what had been one of McCain's strongest hallmarks: The defiance of special interest. Perhaps some more time should have been spent in the vetting process, as Palin continues to appear an increasingly odd selection as her background is explored.

The McCain campaign's most successful attacks on Obama have been in regard to his lack of experience. Palin's selection, although pleasing to the base of the party, has now rendered that strategy obsolete. This is compounded by the fact that neither party's base will be the determining factor in this election, and the selection of Governor Palin has not seemed to have impressed the moderates and independents that will determine the outcome.

Good post Tak.

I can't see how Palin is going to win over many Hillary Clinton supporters with her extreme righ to life views such as being against abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Time will tell if Palin is nothing more than a one hit wonder. :hmm:

One thing is for sure and that is that this election campaign has really had some curve balls thrown in it.

All this talk about Palin's experience is just a chimera anyway. Those saying she doesn't have the requisite experience are ignoring the governor of the tiny inconsequential state of Arkansas that they had elected for President not long ago.

If they were honest about their assertations of the importance of "executive experience" all the Democrats talking out of unfortunate parts of their anatomy now would be pushing for Rebublican, Rudy Guiliani, executive of New York City, a larger economy and beurocracy than the vast majority of states, as president. After all, the Republicans don't want him! Why not? The reality is that executive experience is a desirable, but not an indispensible quality in a president. After all, we are running two senators for president, aren't we? So how can we not laugh at such ridiculous assertations?

So we can talk about Palin's superior position of executive experience all we want, but it has very little bearing on whether she or Obama are most qualified to be president. It really comes down to what evidence of character we have in both of them.

For Obama, we just do not know the man. He has made no decisions, whether as an organizer in Chicago, as an Illinios legislator or as a Senator that lend any light to his actions when faced with tough decisions. There is some evidence that he merely seeks to avoid them, but there isn't even enough evidence to credit that conclusion. If we elect him we will deserve whatever we find him to be, and his strongest supporters do not have a clue what that is. Personally I believe that the burden of proof is on the candidate and he has not met the burden of that proof.

As far as Palin goes, we have quite a bit of evidence as to character. She has made several tough decisions that a normal self-interested person would not make. She exposed her benefactor, the kingpin of Alaska Republican politics, for doing personal work on the state payroll. This resulted in her boss being removed for misfeasance, but also cost her her position and six figure income as well. We know from this that she cannot be bought and makes decsions based on right and wrong, not personal interest. She made lasting enemies within her own party and the bill will come due about a week before the election. Should be fun to see.

We also know that she ran against the Republican governor who dismissed her and beat him. She then ran against the past Democratic governor and beat him. This evidence shows that any attempt to paint her as a bimbo beauty queen trading on vaccuous looks is likely to be served back raw to it's source, and without ketchup. I suspect she has the killer instinct of Hillary, and maybe the burning ambition. We'll see all that because she's not one to keep back the reserves. Should be interesting. I'm prepared to be impressed or not. Personally I want someone who looks at the job not as a prize but as a responsibility.

But nothing about Palin matters. The election is between McCain and Obama. The more the Dems concentrate on Palin, the more votes they will lose. But I don't think the Obama campaign is monolithic enough to project a consistent message and I don't think they can resist sending their pitbulls after her. She's just too juicy a target. And that will be Obama's downfall.

Any debates will make Obama look worse and McCain look better, but I think the debates have lost their influence. This is the most interesting presidential race in modern times. I just wish it weren't so consequential, so we could enjoy the result whichever way it goes. We don't have that luxury.

Since I have more degrees than any of these people, can I be President?

Never forget, Wilson had a PhD, and was our most 'schooled' President in the last century, while Harry Truman was the only one not to go to college?

Wonder where these two rank according to most folks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monica Lewinsky

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13747.html

I know that few voters will make their decisions on stuff like this, but still...

lol

Unfortunately since few Americans really understand the complexity of the issues, it is exactly this sort of tripe that does sway voters.

A large portion of our population wants "sound bytes". They want simple black and white answers regardless of the complexity of the issue. Unfortunately the world is not black and white but a constant spectra of grey.

What really amazes me is that in this age of the Internet, where so much information is available concerning our government, that so many people are simply too lazy to do the simplest research. :nope:

Want to find out why Senator McCain voted against Bill X? Go to the Senate website and read what Bill X actually said.

Want to find out if Senator Obama co-sponsored Bill Y? Go to the Senate website and find out.

But it seems that people would rather exchange emotional rumours either glorifying their candidate and vilifying the opposing candidate.

Want an argument against universal suffrage? Just read some of the CNN blogs :damn:

These are the people who vote. :nope:

So no, Tchocky. I have to respectfully disagree with you. Many people will have their votes influenced by exactly this sort of tripe.

The only good news is that 60% of them probably won't vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

while Harry Truman was the only one not to go to college?

Small nit to pick. Harry Truman was the only President in the 20th Century that did not graduate from college. Harry Truman did attend Kansas City Law School for two years.

Whaaaaat!! nobody likes me anymore???

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...ar/palin-1.jpg

Quote:

The survey also found that the strong initial public reaction to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, has cooled somewhat. Overall, her unfavorable rating has gone up by 10 points in the past two weeks, from 28 percent to 38 percent. She remains broadly popular -- 52 percent of voters view her positively -- but there have been some notable declines. Over the past two weeks, the percentage of independents with favorable views of Palin dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent. Among independent women, the decline was particularly sharp, going from 65 percent to 43 percent. Her favorable rating among whites without college degrees remained largely steady, but among those with college degrees, it dropped nearly 20 percentage points.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2303897&s_pos=

I am still of the belief that this was a real bad decision on the part of McCain to choose her as his running mate and one which will come back to haunt him.

I think this will be a very close race. I think we'll see more Americans voting than at any time in my lifetime, and I think a lot of the swing voters will move to Obama because they will associate the current financial fiasco with a Republican Administration. :D