USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

..........So when Obama wrote that "Global warming is real, is happening right now, and is the result of human activities" about what may be one of the most costly boondoggles in the history of the planet, he was lying because it is clearly not the whole truth. .......................
?

Are you really trying to make the case that

1. Precipitous global warming is NOT real?
2. That it is NOT happening right now?
3. That it is NOT at least greatly influenced by human activities?
4. That our acceptance of those facts is one of the costliest boondoggles of our history?
5. That one is "clearly lying" when they see a truth you do not that most of the rest of the world clearly does see?

Sheesh...cuz I think NOT recognizing human impact on climate change AND our ability to mitigate it rather simply, IS the costliest boondoggle of our history!

[roni]

Obama's supporters are going to vote for him no matter who the VP nominee is.

When it comes to a proven ability to bring out voters and to bring in votes in demographic groups within which Obama showed the most weakness in the primaries, the other VP possibilities are diminutive figures in comparison.

Obama's selection of a VP candidate will not change my vote, and I suspect it will not change Ryberg's vote either, but it could have an effect on the outcome of the election. I want a choice that brings the most votes to the Democratic column. Who is that? Well, it ain't Sebelius, you can take that to the bank

Of all the non-Hillary people still being mentioned, Bayh tickles my fancy the most.

The only outrage I have seen here today is the suggestion by a non-Democrat that one of the two most popular Democrats in the nation (as measured by votes from throughout the nation) betrayed her party or its presumptive nominee

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

Any comments on the Rasmussen poll?

You want to know my first reaction, really? About 10-12% of the population continually states that they believe Obama is Muslim and was raised as a Muslim, too. That don't make it so.

Again, check the studies. That one I referenced re PBS and NPR is a classic example. Just because a lot of people keep saying something or have such and such an impression doesn't make it true. (If it were, we could conclude definitively that Obama would be the better president right now!) They're being fed that line incessantly by conservative outlets, and of course many of them are conservatives themselves, with a vested interest in seeing things that way. (Helps them explain why a guy out of nowhere with what they say is a slim at best resume and as empty a celebrity as Britney Spears could actually be inspiring people much more successfully than their guy.)

In this particular case, too, well the campaign has gone on and on and been more intense, as well on the Dems' side (which is of course where Obama is) than ever before. He's the most prominent figure in the campaign, which one can hardly fault him for, as you want to be that, of course. You don't think even a little bit of this "Obama fatigue" is really "campaign fatigue" and the campaign just happens to be more about Obama? Do a poll extracting his name or that of any candidate in particular and see how many people are basically tired of the campaign stretching on and on and on. Bet you get quite a similar response.

On the photographer thing, that's my bad, completely mistook that. Sorry about that. Nevertheless, the point about McCain stands, as the link in question notes. McCain and his ads still claim that the trip was cancelled because of a press ban or desire to go to the gym, not because of anything to do with a military adviser not being allowed to come along.

Originally Posted by roni

Obama's supporters are going to vote for him no matter who the VP nominee is...

Gee, that sounds very much like the presumptuousness Clinton supporters decry so loudly when those on the Obama side suggest that they will just get on board and vote for Obama, in the end, and go on to downplay the need to address their specific concerns and so forth...

Steve

[roni]

Originally Posted by roni

When it comes to a proven ability to bring out voters and to bring in votes in demographic groups within which Obama showed the most weakness in the primaries, the other VP possibilities are diminutive figures in comparison.

Originally Posted by ryberg

Gee, that sounds very much like the presumptuousness Clinton supporters decry so loudly when those on the Obama side suggest that they will just get on board and vote for Obama, in the end, and go on to downplay the need to address their specific concerns and so forth...

Steve

I bolded the part I would like you to respond to.

In the end, most of Clinton's supporters will vote for Obama, depending, in part, on what happens during the campaign. Many of us will vote for Obama regardless of what happens during the campaign.

I would still suggest, you know, since the currency of politics is, in the final anaylsis, votes - well that bringing the maximum number of votes is an important consideration.

You may feel differently.

[Just Lucky]

I'm sorry gents but you've already been allotted 423 pages of this thread to argue about Senator Clinton..I hate to call it...but...

Time!

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Are you really trying to make the case that

1. Precipitous global warming is NOT real?

If we are indeed in a period of relative warming, which may or may not be true depending upon the time scale you use to measure the trends, the absolute unshakable truth is we are in a long-term cooling period, and have been in such for close to 50 million years.

2. That it is NOT happening right now?

See (1) above

3. That it is NOT at least greatly influenced by human activities?

Influenced, perhaps, greatly, not proven, or even very plausible.

4. That our acceptance of those facts is one of the costliest boondoggles of our history?

Facts not established, claims of facts are contradictory, at best.

5. That one is "clearly lying" when they see a truth you do not that most of the rest of the world clearly does see?

My reference to lying was based upon Ryberg's contention, as I see it, not mine, that it is a lie to say something that is not "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Clearly, Obama's statement falls into that category for it fails to acknowledge anything other than anthropomorphic causes of global warming (sic).

Sheesh...cuz I think NOT recognizing human impact on climate change AND our ability to mitigate it rather simply, IS the costliest boondoggle of our history!

Many of the theories of human-generated global warming activities have already been debunked, and the warming trend recognized recently has already been show to be based upon simple errors in data compilation. How reasonable is it that the same people, using the same modeling approaches, are unable to predict the weather 2 weeks in advance, yet claim to be able to determine what the climate will look like 100 years hence; does that make any sense? Aren't some of the same characters now pontificating about global warming the same ones whom a generation ago were agog over the coming Ice Age? Bad news for them, they were more correct the first time around.

There is another way of looking at things, to wit, that global cooling is a much more serious concern than global warming; Earth has flourished during its warming periods, and withered during the cold. Assuming the warming is taking place, what if some small measure of warming, admittedly affecting certain weather patterns and the Kennedy's seaside homestead, would stave off catastrophic cooling for a millennium; would that be an acceptable trade-off?

I wasn't looking to spawn a discussion about global warming with my example to Ryberg, just used the Obama comment to make a completely unrelated point. If need be, however, I am ready to engage in such a discussion.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by tmc

I wasn't looking to spawn a discussion about global warming with my example to Ryberg, just used the Obama comment to make a completely unrelated point. If need be, however, I am ready to engage in such a discussion.

Dangerous. Global warming tends to get threads shut down round these parts. Proceed with caution, as this is the longest going political thread, like, ever.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Dangerous. Global warming tends to get threads shut down round these parts. Proceed with caution, as this is the longest going political thread, like, ever.

I think he should talk about religion and global warming!

Talk about a locked thread!

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I think he should talk about religion and global warming!

Talk about a locked thread!

Well, we are talking about the death penalty and hair metal bands over on the greyhound bus thread...

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Well, we are talking about the death penalty and hair metal bands over on the greyhound bus thread...

Tee-hee...I know....I see all!

[roni]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I'm sorry gents but you've already been allotted 423 pages of this thread to argue about Senator Clinton..I hate to call it...but...

Time!

We're talking about Vice-Presidential possibilities, it is on-topic and you, sir, are out of line

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Dangerous. Global warming tends to get threads shut down round these parts. Proceed with caution, as this is the longest going political thread, like, ever.

True! Was thinking along the same lines.

(Which, by the way, is a good sign, as Melliedee seems an eminently sane sort. )

Gotta cut TMC some slack on that, however, as those were before his time here, I believe. But yes, TMC, they're out there, and they're shut down. I started one of 'em, in fact. It was for its day kind of the equivalent of this thread, I think, though this one has surpassed that now in its length and depth of discussion, surely.

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

You want to know my first reaction, really? About 10-12% of the population continually states that they believe Obama is Muslim and was raised as a Muslim, too. That don't make it so.

The example you give is one based upon faulty information and calls for a factual conclusion, the one I describe does not. The Rasmussen poll asked people what they felt or thought about reporters vis-a-vis supporting a candidate. Are you saying that people don't know how they feel about a topic, not whether their feeling is objectively true, but that they don't know how they feel about something? That doesn't seem plausible, as that is the one poll completely unrelated to facts of any kind. If you can't accept this type of data, then imagine how tainted is every other poll!

Again, check the studies. That one I referenced re PBS and NPR is a classic example. Just because a lot of people keep saying something or have such and such an impression doesn't make it true. (If it were, we could conclude definitively that Obama would be the better president right now!) They're being fed that line incessantly by conservative outlets, and of course many of them are conservatives themselves, with a vested interest in seeing things that way.

27% of Democrats felt the media favored Obama, more Democrats than felt that the media favored McCain. Are these Democrats drinking the Fox kool-aid as well? More than 1 in 4 Democrats feel the media are favoring Obama and that has no bearing on your analysis? That's an awful lot of people to write-off. If that number of Democrats choose to vote for McCain, he will win 500 electoral votes; would you consider that significant?

(Helps them explain why a guy out of nowhere with what they say is a slim at best resume and as empty a celebrity as Britney Spears could actually be inspiring people much more successfully than their guy.)

In this particular case, too, well the campaign has gone on and on and been more intense, as well on the Dems' side (which is of course where Obama is) than ever before. He's the most prominent figure in the campaign, which one can hardly fault him for, as you want to be that, of course. You don't think even a little bit of this "Obama fatigue" is really "campaign fatigue" and the campaign just happens to be more about Obama? Do a poll extracting his name or that of any candidate in particular and see how many people are basically tired of the campaign stretching on and on and on. Bet you get quite a similar response.

On the photographer thing, that's my bad, completely mistook that. Sorry about that. Nevertheless, the point about McCain stands, as the link in question notes. McCain and his ads still claim that the trip was cancelled because of a press ban or desire to go to the gym, not because of anything to do with a military adviser not being allowed to come along.

Gee, that sounds very much like the presumptuousness Clinton supporters decry so loudly when those on the Obama side suggest that they will just get on board and vote for Obama, in the end, and go on to downplay the need to address their specific concerns and so forth...

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

I bolded the part I would like you to respond to.

I don't have any (further) response to offer to that, I'm afraid. I don't know that it's so clearly true, for some of the reasons I've already mentioned (what it would say about Obama and how his supporter or other independents considering him might take it, for example). I also don't know that, even if true, that means she should be the VP, for other reasons I've already mentioned (the above plus the fact that they still have to work together as a team, which does not seem so clearly likely). Other reasons I suppose would be the CW that he should go with someone strong in terms of international affairs and foreign policy experience, but she looks more like him -- slim on resume -- in that area, especially after her Bosnian sniper fire fiasco and the comments that she hosted teas rather than achieved peace in Northern Ireland and that whole thing.

I also just don't buy the sort of math idea that the top two vote getters would sort of automatically get the most overall votes, or the idea that the VP choice is really of so much consequence, but these things I have no objective support for, to offer you.

I have responded, though, in an attempt to meet your request.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

The example you give is one based upon faulty information and calls for a factual conclusion, the one I describe does not. The Rasmussen poll asked people what they felt or thought about reporters vis-a-vis supporting a candidate. Are you saying that people don't know how they feel about a topic, not whether their feeling is objectively true, but that they don't know how they feel about something? ...

Not at all. I'm sure they know how they feel about something, whatever you ask them. But you said there was obvious bias in favor of Obama in the media. That is a conclusion you certainly cannot draw from the idea that a certain percentage of people feel one way or the other about it, any more than you can draw the conclusion that Obama is or isn't Muslim in reality from a survey about what people think about that question.

So if you are saying that you are revising your claim to something like "Many people feel or think there is bias in the media," or saying that that was your claim, originally, then I'm certainly in agreement, and in fact have already said so in this discussion. That's been obvious since conservatives began talking about the "liberal media" years ago, and is similarly obvious from many people's reactions to Fox "News", to show an example in the opposite direction. I'm sure a great percentage of those on the left feel or think Fox is biased. That does not mean Fox is biased, however. For that you'd need to catalog reports (as you noted), look at rhetoric, log time devoted to certain topics or not to other topics, or angles on those topics that are emphasized or skipped, etc. This poll doesn't do any of that, as far as I can see.

Steve