Problems with Palin

[Nitack]

Nitack/Moon; Next week....Its not the first time I have said this, but however you vote next week will resolve nothing. IMO both parties have been lining up the 2010 (Congressional) and 2012 (General) elections. There will be fighting from both sides from January 22nd on to those elections and all those political blogs will be as active as in the past month. Every decision by whichever person will be subjected to equal descent as anything during the campaign. Who ever the President, every appointment met with disapproval and every decision subject to attacks by one media or the other. There will be no compromise if McCain and no compromise needed if Obama. Congress will go it alone and is planning the next twenty years as we speak. As for voting, suggest you both simply vote for McCain or Obama and assume like has always been they will serve out their time. My personal opinion and from history, either has the same change of dieing in office and frankly I would take Palin over Biden any day. Remember if Obama, the line as it stands to day is Obama, Biden, POLOSI, REID AND BYRD.

 

Actually, my vote might actually count in this election in a way it never has. I grew up in California, THE Democrat stronghold, I have lived in Virginia for the past ten years, a reliable red state. However, Virginia may be reclassified as a swing state starting now.

 

As for partisanship... I actually saw a Mark Warner commercial a few days ago and made a comment to my wife about how ignorant it was. He was talking about "Partisanship paralyzing Washington". It was ignorant, because although partisanship is demonized quite frequently, it is not the obstructionism that most people try to make it out to be. The dems and republicans each have general views on the best way to help the country. Partisanship is simply sticking to those views rather than caving. However if you are an ideologue on one side or the other you use the word partisanship as a slur when you think the other side simply won't admit that they're wrong.

 

It has nothing to do with pride or with admitting that your wrong, it is different views of how to make the country better.

• If you are a socialist/communist democrat, you think that entitlement programs are good for the country. If you are a small government/fiscal discipline republican, you think that entitlement programs and government spending is tantamount to thievery.
  
• If you are a socially liberal/individual rights democrats, you might believe that abortion is an individual choice and no one else's business. If you are a socially conservative/religious right republican, you think you have the right to force other people to live by your religious standards.
  

 

Partisanship is not the bad thing most people mislabel it as. Despite my intense dislike of politicians (odd considering I am a lobbyist), I think the majority of them really do want to do good. They are all just too spineless to actually do the right thing when it is painful (hello kill the thievery program of Social Security) or they are too wrapped up in being a career politician and lost sight of things.

[HydrogenBond]

I am under the impression that democrats hold up republicans up to a higher standard then they expect of themselves. The republican standard is like the high jumper that has to clear 6 ft. While the democrats is considered the equal at 3 ft. A case on point is Barney Frank. He had an affair with a male page. This would be unethical for any republican and cause waves, but with the democrats it is just expected and causes them to rally in support. As punishment he finds himself is the position as chairman of the finance committee. This is a very powerful position that can have a strong impact on economic policy. At the 3 ft standard, he has no accountability in the economic crisis. He did the best possible job at the 3 ft standard one can expect. Maybe he will get a plaque. If this had been a republican the 3 ft of competence would not hold up to the 6 ft standard. He would be asked to resign by not only the democrats but also the republicans. American people want change but if incompetence and unethical is always within the 3 ft standard, don't expect too much.

 

With Palin, she is treated with the 6 ft standard. Maybe she falls short of this but she would still be over qualified at the 3 ft standard, if we use the Barney Frank litmus test. Maybe Barney Frank will be promoted to a cabinet post.

[Moontanman]

My problems with the Conservatives has nothing to do with taxes, no one wants to pay more than necessary in taxes, or entitlements, I don't want to support anyone who will not try to make it, nor does my problem with the Conservatives have anything to do with rich people, I like rich people I socialize with very well off people regularly, I would like to be one of them. If you earned it good for you, i have no problem with that. what really concerns me about the Conservatives in general is the alliance with the religious right and the idiocy of fundamentalism. ad the open hostility toward science and I have a problem with these people. In the last eight years the out right lies of the neocons stunned me, i guess i was naive but to goto war on lies and to allow people to profit immensely by taking advantage of the war just blew me away. i honestly turned my back completely on Conservatives at that time. I live in a world where lies are wrong no matter who tells them or what their goals are. My first falling out with religion had to do with lies being told to scare people into the fold. I hate lies, no cause is good if it takes lies to support it. If Bush had simply said we are going to war because Saddam has to be booted out for the good of his people I would have gone with it but the outright bald faced lies and and all the little lies used to cover up the big lies simply turned me completely away. I don't like much of the liberals either but the liberal cause isn't as closely knit as the Conservatives are and I can disagree with the liberal cause with out being ostracized and demonized. I truly hate being labeled as either one, I hate labels but some are easier to wear than others.

[jackson33]

Actually, my vote might actually count in this election in a way it never has. I grew up in California, THE Democrat stronghold, I have lived in Virginia for the past ten years, a reliable red state. However, Virginia may be reclassified as a swing state starting now.

 

As for partisanship... I actually saw a Mark Warner commercial a few days ago and made a comment to my wife about how ignorant it was. He was talking about "Partisanship paralyzing Washington". It was ignorant, because although partisanship is demonized quite frequently, it is not the obstructionism that most people try to make it out to be. The dems and republicans each have general views on the best way to help the country. Partisanship is simply sticking to those views rather than caving. However if you are an ideologue on one side or the other you use the word partisanship as a slur when you think the other side simply won't admit that they're wrong.

 

It has nothing to do with pride or with admitting that your wrong, it is different views of how to make the country better.

• If you are a socialist/communist democrat, you think that entitlement programs are good for the country. If you are a small government/fiscal discipline republican, you think that entitlement programs and government spending is tantamount to thievery.
  
• If you are a socially liberal/individual rights democrats, you might believe that abortion is an individual choice and no one else's business. If you are a socially conservative/religious right republican, you think you have the right to force other people to live by your religious standards.
  

 

Partisanship is not the bad thing most people mislabel it as. Despite my intense dislike of politicians (odd considering I am a lobbyist), I think the majority of them really do want to do good. They are all just too spineless to actually do the right thing when it is painful (hello kill the thievery program of Social Security) or they are too wrapped up in being a career politician and lost sight of things.

 

In poll watching, one thing never getting attention are the contributing reason people vote, to begin with. Same sex marriage in California and this years Senate Race in Virgina, just a couple. California is currently polling 36-55 for Obama and +2 for banning same sex marriage. IMO, this will give McCain a ten point gain in the actual election, although still lose by 6-7 percent. Virgina IMO is still by enlarge a Republican based State, with the possible exception of the DC area. McCain is down about five points, but normally would easily make this up if John Warner had run for re-election. Traditionally has added 5-8 points for the republicans. Since Mark Warner is running ahead 62-30 with 8% undecided(?) over Gilmore, indication are McCain could not make this up. If McCain does win, it will be 100% on expected Dem turnout not existing and I'll give this a 60-40 possibility. Apparently Warner is/was a good Governor, but all candidates are using this partisanship issue, knowing none would be required with anything close to a veto proof Senate, especially Polosi.

 

I agree, most enter politics with good intention. Most of the 2006 Dem winners ran as moderates. However and above most you should know this; Once in Washington and especially House Members, you are EXPECTED to vote party lines and to expliced....if you want ANY spending for your district.

[freeztar]

So what the hell do I do on Tuesday?

 

Vote for Bob Barr. Here is my reasoning...

 

I don't want Bob Barr to be president. Yet, I do want the Libertarian Party to have a stronger influence in American politics. This election is looking more and more like Obama will win, so why not help give the LP a stronger turn out rather than vote for the lesser of two evils? If you live in a swing state, it is more of a gut twister, but for me, in GA, it makes sense to vote Libertarian and hope that they have a strong candidate in 2012 with more public/electoral support.

 

Of course, if you're in a swing state, it might be wiser to vote Obama so we don't end up with Palin. :)

 

On a side note, I propose that we start breeding fruit flies asap and release them all at Palin's next rally. Imagine the effect it will have, or not. :hihi:

[jackson33]

I am under the impression that democrats hold up republicans up to a higher standard then they expect of themselves. The republican standard is like the high jumper that has to clear 6 ft. While the democrats is considered the equal at 3 ft. A case on point is Barney Frank. He had an affair with a male page. This would be unethical for any republican and cause waves, but with the democrats it is just expected and causes them to rally in support. As punishment he finds himself is the position as chairman of the finance committee. This is a very powerful position that can have a strong impact on economic policy. At the 3 ft standard, he has no accountability in the economic crisis. He did the best possible job at the 3 ft standard one can expect. Maybe he will get a plaque. If this had been a republican the 3 ft of competence would not hold up to the 6 ft standard. He would be asked to resign by not only the democrats but also the republicans. American people want change but if incompetence and unethical is always within the 3 ft standard, don't expect too much.

 

With Palin, she is treated with the 6 ft standard. Maybe she falls short of this but she would still be over qualified at the 3 ft standard, if we use the Barney Frank litmus test. Maybe Barney Frank will be promoted to a cabinet post.

 

The last person, the Dem's or media expected was for McCain running as a moderate, to pick an outright 'Conservative' for a VP. Her being, well a her was an added attraction for the dissed Clinton followers, or maybe few of the actual Republican Base, but the ground swell that occurred from so many literally shook the political landscape. Personally, I would never pick a person that couldn't beat me in the primaries and assume if I had it would be my intention to remind that person daily. But apparently its worked for Obama and his 'larger than life' image has been maintained...

 

 

 

Moon; Believe me, you and most people really don't want to know what goes on in government. I have no idea just who could get elected and who is running tells that story. If Bush had said, we need to keep the worlds oil flow going, would you have followed that scenario. No, I don't think so nor would the public in general. As for WMD, it had been accepted by the Clinton Administration and many folks before, so the logical reasoning for public consumption.

 

On Federal Taxes, I don't care either, most folks don't care. Half of us have deductions or don't make enough to pay any more or less and if there is a change, it won't amount to much. The trouble is we have an interest to a large degree on what those dirty rich people have to invest in our system and are willing to risk. We can't and don't barrow all that much (less than 50%) from foreign investors/Governments for our National Debt, but this alone will increase by 1.00 for every 1.00 in taxes we collect. Us little people also need those rich people to support ALL our markets, noting again its at risk. You 401K, my savings account or all the 70% who have some savings depend on this. Remember for those rich, their talking 39.6% opposed to 35% on all income over, whatever the current figure is, 30% opposed to 15% on all capital gains, and up 14% (most SS taxes paid in these brackets are self employed) from 250k with possibly no limits (Medicare already is on unlimited income). Your talking millions to many folks, small business, sales of some farm or business and the most important issue, stalling investment.

[CraigD]

Here is my problem...

 

So I am left with no one who I can actually believe in. On the one hand we have a religious fanatic who might start a nuke war just to bring on her Armageddon and on the other hand we have a socialist who doesn't understand basic economics and that you can't spend more than you make. It is not a matter of choosing the lesser of evils, they both suck ***.

 

So what the hell do I do on Tuesday?

Vote for Obama, on the possibility that your assessment of him as a socialist who doesn’t understand basic economics may be incorrect. His having completed a JD magna *** laud from Harvard strongly suggests to me that Obama’s understanding of basic economics is, in fact, strong.

 

I share your opinion of Palin’s beliefs and unsuitability for powerful public office. Unlike Obama, I find nothing in her CV suggesting that this opinion is incorrect.

.. she is more popular and is most likely the only one of the two [McCain and Palin] that will be alive at the end of 2012.

Although I’ve heard the claim that John McCain is likely to die in the next 4 years, I’ve seen no strong evidence supporting it. At 72, McCain is old, but does not appear to me to be in bad health. His mother is still alive at age 96, and while his father died at age 70, I believe John McCain’s speculation that his father's early death was the result of "long years of binge drinking" is likely to be correct. John McCain’s father also appears to have suffered from debilitating psychological depression following his apparently reluctant retirement 8 years prior to his death. Neither his alleged alcoholism nor depression appear to afflict his son, so I would not expect his chance of death to be less than the average for his age range in the UK, around 75 per 10000 per year (source: Age specific death rates: by sex, 2001: Regional Trends 38). This rate give an expectation of his death in the next 4 years of [imath]1-(1-0.0075)^4[/imath], about 3%.

[Nitack]

Vote for Obama, on the possibility that your assessment of him as a socialist who doesn’t understand basic economics may be incorrect. His having completed a JD magna *** laud from Harvard strongly suggests to me that Obama’s understanding of basic economics is, in fact, strong.

 

How does the holding of an advanced LAW degree lend him credibility in the subject of ECONOMICS? Besides, his socialist views have less to do with economic reality and more to do with his views on what every person is entitled do. As we have readily seen both in this forum and in the general atmosphere of the country, people have a boundless ability to put aside logic, reason, and scientific proof in favor of their ideologies... Intelligent Design anyone?

 

I share your opinion of Palin’s beliefs and unsuitability for powerful public office. Unlike Obama, I find nothing in her CV suggesting that this opinion is incorrect. Although I’ve heard the claim that John McCain is likely to die in the next 4 years, I’ve seen no strong evidence supporting it. At 72, McCain is old, but does not appear to me to be in bad health. His mother is still alive at age 96, and while his father died at age 70, I believe John McCain’s speculation that his father's early death was the result of "long years of binge drinking" is likely to be correct. John McCain’s father also appears to have suffered from debilitating psychological depression following his apparently reluctant retirement 8 years prior to his death. Neither his alleged alcoholism nor depression appear to afflict his son, so I would not expect his chance of death to be less than the average for his age range in the UK, around 75 per 10000 per year (source: Age specific death rates: by sex, 2001: Regional Trends 38). This rate give an expectation of his death in the next 4 years of [imath]1-(1-0.0075)^4[/imath], about 3%.

 

You are leaving out a very important aspect that can not be ignored. McCain has had FOUR/QUATRO/vier/τέσσερα/quatre/4 melanomas. Does that alter the chances of him dying just a bit? I believe the actuary tables give him a 1 in 4 chance of surviving his first term.

[Moontanman]

I keep hearing about how the Democrats want to take away from the rich and give to the poor who do not work or deserve it. Do you really think that someone who cannot afford to buy decent medical insurence should simply be allowed to die? Do you really think anyone wants to create an underclass of uneducated people who do nothing but sit around, make babies, and absorb resources? Do you not think that people who didn't win the class lottery shouldn't get a leg up from those who did? I grew up in the back woods, very little in the way of role models to show me what to do, i was lucky but many who grew up with me were not. do you not think it best to help those who lost the rat race to try again rather than create a class of people with no hope and nothing but crime and the gutter to live for? don't we already have enough of this type of thing? should we at least try to help those people? In my mind at least help the ones who want to try who want to get ahead? to say anyone can pull themselves up by the boot straps show a distinct lack of direct experience with climbing out of the hole of ignorance, bad role models, and poverty. Do you really think it would be better to kick those people who failed into the gutter? why is it either or with you? Why doesn't helping those less fortunate always have to mean giving to some poor slob who is just sitting around looking to sponge off the rich? Why can we not see it as helping, incentive to try, not to mention simply stopping filling our streets with poor ignorant people with no recourse but crime? Or do you want to wall in a state and shove all the unwashed minions into it and let them die on their own? I can be yes or no and white or black too, which is it? Help them or march them all to a reservation for the poor?

[Thunderbird]

So what's next for Joe?

 

A run for Congress? Check. He told FOX News over the weekend he's considering it.

 

Ambassador of goodwill? Check. According to one report Thursday, he's heading to an evening charity event in Philadelphia.

 

Provocateur? Check. "Joe" stirred the pot two days ago when he twice agreed with an audience member that Obama would mean "death to Israel" if elected president.

 

High-profile John McCain surrogate? Double check.

 

"I got a challenge to Obama. He's a man of mystery," he told FOX News Thursday. "He seems to get a slide on absolutely everything. American people want to vote for somebody who can't even come out and speak straight. That's pretty crazy to me."

 

But he and the McCain camp apparently need to fine-tune the whole surrogate thing a bit.

 

 

 

I guess it's no wonder John McCain was so happy to use "Joe the Plumber" he's a partisan Republican who also happens to be a member of the Keating family.

 

Shouldn't Fox news point out the fact that this clown happens to be a member of McCain's old family friends .

[CraigD]

How does the holding of an advanced LAW degree lend him credibility in the subject of ECONOMICS?

A good question, I think.

 

My conclusion that Barack Obama has a strong grasp of basic economics is due more to his having been a good student (the top 10% of his class at a highly-rated school), than having been a Law student. My personal experience is that top students at good schools tend to have a good understandings of a broad range of subjects related to their disciplines. It is also informed by his undergraduate degree of Political Science, which requires substantial study of History, and electively, of Economicsm, and his brief post-graduation work experience with a business consulting company. It’s strongly influenced by his having lectured for 12 years in Constitutional Law, because in my experience, professional academics are exposed to expert information about many disciplines related to their own, including, in the case of a Constitutional Law expert, Economics.

 

In contrast, John McCain’s academic career was undistinguished (class rank 894 of 899, or lowest 1%).

 

From this, I conclude that Obama’s understanding of Economics is better than John McCain’s.

Besides, his socialist views have less to do with economic reality and more to do with his views on what every person is entitled do.

I’ve seen no writing by anyone expert in political science to suggest that Obama has socialistic views. This claim appears to have originated from the McCain campaign staff, and is not substantiated.

As we have readily seen both in this forum and in the general atmosphere of the country, people have a boundless ability to put aside logic, reason, and scientific proof in favor of their ideologies... Intelligent Design anyone?

I agree. However, the claim that Obama has socialist views appears to me to be an example of a conclusion made by such a putting aside of reason and proof in favor of political ideology.

You are leaving out a very important aspect that can not be ignored. McCain has had FOUR/QUATRO/vier/τέσσερα/quatre/4 melanomas. Does that alter the chances of him dying just a bit?

You are correct. I did omit this information. Having had melanomas does affect John McCain’s probability of survivial for the next 4 years. According to articles such as Questions Linger About McCain's Prognosis After Skin Cancer - washingtonpost.com, McCain’s melanoma were type 2a, meaning 1-2 mm deep, without ulceration. Depending on other factors not described in news or encyclopedic literature, this gives a chance of not dieing from recurrence and metastasis of melanoma of 85-95%.

 

That in the course of McCain’s 2000 surgery to remove his melanoma, more than 30 nearby lymph nodes were removed and biopsied, finding no metastasis of the melanoma, and that his regular examinations since then have revealed no recurrence of them, suggest that the surgery was successful, and that McCain will not die of melanoma. The physicians who treated him estimate of his probability of a recurrence of melanoma as “in the single digits”.

 

Taken together with the high quality of McCain’s medical care, this suggest to me that his probability of living for the next 8 years remains close to normal for his age, about 94%.

 

Although many qualified experts not involved in his treatment have speculated that his probability of survival is much lower, they have done so without access to detailed data, and with the assumption that the reported depth of his melanoma and lymph node biopsies results are untrue. This is, of course, possible – one is under no legal compulsion to truthfully answer such questions – but assuming no intentional cover-up of his condition has occurred, it is unlikely that John McCain will die in the next 8 years.

I believe the actuary tables give him a 1 in 4 chance of surviving his first term.

What’s your source for this, Nitack?

[Turtle]

More problems with/for Palin as an ethics complaint has now been filed in regard to the earlier AP reports on her charging her childrens' travel to the taxpayers. :)

 

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A new ethics complaint has been filed against Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, accusing the Alaska governor of abusing her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.

 

The complaint alleges that the Republican vice presidential nominee used her official position as governor for personal gain. It follows a report by The Associated Press last week that Palin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters' commercial flights, including events where they weren't invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business.

 

In some cases, Palin also has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls. ...

Palin faces ethics complaint over kids' travel - John McCain News

[modest]

How does the holding of an advanced LAW degree lend him credibility in the subject of ECONOMICS?

 

Good question, let's ask some independent economists...

 

-source (the Economist)

 

~modest

[freeztar]

Good question, let's ask some independent economists...

 

-source (the Economist)

 

~modest

 

I question this stat as 18% did not know or did not have an opinion. That is significant. How can "academic economists" not know? Who exactly were they surveying?

[modest]

I question this stat as 18% did not know or did not have an opinion. That is significant. How can "academic economists" not know?

That's fair. I doubt this reflects the economists' ability with economics, but rather that somewhere near 18% felt unable to objectively analyze the ability of either or both candidates. But, that would be speculation.

 

Who exactly were they surveying?

 

This, I think I can answer with a bit less speculation. The survey is summarized at the link below with the portion relevant to your question quoted:

 

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

 

Examining America's presidential candidates | Examining the candidates | The Economist

 

I should note that the chart I posted above only reflects economists identified as independent and excludes all who responded as republican or democrat. This removes a significant amount of bias from the survey - but, I admit, bias is still evident. But, the fact that the National Bureau of Economic Research might have a liberal bias (as it appears) is far beyond the point I originally made. My point was to counter this claim:

...and on the other hand we have a socialist who doesn't understand basic economics...

Which is obviously (given the raw data of the survey above) not true. A large majority of academic economists (who responded) believe the candidate has a strong grasp of economics and support his plan.

 

~modest

[Buffy]

I always give The Economist a lot of leeway on this sort of thing. While they have always been on the conservative side of the spectrum--those of you who *actually read* The Economist (as opposed to simply claiming to like Sarah) know that the Lexington column (far more than the rest of the "paper") has been doubled over in its fawning of the Bush Admin for the last 6 years--they actually endorsed Obama this week....guess they're the "Liberal Media" now, and Sarah will cancel her "subscription"....

 

Erudition. Dust shaken out of a book into an empty skull, :lol:

Buffy

[Racoon]

Obama can't fix the problems in the next 4 years,

So Palin becomes the next candidate for 2012..

Better than Hillary.

As in having a woman President.

 

Only that Palin is crazier than a shithouse rat.

Yeah, she looks good, sounds good, But definitely say NO!

 

;):Exclamati