SuperJerk

pft Nobody cares about the politics, they've just turned the election into American Idol: Who wants to be a President Edition. If people fucking cared about issues, Obama would be out by now and Mitt Romney would still be in. Funny how everyone's biggest issue now is the Economy, and the best candidate to fix the economy got knocked out last month. Way to go morons. If people cared about issues, of course the guy who switched almost every one of his positions in the last 2 years in order to appeal to his party's base would still be running. Nothing tells the public you're serious about the issues than changing sides to gain popularity. But, in case you still think Romney was the right guy for the job, I think I might have some insider knowledge on what he planned to do. I proudly unveil Mitt Romney's Economic Plan (a.k.a. the Official Republican Economic Package they've been pushing since 1980): -cut taxes -lift regulations from businesses -claim to cut government spending, but actually increase it -beg the FED to cut interest rates -more corporate subsidies

Let's take a second and take pride in our country. Cynics have been saying for years that Americans--especially young Americans-- were too disengaged, and that we were ignorant about the system. Here in the year 2008, when young people--along with everyone else--is turning out in record numbers. Everyone has an opinion on the internal working of the nomination process. And, of course, understanding the once-incomprehensible electoral college has become commonplace and basic knowledge to citizens. Issues such as foriegn policy and immigration that once were things only a few care about now inspire people to demonstrate and voice there views in huge rallies. America is engaged again, and we're fired up about doing our civic duty.

The thing about the attacks on Obama's ethnicity/religion is that they're dishonest and so easily refuted there's no way they'd make an impact on the campaign. I honestly can't see how anyone would believe them. Okay, maybe not.

I can't believe I missed Marvin dissing FDR. Wow.

They hate us for our freedom. Shhh. Don't tell anyone.

I still think McCain is pretty weak as a national candidate, for reasons I've already stated. He's basically the second coming of Bob Dole.

I'm thinking Hillary Clinton's supporters would have an easier time getting behind Barack Obama, than Obama's supporter would have getting behind Hillary Clinton.

According to the article, China Investment Corp bought 10% of Morgan Stanley. Your original point was about how the U.S. banks were indebted to the Middle East, so do what you want, but you're a long way from convincing me.

Compare and contrast the math here... Then maybe the next time you post a link to prove that Middle East owns half of every single banks, you should actually make sure the link says something close to what you claim is happening. If no such data exists, and you just made it up, then what you're doing is called LYING.

Because New York has more Democrat voters per capita than Texas. Makes sense that you'd favour the states that favour you when selecting a candidate to represent the party. You do it strictly by capita and a red-state Democrat's vote is going to be worth more than any other. I figured that, but doesn't it also mean that the rules make it so the Democrats nominate candidates that are more likely to only appeal to states they are already going to vote for them anyways? Like I said, the DNC has stupid rules. By the way, thank you for travelling through time to answer my question.

In fairness, it should be noted that (thanks mostly to early wins in California and New York) she is only trailing Obama by about 120 delegates. Of course, that doesn't explain why New York gets 232 delegates and Texas gets 193, when Texas has almost 5 million more people living in it. Man, the DNC has some stupid rules. Soverign Wealth Funds "Sovereign funds' activity has demonstrated that they are primarily focused on maximizing profit, Frank said. They are not investing in the United States as "a goodwill gesture, but they are not doing it as foreign policy either -- they are doing it to make money," he said." But if the middle east has a scuffle, they're gonna want their money back...and the best part is we dont have it to give back or else we wouldn't have needed their money (and continue to need their money when banks keep taking billion dollar hits) in the first place! The same pretty much goes for any country thats bailed out our banks (China, South Korea..etc) which is why we'll never do jack shit to China and why we're so worried about North Korea. You neglected to mention: "Citigroup announced yesterday that it had sold a 7.8 percent stake in the company worth $14.5 billion to a group of investors, including the government of Singapore and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, as it revealed a colossal $10 billion loss for the fourth quarter." "Its managers have been actively advising several nations, including East Timor, Bolivia, Nigeria and Russia, which are starting funds." "About two dozen countries have established sovereign wealth funds, including Libya, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Australia." TO CLARIFY: (1) A lot of those countries creating soveriegn funds aren't in the Middle East; (2) 7.8% doesn't equal half.

Anyone know who the top exporters of oil to the U.S. are? http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...ent/import.html Africa, Canada, and Latin America are just as important sources of oil as the Middle East.

What? Really? You mean our leaders shouldn't make decisions based purely on emotion or gut reactions? Who would have ever known? That's the kind of solid leadership that made W's presidency so successfull. Thinking and reasoning is for weaklings. "I was elected to lead, not to read."

Word.

He can accurately forsee problems other more "experienced" people do not. Its called having good judgement, and it actually is an excellent reason to vote for someone.

I miss "Firing Line." I would actually LEARN SOMETHING about each side's views instead of just listening to two sides rip on each other at loud volumes.

Let's review: Barack Obama gave a speech on October 2, 2002 denouncing the war (look it up). Obama gave some reasons for being against the war that later proved correct, despite the fact he did not have access to the same information the U.S. Congress did. The U.S. Congress voted to authorize the war on October 11, 2002. The war didn't start until March 20, 2003. 2002 happened before 2003. Therefore, Obama gave the speech BEFORE the war started. So tell us, Marvin, how is that hindsight, exactly?

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far? No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now. That's one of those arguments that is so irrational, I don't even know where to begin. Do I attack the "no one in their right mind" part as being a variation on an argument from incredulity; or do I go after the complete arrogance of Marvin for not only claiming he knows what "everything that actually matters now" is but it is so obvious that he need not define it? Decisions, decisions. I thought it was pretty obvious it was John Mccain's experience. Who would want someone with almost no foreign policy and war experience in that situation? Experience is worthless if it doesn't provide you with good judgement. For example, John McCain's experience told him it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Obama's experience told him it was a bad idea. McCain may have more experience, but Obama has better judgement.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far? No one in their right mind would trust Obama over McCain in that scenario unless we're completely ignoring everything that actually matters now. That's one of those arguments that is so irrational, I don't even know where to begin. Do I attack the "no one in their right mind" part as being a variation on an argument from incredulity; or do I go after the complete arrogance of Marvin for not only claiming he knows what "everything that actually matters now" is but it is so obvious that he need not define it? Decisions, decisions.

Because the Republicans have done such a great job combatting terrorism so far?

This shit fucking kills me... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2502501_pf.html

Nightwing, thanks for taking the time to go through my post. I read your points, but I'm not persuaded. Here's why... These are fairly minor issues. Issues... but they aren't going to decide an election. McCain certainly isn't going to be able to look like he has the presence of the leader of the free world when standing on stage with Barack Obama, who will project enough charisma and confidence to knock McCain out of the building. It'll be Kennedy/Nixon times 100. I'm not sure I quite buy the "Obama Republican" yet, as it's going to become real clear during the general election where he stands on things. And this isn't even an argument with Hillary. Really, the Republicans who say they aren't going to vote for McCain are fooling themselves How many people will just stay home? If McCain doesn't turn out the GOP base, and Obama multiplies the Democratic base, its not hard to see whose supporters will outnumber the other guy's on election day. It's become less and less of an issue with the surge "working" and things seemingly moving a little better. Being the architect and main supporter of the surge, he comes out better. Plus, he's actually getting (If I remember correctly) about a third of the Republicans who don't like the war right now. Adding in the "No Torture, Close Gitmo" stance, and he's stronger than he looks. Iraq isn't the juggernaut issue it once was, especially with the surge vindicating Just because the war isn't in the news, or because the insugency has been repressed thanks to the troop surge, don't think that means continuing the war is going to suddenly be a popular idea. And won't the Democrats replay all footage of McCain praising Bush or Bush's leadership, and include picture of McCain hugging Bush whenever possible? I suspect once the election draws near, the actual prospect of a Obama or Clinton presidency will cause the far right to tone down their rhetoric and not say anything negative. And I suspect McCain winning the Latino vote in any state but Arizona just isn't going to happen. Obama does have a record of working across the aisle. The difference is that McCain's been doing it longer, because McCain's been in Washington since 1983. And that should be another point...in a year when Politics-as-usual and Washington's way of doing business is increasingly unpopular, fairtly or unfairly, how can someone with 25 years in Congress convince most Americans he is something different? I also have a question about Hillary Clinton: what is this alledged wealth of experience on national security matters that Hillary Clinton speaks of? What are these examples she constantly alludes to that she should be put in charge of the military? Did she have a term as Secretary of Defense somewhere between Aspin, Perry, or Cohen? Did she serve a tour of duty in Iraq while no one was looking? Or is this an example of "if you repeat something often enough, people will begin to beleive it"?