Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Interesting? I'd say that's more like predictable (in a broad global sense, not you specifically).

I mean, hell, I'd like to see Colonel Klink in charge of Al-Qaida. Seems only natural that you don't want anyone competent in charge of the opposition or even a competitor.

That's a cheap bit of denial, jon. Even those who do not see the US as either "opposition" or "competition" - and there are many - prefer Obama to McCain. Essentially because:

1) we do not share the horror you guys have of "liberal" views
2) Palin looks like a disaster just waiting to happen
3) Once you remove McCain's military heroism which, while admirable says little about his suitability as a president, he is far less impressive than Obama in those qualities important for that role

Even though Australia could well be better off with McCain because of his superior commitment to global trade and therefore the FTA between the US and Australia, most Australians see Obama as the better choice from a non-partisan point of view.

[Butter]

Of course CNN would say that, because they are in the Dems back pocket!

I just thought I'd try things from the other side now. It's a little stupid, I'll be honest.

JPhillips, thanks for posting that O'Reilly electoral map a couple pages back. Solid gold.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fact check: Is Columbia professor Khalidi a ‘political ally’ of Barack Obama? « - Blogs from CNN.com

Here's a fact-check on this Khaledi-thing.

Whether he's an ally would be immaterial when compared to comments coming directly from Obama. A presidential candidate undermining a prominent ally is a significant development. As McCain rightly pointed out, if the shoe were on the other foot, McCain would be facing intensive questioning on the comments. Not only that, but the video and transcript would have already been released.

[jonesz]

The one thing that struck me and I was curious about was that in last night's Obama TV Show he said that he would offer tax breaks for anyone making less than $200,000. Up until then wasn't he using $250,000 everywhere? Anyone know a reason for the discrepancy?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

JPhillips, thanks for posting that O'Reilly electoral map a couple pages back. Solid gold.

Conservative prediction = bias.
Liberal prediction = truth.

I guess this is where most of the people in this thread and I differ. I believe both contain bias. You'll pardon my even-handed treatment of the information.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

most Australians see Obama as the better choice from a non-partisan point of view.

Then you're no better off in terms of common sense than we are here apparently. You'll have to understand if I don't exactly find that comforting.

But hey, at least I can still crack a joke or two while sitting on the brink of the worst disaster in the history of my country, the low water mark of over 200 years (granted, a fraction of a second in the global timeline). That ability ought to be worth something somewhere.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by jonesz

The one thing that struck me and I was curious about was that in last night's Obama TV Show he said that he would offer tax breaks for anyone making less than $200,000. Up until then wasn't he using $250,000 everywhere? Anyone know a reason for the discrepancy?

200,000 to 249,999 will have their taxes remain the same. Anything under 200,000 drops, 250,000 or over goes up.

[Kodos]

Wow. JiMG is a total drama queen. I thought Republicans were supposed to be tough. Mr. "Step on Their Throat" apparently doesn't like it when his throat is about to get stepped on.

[jonesz]

Originally Posted by Kodos

200,000 to 249,999 will have their taxes remain the same. Anything under 200,000 drops, 250,000 or over goes up.

Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Surprised McCain hasn't used the two numbers to create confusion/doubt in people's minds.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then you're no better off in terms of common sense than we are here apparently.

No, we're simply not utterly blinded by commitment. Obama ticks all the boxes while McCain only ticks a few.

Incidentally, you happy with Palin as potential c in c? I would have thought you would be horrified by the idea.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Even though Australia could well be better off with McCain because of his superior commitment to global trade and therefore the FTA between the US and Australia, most Australians see Obama as the better choice from a non-partisan point of view.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

No, we're simply not utterly blinded by commitment. Obama ticks all the boxes while McCain only ticks a few.

I guess the Australian people just have a different definition of 'non-partisan' than most people. To each his own.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Even though Australia could well be better off with McCain because of his superior commitment to global trade and therefore the FTA between the US and Australia, most Australians see Obama as the better choice from a non-partisan point of view.

That's a telling statement. That "Australia would be better off" gets trumped by charisma and positive, feel-good vibes.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then you're no better off in terms of common sense than we are here apparently. You'll have to understand if I don't exactly find that comforting.

But hey, at least I can still crack a joke or two while sitting on the brink of the worst disaster in the history of my country, the low water mark of over 200 years (granted, a fraction of a second in the global timeline). That ability ought to be worth something somewhere.

Wow, you must either live in a hut in Athens or never have taken a history class in your life to think that Obama being elected would be the worst disaster in the history of our country. At least you can take refuge in the fact that Sonny saved your flag, thus avoiding the worst disaster in the history of Georgia (Sherman would be proud).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

No, we're simply not utterly blinded by commitment. Obama ticks all the boxes while McCain only ticks a few.

Incidentally, you happy with Palin as potential c in c? I would have thought you would be horrified by the idea.

No less that what we had in that dolt, Dan Quayle. But no one remembers him.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess the Australian people just have a different definition of 'non-partisan' than most people. To each his own.

There is a preference for Obama even amongst many "right-wing" Australians.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's a telling statement. That "Australia would be better off" gets trumped by charisma and positive, feel-good vibes.

We can see beyond a simple economic self-interest.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

We can see beyond a simple economic self-interest.

Here's an article from one of our local newspapers. I think it's a good read. It does well to elaborate on my feelings (and most likely how other foreigners feel) regarding the two candidates.

The two Americas - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Here's an article from one of our local newspapers. I think it's a good read. It does well to elaborate on my feelings (and most likely how other foreigners feel) regarding the two candidates.

The two Americas - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

I would guess it's about 80% of Australians for Obama and would not be surprised if it's something like that amongst Brits. It isn't even remotely close.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

There is a preference for Obama even amongst many "right-wing" Australians.

Of course, of course. Thank you for being the voice of Australia.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess this is where most of the people in this thread and I differ. I believe both contain bias. You'll pardon my even-handed treatment of the information.

MBBF lecturing people on being even-handed is like Bobby Knight lecturing people on being even-tempered.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But hey, at least I can still crack a joke or two while sitting in the midst of the worst disaster in the history of my country, the low water mark of over 200 years (granted, a fraction of a second in the global timeline). That ability ought to be worth something somewhere.

FIXED

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If I need to explain that one to you, we probably aren't going to be finished by election day.

No worries. Start now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

MBBF lecturing people on being even-handed is like Bobby Knight lecturing people on being even-tempered.

Yes, noting that bias exists in all polling, rather than just some information, is a horribly controversial statement..

You may now hang me from a Los Angeles rooftop.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's a telling statement. That "Australia would be better off" gets trumped by charisma and positive, feel-good vibes.

And intellect. And level-headedness. And fair-mindedness.

[flere-imsaho]

First of all, a crapload of current State polling (this especially for MBBF):

State         Obama McCain Start  Finish Pollster

Alaska         41%   57%   Oct 28 Oct 28 Rasmussen 
Alabama        36%   61%   Oct 27 Oct 28 SurveyUSA 
Arizona        46%   53%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
Colorado       53%   45%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
Delaware       63%   33%   Oct 27 Oct 28 SurveyUSA 
Florida        51%   47%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
Georgia        47%   52%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
Indiana        46%   45%   Oct 26 Oct 28 Selzer 
Kansas         37%   58%   Oct 27 Oct 28 SurveyUSA 
Massachusetts  56%   39%   Oct 27 Oct 28 SurveyUSA 
Michigan       53%   43%   Oct 28 Oct 28 Rasmussen 
Minnesota      55%   43%   Oct 28 Oct 28 Rasmussen 
Minnesota      56%   37%   Oct 24 Oct 27 U. of Minnesota 
Missouri       48%   50%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
North Carolina 52%   46%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
New Hampshire  55%   37%   Oct 22 Oct 26 GfK Roper 
New Jersey     54%   38%   Oct 26 Oct 28 Research 2000 
New Mexico     54%   44%   Oct 28 Oct 28 Rasmussen 
Nevada         50%   45%   Oct 25 Oct 28 Research 2000 
Nevada         52%   45%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
New York       62%   33%   Oct 27 Oct 28 SurveyUSA 
Ohio           48%   45%   Oct 24 Oct 26 Marist Coll. 
Ohio           51%   47%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
Pennsylvania   55%   41%   Oct 26 Oct 27 Marist Coll. 
Utah           32%   55%   Oct 23 Oct 25 Mason-Dixon 
Virginia       48%   39%   Oct 19 Oct 26 Roanoke Coll. 
Virginia       49%   42%   Oct 22 Oct 26 GfK Roper 
Virginia       53%   44%   Oct 23 Oct 28 Opinion Research 
Wisconsin      53%   42%   Oct 27 Oct 28 Research 2000 

Conclusions:

Arizona is actually probably not in play. Hope McCain didn't spend too much on those robocalls there.

Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are probably lost for McCain.

Of those, Colorado & New Mexico were Bush states in 2004. Since CO has 9 EVs and NM has 5, that's a swing of 28 EVs, putting McCain at 272 and Obama at 265 (Bush won with 286 and Kerry lost with 251), assuming nothing else changes from 2004.

However, Iowa went for Bush in 2004 and is now Safe Obama, and has 7 EVs. That takes us to McCain at 265 and Obama at 272. Since 269 is needed to win, if we assume CO & NM stay Likely Obama, it's over.

NOTE: I'm missing an EV somewhere, these numbers add up to 537. Aarrgghh....

The battleground states are currently Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

All of these states went for Bush in 2004. If we forget about CO & NM for a moment and take Obama with Kerry States (251) + Iowa (7), we have 258, so he needs another 11 EVs. Nevada doesn't do it, because there are only 5 there, but the next lowest are IN & MO at 11 EVs.

Bottom-line: If Obama holds all of the Kerry States and Iowa (almost certain at this point) and flips any one of Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia or (Colorado + (Nevada or New Mexico)), he wins. While there are other states that are tossups (Montana and North Dakota, for instance), I think it's safe to assume that if they go Obama, he'll already have won one of these 6 battlegrounds.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Past Presidents and political figures from Washington to Lincoln would take great offense at your rant.

We are, however, no longer living in the 18th or 19th centuries.

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't think there is much pressure to change the US tax code in any dramatic way.

I agree. It's an easy thing to bitch and moan about (and I do my fair share of that as well), but I don't think we're set up for a truly dramatic change. I think it's unlikely, for instance, that the U.S. government is going to be able to negotiate a new kind of consumption tax with all 50 states as Mac notes Australia did.

Ideally, I think we'd be best off to simplify the tax code for lower-earning individuals and close loopholes for corporations and higher earners.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

That being said, I didn't feel sorry at all for the people whom they showed going through hard times.

"At all"? Really? Two stood out to me:

1. The cost of medications for a condition like Rheumatoid Arthritis forcing someone back into work after retirement is a real shame. How does one guard against this?

2. It's a crime that a special needs teacher needs to work several jobs to make ends meet.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

A fascinating video. It raises the question (though perhaps for another thread considering its scope) as to whether it would in any way be possible for an atheist/agnostic to be elected president/senator/congressman - or, indeed, anyone but a mainstream christian.

Absolutely they can, especially for the House, from specific districts. I'd also bet a Senator from the Northeast or Northwest can (and maybe has) been elected who's effectively agnostic.

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I really am glad that Obama seems to have this election wrapped up.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. After 2000 and 2004, I'm not going to consider it over until the votes are counted.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Of course, of course. Thank you for being the voice of Australia.

Merely reflecting the polls, Mizzou

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by miked

Wow, you must either live in a hut in Athens or never have taken a history class in your life to think that Obama being elected would be the worst disaster in the history of our country. At least you can take refuge in the fact that Sonny saved your flag, thus avoiding the worst disaster in the history of Georgia (Sherman would be proud).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Merely reflecting the polls, Mizzou

I'm sure the polling distribution is wrong on those polls too.

[Mac Howard]

I'm not playing devil's advocate, jon, it's a serious question. What do you think of Palin as potential c in c?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

"At all"? Really? Two stood out to me:

1. The cost of medications for a condition like Rheumatoid Arthritis forcing someone back into work after retirement is a real shame. How does one guard against this?

2. It's a crime that a special needs teacher needs to work several jobs to make ends meet.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. After 2000 and 2004, I'm not going to consider it over until the votes are counted.

Thanks for the polls. I'll head out to geek out over the numbers.

As far as the two examples you cite, that's the way it is. It's not a crime for people to have to work extra jobs because they don't make enough in one job. That's their chosen occupation and they knew the situation going into it. As far as the medication goes, it's not an easy problem to solve, but Obama pointing it out without any true solution on how to fix it doesn't make it go away.

Agreed on the votes. Anything can happen.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I'm sure the polling distribution is wrong on those polls too.

It was certainly "wrong" if they were looking for a McCain lead

[Butter]

Humorous that Pennsylvania actually seems to be moving AWAY from McCain. The more they see of him and Palin, the less they like it.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Here's an article from one of our local newspapers. I think it's a good read. It does well to elaborate on my feelings (and most likely how other foreigners feel) regarding the two candidates.

The two Americas - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

Nice article. Thanks to the wrong kind of man coming to power, America has definitely not put its best foot forward over the past 8 years. Now our country has a great chance to correct itself and get back on course.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I'm sure the polling distribution is wrong on those polls too.

We're unable to assess that as the polling specifics were not provided.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, noting that bias exists in all polling, rather than just some information, is a horribly controversial statement..

You may now hang me from a Los Angeles rooftop.

You seem to always fail to grasp my points. Oh well.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's their chosen occupation and they knew the situation going into it.

Yes, lots of people are excited about choosing their occupation of working at Wal-Mart and a second job at wherever.

It has nothing to do with the lack of good paying jobs in other sectors, or the vanishing of good paying jobs in their field, or the inability of people to afford to live off the retirement promised to them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Conservative prediction = bias.
Liberal prediction = truth.

I guess this is where most of the people in this thread and I differ. I believe both contain bias. You'll pardon my even-handed treatment of the information.

No.

Prediction based on data=valid
Prediction based on dreams=not valid

Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin all swing states?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Wow. JiMG is a total drama queen. I thought Republicans were supposed to be tough. Mr. "Step on Their Throat" apparently doesn't like it when his throat is about to get stepped on.

It is what it is. What do you expect me to do, go into denial mode or something? Not my bag, sorry.

The downfall of nations is something that occurs throughout history, even I'm not arrogant enough to believe the US is somehow entirely immune to that. I'm not going to lie, I hoped I wouldn't live to see it but I'm also not going to ignore the possibility either. And in this case, not only the possibility but what I'm convinced is the virtual certainty of it.

Nothing short of a miracle will prevent an Obama victory next week, and nothing short of a miracle will find the US a legitimate world power after four years of that. He's a clueless empty suit who has shown me virtually no hint of having the common sense or discernment needed to survive on the world stage. He's the embodiment of everything every enemy we've ever had has dreamed of, duly anointed by a coalition of proverbial useful idiots. It's the utter disaster of the Carter administration with exponentially greater prospect for disaster since there seems to be little reason for hope for a recovery afterwards.

Because frankly if we've sunk to the depths to elect this sack of shit we don't really belong at the top of the global food chain anyway, we've collectively devolved so far that we aren't capable of handling the position. That's ultimately the real problem and why I don't see much reason for hope at this point. I mean, McCain was the chosen alternative for crying out loud, and that's not exactly an stellar alternative. Infinitely preferable in this case, but still a tragic indictment of our condition. Obama is just the most glaring sign of how low we've sunk, not the only indication by a long stretch.

As for toughness, that will come into play with regard to individual survival in the years to come. But no amount of "toughness" could have saved The Titanic from going under, the damage was fatal. All that was realistically possible was to hope to be among the few survivors.

Miracles do happen still -- whether next Tuesday or in a relatively short time after -- so technically speaking things are not entirely hopeless. But when you're down to miracles being your only hope, the odds aren't exactly looking good. That's not a lack of toughness, that's being realistic about the situation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Thanks for the polls. I'll head out to geek out over the numbers.

No problem. Just to clarify, I'm not calling you out with that post. You had just said yesterday that you wanted to see newer state polling, and I just wanted to say "here it is now". Enjoy!

It's not a crime for people to have to work extra jobs because they don't make enough in one job. That's their chosen occupation and they knew the situation going into it.

Yeah, that's not my point, though. To me, it doesn't seem right that we, as a society, value these occupations so little.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You'll pardon my even-handed treatment of the information.

Heh.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Wow, you must either live in a hut in Athens or never have taken a history class in your life to think that Obama being elected would be the worst disaster in the history of our country.

We managed to survive the others, I believe this one is fatal in terms of being a legitimate world power. And a continued existence as a second rate irrelevancy is as good as it being dead as far as I'm concerned.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But no amount of "toughness" could have saved The Titanic from going under, the damage was fatal.

Not true, actually. After further investigation it appears the type of steel used to construct the Titanic became somewhat brittle at low temperatures and this (along with substandard rivets) made the ship much more likely to suffer fatal damage from the impact. Better steel and better rivets may very well have kept the Titanic afloat.

Yes, I'm just disagreeing with you here for the sake of it.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It is what it is. What do you expect me to do, go into denial mode or something? Not my bag, sorry.

The downfall of nations is something that occurs throughout history, even I'm not arrogant enough to believe the US is somehow entirely immune to that. I'm not going to lie, I hoped I wouldn't live to see it but I'm also not going to ignore the possibility either. And in this case, not only the possibility but what I'm convinced is the virtual certainty of it.

Nothing short of a miracle will prevent an Obama victory next week, and nothing short of a miracle will find the US a legitimate world power after four years of that. He's a clueless empty suit who has shown me virtually no hint of having the common sense or discernment needed to survive on the world stage. He's the embodiment of everything every enemy we've ever had has dreamed of, duly anointed by a coalition of proverbial useful idiots. It's the utter disaster of the Carter administration with exponentially greater prospect for disaster since there seems to be little reason for hope for a recovery afterwards.

Because frankly if we've sunk to the depths to elect this sack of shit we don't really belong at the top of the global food chain anyway, we've collectively devolved so far that we aren't capable of handling the position. That's ultimately the real problem and why I don't see much reason for hope at this point. I mean, McCain was the chosen alternative for crying out loud, and that's not exactly an stellar alternative. Infinitely preferable in this case, but still a tragic indictment of our condition. Obama is just the most glaring sign of how low we've sunk, not the only indication by a long stretch.

As for toughness, that will come into play with regard to individual survival in the years to come. But no amount of "toughness" could have saved The Titanic from going under, the damage was fatal. All that was realistically possible was to hope to be among the few survivors.

Miracles do happen still -- whether next Tuesday or in a relatively short time after -- so technically speaking things are not entirely hopeless. But when you're down to miracles being your only hope, the odds aren't exactly looking good. That's not a lack of toughness, that's being realistic about the situation.

Hmm. I think I now understand what the article I posted earlier meant by saying McCain represented imperialist America.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No problem. Just to clarify, I'm not calling you out with that post. You had just said yesterday that you wanted to see newer state polling, and I just wanted to say "here it is now". Enjoy!

Yeah, that's not my point, though. To me, it doesn't seem right that we, as a society, value these occupations so little.

I'm a numbers geek. Anyone with two accounting degrees has to be a glutton for punishment.

Yes, but monetary value doesn't always mirror importance. The same parts of our society that allow us to be the superpower also create inequities. But that doesn't change the fact that we are still a country of great opportunity.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not true, actually. After further investigation it appears the type of steel used to construct the Titanic became somewhat brittle at low temperatures and this (along with substandard rivets) made the ship much more likely to suffer fatal damage from the impact. Better steel and better rivets may very well have kept the Titanic afloat.

Yes, I'm just disagreeing with you here for the sake of it.

I watched a 2 hour show about that. Interesting stuff.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It is what it is. What do you expect me to do, go into denial mode or something? Not my bag, sorry.

The downfall of nations is something that occurs throughout history, even I'm not arrogant enough to believe the US is somehow entirely immune to that. I'm not going to lie, I hoped I wouldn't live to see it but I'm also not going to ignore the possibility either. And in this case, not only the possibility but what I'm convinced is the virtual certainty of it.

Nothing short of a miracle will prevent an Obama victory next week, and nothing short of a miracle will find the US a legitimate world power after four years of that. He's a clueless empty suit who has shown me virtually no hint of having the common sense or discernment needed to survive on the world stage. He's the embodiment of everything every enemy we've ever had has dreamed of, duly anointed by a coalition of proverbial useful idiots. It's the utter disaster of the Carter administration with exponentially greater prospect for disaster since there seems to be little reason for hope for a recovery afterwards.

Because frankly if we've sunk to the depths to elect this sack of shit we don't really belong at the top of the global food chain anyway, we've collectively devolved so far that we aren't capable of handling the position. That's ultimately the real problem and why I don't see much reason for hope at this point. I mean, McCain was the chosen alternative for crying out loud, and that's not exactly an stellar alternative. Infinitely preferable in this case, but still a tragic indictment of our condition. Obama is just the most glaring sign of how low we've sunk, not the only indication by a long stretch.

As for toughness, that will come into play with regard to individual survival in the years to come. But no amount of "toughness" could have saved The Titanic from going under, the damage was fatal. All that was realistically possible was to hope to be among the few survivors.

Miracles do happen still -- whether next Tuesday or in a relatively short time after -- so technically speaking things are not entirely hopeless. But when you're down to miracles being your only hope, the odds aren't exactly looking good. That's not a lack of toughness, that's being realistic about the situation.

It seems you now have a sense of the feeling some people felt after W was elected.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We managed to survive the others, I believe this one is fatal in terms of being a legitimate world power. And a continued existence as a second rate irrelevancy is as good as it being dead as far as I'm concerned.

Why would Obama be any worse than, say, Carter was?

I don't think there's any question that the US' hegemony will be challenged later this century by China or India but that will not be the fault of Obama but of population comparisons. Militarily it will be some time before the US is challenged and that will come regardless of the colour of government.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes, I'm just disagreeing with you here for the sake of it.

Nah, it's actually a reasonably valid point (and along the lines of what had me debating the use of the analogy before I typed it) ... except that she didn't sail with the proper strength of steel and standard quality rivets. If she had, then you're at least possibly spot on that the damage didn't have to be fatal.

But just as she faced the Atlantic with what she was fitted with, we don't get to face the ramifications of this election in an "if only" scenario, we're stuck with the substandard materials that are actually on the ship in reality.

[Subby]

America's time as a superpower is going to come to an end regardless of who we elect.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

It seems you now have a sense of the feeling some people felt after W was elected.

Sure, except they're largely the useful idiots I was referring to earlier, so I'm hard pressed to have been bothered by that then or now. And FTR, I'm quite cool with them having the exact same lack of sympathy for me that I have/had for them. I give very little quarter & expect none.