The Offical TIF American Elections thread

[db300]

I wonder if there's going to be a sort of Bradley affect...

 

 

 

(Yes I know it was over 25 years ago)

[Deiophobus]

Wasn't that for a much smaller population? I don't think the "Bradley" affect would alter the polls this much on a national scale.

[Saru Inc]

Just in case anyone hasn't seen this, here's the BBC's poll tracker.

 

 

 

Obama ahead in all of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Just a thought, but should it matter if Obama is ahead in Britain? Big whop, Europe as a whole is liberal, so of coruse they'd go along with him.

[magekillr]

The Mayor Of Wasilla's responsibilities:

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... america-in

[chris1216]

Just in case anyone hasn't seen this, here's the BBC's poll tracker.

 

 

 

Obama ahead in all of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Just a thought, but should it matter if Obama is ahead in Britain? Big whop, Europe as a whole is liberal, so of coruse they'd go along with him.

 

 

 

Just a thought, but is it that difficult to either

 

 

 

1) make the blatantly obvious logical leap that the BBC is tracking polling done in America, since as you pointed out, it would be dumb to poll Europeans

 

 

 

2) actually look at the link to find out the FIRST THING it says is that the tracker "gives an overview of key US national opinion polls"

 

 

 

?

[Saru Inc]

Oh, sorry, I was thinking of an other BBC poll, my bad. :oops: :oops:

[magekillr]

Who do the terrorists endorse again?

 

 

 

Al-Qaeda supporters suggested in a website message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the US as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

 

 

 

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah website, said if al-Qaeda wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .

 

 

 

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

 

 

 

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Maryland, monitors the Web site and translated the message.

 

 

 

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda . Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

 

 

 

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, said he had heard about the message but had no immediate comment.

 

 

 

The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaeda , or knowledge of its operations, according to SITE.

 

 

 

SITE senior analyst Adam Raisman said this message caught SITE's attention because there has been little other chatter on the forums about the US election.

 

 

 

SITE was struck by the message's detailed analysis - and apparent jubilation - about American financial woes.

 

 

 

"What we try to do is get the pulse of the jihadist community," Raisman said. "And it's about the financial crisis."

 

 

 

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden issued a videotape just four days before the 2004 US presidential election directly addressing the American people.

 

 

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5096 ... ks-mccain/

[Saru Inc]

Lol. Get over yourself.

[BlueLancer]

Lol. Get over yourself.

 

 

 

Makes sense though, not that a terrorist attack is desirable (it's pretty disgusting), but it would inevitably boost the ratings of the military-minded candidate, so obviously terrorist networks would back John McCain to win the election.

 

 

 

They have nothing to gain from Obama, he advocates american withdrawal from Iraq, a peaceful negotiation process instead of military intimidation with middle-eastern countries such as Iran (and palestinian territories)... With no american targets in the middle-east and extremely tightened airport security, they would have a very hard time harming american targets in the future.

[Ginger_Warrior]

This is where the military-minded candidate is wrong. The extremists know full well that the American presence is acting as a catalyst for the anti-American unrest in the area, which is what they're feeding off for new recruits.

 

 

 

That's the problem in fighting an ideology (Islamic extremism) rather than an actual army.

 

 

 

al-Qeada would love McCain to win.

[magekillr]

Lol. Get over yourself.

 

 

 

Get over MYSELF? Dude, don't you think it should be the other way around? Ginger and I have falsified almost every single one of your contempts for Obama, and you're still advocating that John McCain is the way to go. If anyone needs to just accept defeat, admit that they're wrong about who is right in this election, and get over themselves, it's you.

[Saru Inc]

You really haven't - there are some I've not brought up because I'm slowly drawing away from this debate. It's kinda pointless.

 

 

 

And I'm sorry if I sounded rude, I was quite cranky (I don't know if you took offence)

 

 

 

But here's the thing, cool, they support McCain good for them, but that doesn't really mean anything. I can see where you're getting at, with the anti-American thing, if only it made sense.

 

 

 

McCain will most likely get us out of the war before the two year mark, because more and more of American troops are leaving Iraq, and the Iraqis are taking over more positions. Iraqis are finally unafraid to come out of their homes, BUT, this is the most crucial part, if we pull out too soon, they could collapse into chaos and be worse than before.

[Lordjake]

 

The whole point is that the second amendment confers a right, not a privilege but a right to keep and bear arms. Rights are not negotiable, bannable because they are "scary" (as the democratic party is trying to do with their so called "assault weapons ban") or open to other annoying regulation - A right is a right. By his logic of allowing individual communities to pass laws ignoring constitutional rights, states could, at a whim, ban free speech or religion, the right to a jury trial or the right to due process. Does that sound OK to you?

 

Obama isn't proposing to let individual communities issue a ban on firearms because he closed his eyes and randomly picked something out of the Constitution. Guns are inherently dangerous, and if a community chose to ban them, they should be allowed to.

 

 

 

I don't know of anyone that's been killed by a drive-by shouting match or 'Our Father', so I would have a hard time believing anyone would recommend banning free speech or religion.

 

 

 

Obama: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

 

 

 

Obama :While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.

 

 

 

 

 

And speaking of taking away Constitutional (and human) rights, McCain has a history of opposing habeas corpus.

 

-- The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which McCain backed, effectively eliminated enemy combatants' rights even if they were held on US soil. The 2008 Supreme Court ruling nullified it, but McCain's vow to keep fighting for it has disturbed some human rights activists and legal specialists.

 

McCain called that ruling (which established that foreign terrorism suspects held in detention at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in civilian courts), "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country"

[Saru Inc]

 

The whole point is that the second amendment confers a right, not a privilege but a right to keep and bear arms. Rights are not negotiable, bannable because they are "scary" (as the democratic party is trying to do with their so called "assault weapons ban") or open to other annoying regulation - A right is a right. By his logic of allowing individual communities to pass laws ignoring constitutional rights, states could, at a whim, ban free speech or religion, the right to a jury trial or the right to due process. Does that sound OK to you?

 

Obama isn't proposing to let individual communities issue a ban on firearms because he closed his eyes and randomly picked something out of the Constitution. Guns are inherently dangerous, and if a community chose to ban them, they should be allowed to.

 

 

 

I don't know of anyone that's been killed by a drive-by shouting match or 'Our Father', so I would have a hard time believing anyone would recommend banning free speech or religion.

 

 

 

Obama: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

 

 

 

Obama :While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.

 

 

 

 

 

And speaking of taking away Constitutional (and human) rights, McCain has a history of opposing habeas corpus.

 

-- The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which McCain backed, effectively eliminated enemy combatants' rights even if they were held on US soil. The 2008 Supreme Court ruling nullified it, but McCain's vow to keep fighting for it has disturbed some human rights activists and legal specialists.

 

McCain called that ruling (which established that foreign terrorism suspects held in detention at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in civilian courts), "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country"

 

 

 

Obama actually makes sense, but I still don't think they should be regulated to the extreme Snipersas says.

 

 

 

Also, Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpuis if I remember correctly - but he was still a great president.

[jackattack]

I've missed a lot of stuff. I'm not going to even try to get to all of it. On Colin Powell, that was just hims trying to get his rep back after making the case for the war. I doubt it had much to do with race, seeing as Powell escaped the racism directed at other members of the Bush administration. And dude, I don't know who you are talking to but CEO's don't sit on their [wagon]. They work harder than pretty much anybody. That's why they ,ale the big bucks. And not every poor person is a single mother with 3 kids working 2 jobs. Most really are just lazy. And it's really not that hard to be successful. I really think that if I was just dropped off in the tenderloin with no money, no high school degree, and no anything I could make it at least to where I am. I mean, when I talk to homeless people I am always thinking "why on earth do you not have a job?" I see absolutely no reason why they don't work other than laziness. And there is something fundamentally wrong with forcibly taking something from one person to give it to someone else who just didn't feel like working.

 

Your complete ignorance to the world around you astounds me more and more every time you post.

 

 

 

Firstly, poor people are not poor simply for being lazy. I have no idea where you've got that myth, because not even the GOP would support that comment. No Christian church service I've ever been to has insinuated that either.

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, Newsnight (on the BBC) had a report from Paul Mason last night from Michigan. Apparently, the top three jobs there are:

 

• [*:bn9khf6e]Restaurant/fast food outlet worker
   
  [*:bn9khf6e]Shop assistant
   
  [*:bn9khf6e]Cashier

 

Neither of which earn more than $10 an hour on average. This isn't even an economically challenged area either - it's post-industrialist America. For context, that amount is effectively below the legal minimum wage in this country for 16 year olds.

 

 

 

The issue is not that poor people are lazy, it's that the gap between the rich and the poor is too wide. If your myth was true, that most poor people are lazy, the economy would grind to a halt since no one would be working for middle-class business owners.

 

 

 

As for the homeless, I'd have thought it obvious why a homeless man can't apply for a job without a home address.

 

 

 

 

 

I would consider a cashier lazy. That is a pretty easy job and if someone is content to be a cashier and be poor I would call them lazy. The average poor household in America runs on less than 20 hours of work per week. If that were increased to 40 how many people do you think could be lifted out of poverty? Just by working full time. I know that saying the solution to be poor is actually getting off your but and working might not be politically correct though.

[1_man_army]

It's easy to say; "work more hours" but the problem is often getting the work and getting work that will give those hours.

[Saru Inc]

I've missed a lot of stuff. I'm not going to even try to get to all of it. On Colin Powell, that was just hims trying to get his rep back after making the case for the war. I doubt it had much to do with race, seeing as Powell escaped the racism directed at other members of the Bush administration. And dude, I don't know who you are talking to but CEO's don't sit on their [wagon]. They work harder than pretty much anybody. That's why they ,ale the big bucks. And not every poor person is a single mother with 3 kids working 2 jobs. Most really are just lazy. And it's really not that hard to be successful. I really think that if I was just dropped off in the tenderloin with no money, no high school degree, and no anything I could make it at least to where I am. I mean, when I talk to homeless people I am always thinking "why on earth do you not have a job?" I see absolutely no reason why they don't work other than laziness. And there is something fundamentally wrong with forcibly taking something from one person to give it to someone else who just didn't feel like working.

 

Your complete ignorance to the world around you astounds me more and more every time you post.

 

 

 

Firstly, poor people are not poor simply for being lazy. I have no idea where you've got that myth, because not even the GOP would support that comment. No Christian church service I've ever been to has insinuated that either.

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, Newsnight (on the BBC) had a report from Paul Mason last night from Michigan. Apparently, the top three jobs there are:

 

• [*:126a4iem]Restaurant/fast food outlet worker
   
  [*:126a4iem]Shop assistant
   
  [*:126a4iem]Cashier

 

Neither of which earn more than $10 an hour on average. This isn't even an economically challenged area either - it's post-industrialist America. For context, that amount is effectively below the legal minimum wage in this country for 16 year olds.

 

 

 

The issue is not that poor people are lazy, it's that the gap between the rich and the poor is too wide. If your myth was true, that most poor people are lazy, the economy would grind to a halt since no one would be working for middle-class business owners.

 

 

 

As for the homeless, I'd have thought it obvious why a homeless man can't apply for a job without a home address.

 

 

 

 

 

I would consider a cashier lazy. That is a pretty easy job and if someone is content to be a cashier and be poor I would call them lazy. The average poor household in America runs on less than 20 hours of work per week. If that were increased to 40 how many people do you think could be lifted out of poverty? Just by working full time. I know that saying the solution to be poor is actually getting off your but and working might not be politically correct though.

 

 

 

 

 

I work 36 hours a week, and I have school. Doesn't really leave room for a social life, though.

 

 

 

But 1_Man_Army is very true, Jack. I'm always asking for more and more hours, but the bosses often want more money, so they give you less. On the flip side, !_Man_Army, it isn't that hard to move up from above a cashier without even a college education. My sister got a job paying 14$ an hour answering phones, and she didn'ty even go to high school. (She was half highschooled,. semi complicated, but she didn't get a GED)

[1_man_army]

I'm not suggesting that you can't move above being a cashier with little or no education (not specifically you I mean anyone). I just think it's not so easy for somebody to work more because of the difficulty getting the extra hours, as I said and because extenuating circumstances, such as childcare problems (as I failed to say).

[jackattack]

I don't think 40 hours a week is really too hard to get. That's full time. Even if it is a family that means both parents only have to work 20 hours a week. If someone can't do that and they are able bodied that probably means they are lazy.

[chris1216]

I don't think 40 hours a week is really too hard to get. That's full time. Even if it is a family that means both parents only have to work 20 hours a week. If someone can't do that and they are able bodied that probably means they are lazy.

 

 

 

Why am I surprised that your statement comes with a heaping load of irrational assumptions?

 

 

 

You assume that parents could just snap their fingers and generate a job at will. In case you haven't noticed, its difficult at times for even skilled workers to find jobs. The current unemployment rate is 6.1%, which doesn't even take in to account people who have given up job hunting because their prospects are so bad.

 

 

 

How exactly are two (likely uneducated) parents living in poverty supposed to find these magical 40 hour a week jobs again?

[Lordjake]

 

Obama actually makes sense, but I still don't think they should be regulated to the extreme Snipersas says.

 

 

 

Also, Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpuis if I remember correctly - but he was still a great president.

 

The situation Lincoln faced is drastically different from the one McCain is involved in.

 

And Lincoln didn't become a great president due to the fact he suspended habeas corpus. It's one of the few blemishes on his otherwise outstanding record as president. I mean, the guy helped save the United States, abolish slavery, and create the Department of Agriculture.

[jackattack]

I don't think 40 hours a week is really too hard to get. That's full time. Even if it is a family that means both parents only have to work 20 hours a week. If someone can't do that and they are able bodied that probably means they are lazy.

 

 

 

Why am I surprised that your statement comes with a heaping load of irrational assumptions?

 

 

 

You assume that parents could just snap their fingers and generate a job at will. In case you haven't noticed, its difficult at times for even skilled workers to find jobs. The current unemployment rate is 6.1%, which doesn't even take in to account people who have given up job hunting because their prospects are so bad.

 

 

 

How exactly are two (likely uneducated) parents living in poverty supposed to find these magical 40 hour a week jobs again?

 

 

 

A 40 hour a week job isn't magical. That's just full time. And this kind of goes full circle with the phrase "Jobs Americans won't do"

[Saru Inc]

I don't think 40 hours a week is really too hard to get. That's full time. Even if it is a family that means both parents only have to work 20 hours a week. If someone can't do that and they are able bodied that probably means they are lazy.

 

 

 

Why am I surprised that your statement comes with a heaping load of irrational assumptions?

 

 

 

You assume that parents could just snap their fingers and generate a job at will. In case you haven't noticed, its difficult at times for even skilled workers to find jobs. The current unemployment rate is 6.1%, which doesn't even take in to account people who have given up job hunting because their prospects are so bad.

 

 

 

How exactly are two (likely uneducated) parents living in poverty supposed to find these magical 40 hour a week jobs again?

 

 

 

 

 

That's true, over here in Virginia Beach, it's extremely hard to find a job. As soon as a place opens you gotta go there and get an application fast. At leastm for high schoolers.

[magekillr]

Jack, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh by chance?

[jackattack]

No. I do listen to Phil Hendrie sometimes though.