I don't think the Dems have this thing won as much as I did earlier this year.

The banner ad at the bottom of this thread...

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/9254/tahoepi2.jpg

I think the Dems do have it sewn up, but it's not going to be a landslide victory unless the GOP puts someone out there like Giuliani, who I think is easily beatable.

Seems that as Huckseed does better, Hill's (aka, the only dem with a shot) look better. Rudy's still got Cali and NY locked up though, so I don't see how Huckabilly can break through.

I've noticed those Tahoe adds before. Wonder how many Detroiters vacay at Tahoe?

maybe, but the threat china poses to us economically, which is the most tangible threat this country has had since, what, 63?, is real. america desperately needs to get this economy if it wants to continue on as the only world superpower.

now, if being the only superpower doesnt matter to you, and you dont buy global warming as a threat, then i could concede this being just another election during tough economic times.

but if that stuff does matter, than i think this coming period is going to be a very important era in american history.

We won't be able to go toe to toe with China when some of their workers are making 2 dollars a day and Unions in the US are fighting for higher and higher wages for peeps with a HS education doing non-skilled labor.

But say I concede that this is 'the most important' election in our time, I'll assume that its a given for you that the Dems are better able to handle it and I think the Reps are? Is that fair to say?

I saw some of the Democratic Iowa debate and the dumb ass moderator never asked the Dems about China, the War on Terrror(that one doesn't really surprise me cuz they don't really believe it exists) Russia, Iran or anything of importance.

So how do conclude (if you do conclude) that the Dems are more qualified to handle this era? That isn't intended to be a smart ass question either. I like to hear ideas.

well, though i am supporting barak, i wouldnt call myself a democrat anymore. i actually believe pretty heavily in the free market, though not to the extent of ron paul.

bush's tax cuts werent wrong in theory, they were just unfair in practice, and probably excessive considering the fiasco that is iraq. yea, people will tell you we inflated the dollar so that american exports could compete abroad and could work on the trade deficit. but that sounds like bullshit spin to me. the dollar has been weakened because bush completely fucked an inherited balanced budget. i dont know why there is debate on whether inflation is about to happen, cuz it is and has been happening. look at what has happened to the cost of goods lately. i cant find milk for less than 3.50, and we all know what gas has done (exacerbated prices due to the dollar). do people realize the canadian dollar has been stronger than the american for most of the past 3 months?

anyway, im just ranting at this point. barak is our best bet for getting past iraq, hes the best bet to balance the budget. well see what happens.

We won't be able to go toe to toe with China when some of their workers are making 2 dollars a day and Unions in the US are fighting for higher and higher wages for peeps with a HS education doing non-skilled labor.
The operating theory both parties have spouted as they perpetually extended MFN status to China (before making it permanent) was -- by exposing them to western economic forces, we turn them less "evil", more tied to us. But, I don't think many counted on the inverse effect. We've demonstrated strong willingness to ride high and mighty on other people's backs, to borrow now and pay the piper later, and the dollar in debtor's prison and the talk of not taking U.S. dollars for oil has started. And, it's not clear at all that we've succeeded in the way we think we have.


I saw some of the Democratic Iowa debate and the dumb ass moderator never asked the Dems about China, the War on Terrror(that one doesn't really surprise me cuz they don't really believe it exists)
Well, define "war on terror". The hard part is that this means different things to different people. Heck, just the torturous gymnastics of what "war" is are mind-numbing -- let alone adding "terror" or some enemy that may not be a country. Is the war on drugs a war the same way WWII is? What about Viet Nam? One of the ideas I like out of the Ron Paul camp is the resuscitation of letters of marque/reprisal framework, but it doesn't have quite that emotional resonance of the word "war".

War on terror is a war against Islamic terrorists...radicals.

I might over-simplify things but its the a-holes that brought the towers down and their supporters. I don't understand the confusion on this or why this question always comes up.

I shouldn't post when I'm this drunk

bush's tax cuts werent wrong in theory, they were just unfair in practice,
It is clear that they didn't pay for themselves in terms of tax revenue, which is what Republicans routinely cite as the proof that tax cuts are stimulating the economy. It's also notable that the tax cuts align quite well with the decline of the dollar.

War on terror is a war against Islamic terrorists...radicals.

I might over-simplify things but its the a-holes that brought the towers down and their supporters. I don't understand the confusion on this or why this question always comes up.
We invaded Iraq as part of the "war on terror", when it was nowhere near the a-holes that brought the towers down, yet we play all kinds of pussy-foot with the Pakistanis, the Saudis, etc. The Dipshit-In-Chief who went out of his way to actively equate Iraq and "war on terror", long after that was debunked quite thoroughly. And now, Al-Qaeda has little bits and pieces in Iraq because we fucking destabilized the region, and they're right now raising a generation of future terrorists who want to fuck us as we fucked them.

That's why "war on terror" is confusing.

And while we're going nutso tracking down the Islamic radicals who are threatening us, we're overlooking tons of other people who threaten us.

The fundamental problem here is this "national security uber alles" attitude. The most important thing in America is not our national security! It's our civic life and our freedoms. The Founders were explicitly clear on this topic - we live our lives liberally and yes, it does expose us to threats and harm. But we are a headstrong people who aren't willing to give up our ability to say and do whatever we want, even if it means radicals try to bring us down. Better we all die than give up our national character. We're here to prove to the world that authoritarianism isn't necessary to rule a nation, and we can mostly take care of ourselves by being personally responsible. I'll be damned if we're gonna let Muslims convince us otherwise.

I'm going to close this out with a great quote from Glenn Greenwald:


But our entire system of government, from its inception, has been based on a very different calculus — that is, that many things matter besides protecting ourselves against threats, and consequently, we are willing to accept risks, even potentially fatal ones, in order to secure those other values. From its founding, America has rejected the worldview of prioritizing physical safety above all else, as such a mentality leads to an impoverished and empty civic life.

The terrorists took away some of our freedoms. We need to squash them (most likely never 100% though).

The terrorists took away some of our freedoms. We need to squash them (most likely never 100% though).
They didn't take away anything we didn't foolishly give up. The only way to fight terrorism is to refuse to be scared of it. They're going to do things to us. They are going to blow things up and kill people. The only possible response is to keep on rolling. Mourn, rebuild, and keep on rolling. The minute we gotta stand in lines to have our papers checked, our bags searched, and our communications monitored, the terrorists definitely will have gotten what they wanted.

This is why I'm pissed off about the plans for Ground Zero. I want a big motherfucking building, bigger than the last one, a gigantic middle finger that says "come and blow this one up, assholes, and the next one will be even bigger and have even more Jews and homosexuals in it."

I don't think this is a very important election at all besides the tight supreme court. All the issues people consider important aren't in the big scheme.

Seriously, you guys, along with the Dems are politically and emotionally invested in the narrative of defeat in Iraq.


I just hope, that come election time, the voting public is aware that all human ills, with the exception of psoriasis are caused by liberals.

Just warming it up a lil bit

it is, and always has been, a no-win situation. beyond the exhorbitant cost that were borrowing against, the externalities (ie that dude crippled in iraq is now going to be supported by the state till he dies).

it was a horribly concieved 'luxury' war.

it is, and always has been, a no-win situation. beyond the exhorbitant cost that were borrowing against, the externalities (ie that dude crippled in iraq is now going to be supported by the state till he dies).

it was a horribly concieved 'luxury' war.

Yuppers.


I think the one issue I've been paying the most attention to is illegal immigration. Everyone says the same though, balancing between fighting it and not pissing off the Mexicans. Now before anybody jumps on me, I don't hate the Mexicans just illegal immigration... but I said what I said because politicians are looking for votes and there are a lot of Mexicans.

tangent: I jokingly had an idea a couple days ago. Stop shipping our jobs overseas for cheap labor. Let illegals stay under some type of plan or status. Let them work the jobs that come back here for $3/h. Save money on importing/exporting of goods, illegals have legal jobs and status to an extent, we have cheaper products in America. Everybody wins.

a good plan, except people would probably have a problem with someone in the US only making 3 dollars an hour. never mind it might be 1/10 that overseas.

and yea, i think your tangent just illustrates how absurd life is.

Even Mexico cant' compete with China when it comes to labor. They have slave labor(the way I understand it anyway).

Then when we talk about skilled labor or degreed labor, India bites us too. I know engineering gets sent there and its back the next day. My HMO sends xrays and mri stuff there and lots of the prognosis is waiting for the doc when he walks in.

Its going to be tougher on our kids than it is on us to make it in the US.

Seriously, you guys, along with the Dems are politically and emotionally invested in the narrative of defeat in Iraq.
Without a cogent plan to "win the peace", it was pretty much doomed from the start. It doesn't matter how effective the troops are. That's always been the hard part in these messes. We should've learned that lesson with Vietnam -- a 20:1 kill ratio wasn't enough. The Soviets found that out with Afghanistan. Daddy Bush, after some counterproductive "rise up and we will support you" lip service, ultimately didn't have an answer for "win the peace" and settled for containment in the first Gulf War and being tagged as a wimp.

It's not about politics or emotion to me. Most of this is stuff that should get covered in a decent high school history class.

Even Mexico cant' compete with China when it comes to labor. They have slave labor(the way I understand it anyway).
That's contributing to our illegal immigrant problem big-time. NAFTA effects initially led to a lot of Mexican business, but people moved away for cheaper pastures, especially when...


Then when we talk about skilled labor or degreed labor, India bites us too. I know engineering gets sent there and its back the next day. My HMO sends xrays and mri stuff there and lots of the prognosis is waiting for the doc when he walks in.
...telecommunication technologies like the Internet make it convenient to do so. Heck, a family member of mine had surgery in the U.S. that was simulcast in India to train doctors.

One of the things the U.S. really needs to wake up to culturally is that while we're a leader in the world, we're not greater than the rest of the world. In fact, we're tied to the rest of the world all over the damn place, and we'll need the world's cooperation to solve many of the 21st century's biggest problems (e.g. global warming, oil dependence).


Its going to be tougher on our kids than it is on us to make it in the US.
I'm sure that in no small part, it's because our generations collectively mortgaged their future.

One of the things the U.S. really needs to wake up to culturally is that while we're a leader in the world, we're not greater than the rest of the world.


AH, untrue. Today's global marketplace isn't driven by cheap workers or emerging technology any more, it's driven by reputation and marketing, and it is there that the American Culture truimphs all. Even in the midst of destroying large swathes of potential customers with our foreign policy, no engineering miracle is worth near the word "Coke".

That said, the debt thing is fucking our kids. Time for Republicans to learn the word "sacrifice".

Bush has his veto pen out but the Dems send up spending bills. Bush veto them. I think its time for the Dems to learn it too.

Without a cogent plan to "win the peace", it was pretty much doomed from the start.

Granted it is a simple one. Fight off terrorists while the Gov't gets situated.

I'm not arguing that we should have went in there in the first place, but now that we are there, we have to stick it out. Its going to be a long drawn out ordeal, but we have to stick it out.

I'm not saying don't change things. The surge worked, maybe we should put MORE pressure on their Gov't to do this or that, etc. The French and the Germans have come around, many Arab countries don't want us to leave, so stick it out.

Some things don't make sense unless you force them to. As near as I can tell, nothing short of an overpowering military warlord could keep the current Iraq construct together. Indeed, most of the "peace" that has been achieved in recent days results from deals we've made with militias independently of the (joke that is the) Maliki government. We're trying to preserve something along the lines of Yugoslavia, with the added complication of buried treasure. If you can find Yugoslavia on a current map...

We're not helping matters with our recent efforts. Sectarian violence is only down in some areas because the damage is already done. The Shia took over Baghdad as our surge got under way... mission accomplished? I've heard we're doing WAY more air strikes, which keeps our casualties low but isn't nearly as discriminate. This will bite us in the ass down the road. The longer our troops stay, the more fuel we create for the next generation of terrorists, outweighing the fuel we extract from their ground.

I think we're left with "bad" (leave) and "worse" (stay) as our choices. I think we have to seriously proclaim that we'll leave, giving the world (especially the Middle Eastern world) enough time to wake up to the shitstorm so they'll step up. We can't do Iraq alone or with some limited, changing set of allies (bye bye Britain, salut les Francais). We need to get back to eliminating Al-Qaeda, and we have a huge mess in Afghanistan/Pakistan to contend with in that arena. And let's not forget North Korea, even though they're not Islamic...

The surge purged AQ from some of those areas. Our military did the job...again, now its time for the Gov't to do theirs. The Sheiks were supporting AQ for a while but they changed allegiances to us a couple of months ago. That's what made for some peace we have there now...then the surge.

Sect Violence...Many left, but thousands are returning to Bagdad. Things are better there.

Its not becaus of air strikes, it cuz of US military putting their lives on the line going into the neighborhoods.

Casualties are lower than in some peace time years.

Bush had a heavy lift the way things were going there for a while, but things change but opinions stay the same, I guess.

If it's not because of air strikes, why are we doing so many of them? Hell, a fair chunk of operational support for this at an AFB near you, Tahoe...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq17nov17,0,1673208.story?coll=la-home-world


The incident was the latest to fuel Iraqi anger over the United States' use of airstrikes in Iraq, where ground troops face rough terrain, roadside bombs and difficulty reaching remote areas where insurgents hide.

Last year, U.S. troops launched 229 aerial bombings over Iraq. There have been more than four times as many this year, according to Air Force Maj. Gen. David Edgington, the director of air operations for U.S. forces in the country. The number began to increase significantly after the U.S. military buildup that brought an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq began in mid-February.

Although airstrikes allow U.S. forces to hit targets in hard-to-reach locations, they also endanger civilians or other noncombatants who from a distance might not be clearly identified.

We famously established in the first Gulf War that we could do air strikes with minimal casualties to U.S. troops, and not much has changed. But, much as was the problem with the Gulf War, that only gets us containment and taking down some low-hanging fruit. It also exposes us to the accusations, reality, generational hatred, etc. associated with killing groups of "friendlies". We can't "win" by any measure if our presence turns enough good guys bad.

BTW, as for our tremendous upsurge in ground troops... We're putting more and more Navy and Air Force troops on the ground with minimal training:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/21/MNGI3R4EI01.DTL

Oh, "the Sheiks" are the militias that (for now) our military is cutting deals with, bypassing the Maliki government we want to prop up. You're making my point for me. Again, it's NOT about how effective our troops are. But, with no sensible diplomatic agenda, we're not getting anywhere. We're too timid to either rule the Iraq collectiive with an iron hand to backfill Saddam, or to break down the country into smaller (but stiill considerable) problems. Our best case scenario for Iraq is turning it into Lebanon... hoo boy.

Mxy, the way I see it there is only one outcome for Iraq, and that is civil war, and the US government will be partially responsible for the situation. We've given so much money and support to the Maliki government, and now to hedge our bets and start giving lots of money and arms to the militias pretty much means there's going to be fighting between the regional sectarian powers who want self-rule and a central government that wants federal powers. It's almost like we're trying to turn Iraq not into Lebanon, but rather into Pakistan.

Back on topic...

Rasmussen poll...

Who would you most want to 'prevent' from becoming President?

Hillary 40%
Rudy 17%
Barack Obama 11%
Mitt Romney 7%
Huckabee 5%

No John Edwards? Interesting...

Apparently Rasmussen has Edwards beating every single Republican candidate handily.

Apparently Rasmussen has Edwards beating every single Republican candidate handily.

Thompson and Romney handily, RG and McCain is close.

Romney has been making the claim that his dad marched with MLK in Grosse Pointe, which has been thoroughly debunked:

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid53200.aspx

Flip flop, it don't stop...

my mom lives in grosse pointe, Mit claiming the GP is almost enough for me to support him. almost.

i would like rasmussen to illuminate on the word "prevent" in that poll you posted.

That Romney MLK thing is pretty friggin bad. He said "Well, I said I saw my dad march with MLK. In the dictionary 'SAW' means blah blah blah, so when I said I 'saw' my dad, I didn't mean it literally" OMFG Mitt. Whats the definition of 'is'?

What the hell is Ron Paul raising all that money for if he doesn't intend to run as an independent libertarian sort? He doesn't appear to have a chance in hell to win a primary as a Republican.