2008 US Presidential Election Prediction Thread

[rhizome17]

"In a sign of how far the party has fallen, the Republicans set up a hotline and website yesterday appealing for suggestions from the public on how to rebuild."

Suggestion from the Rest of the World Team: DON'T. Where you are now is more than we could possibly have hoped for.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I feel like every nation needs the party that stands for fiscal responsibility. It's just that the Republicans no longer stand for that, but they do stand for a bunch of intolerable social positions that most of the nation rejects. South Dakota (!!!) just rejected an abortion ban that would have essentially been the case to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. SOUTH DAKOTA! The Republican Party is essentially a one issue party right now, and most of the nation does not agree with their position. After that all they have is identity politics.

 

[rhizome17]

I absolutely agree. And I am completely for fiscal responsibility - in the sense that government should restrict itself to where it NEEDS to be. THe problem is that party politics inevitably leads to a situation where a superficial attachment to fiscal responsibility might exist, but in reality certain groups are beneficiaries of government spending (defense for example) and taxpayers end up bearing the cost of wasted effort.

As an idealist libertarian, I am all for small government. However, the Republicans do not stand for small government and individual freedom, as evidenced by the support for the end of abortion rghts and gay rights, for example. I know this is not an exclusively republican issue, but nevertheless a TRUE small government party would never oppose such things.

What I do recognize is that in order for true freedom and real 'small government' to occur, is a period of readjustment - where the excesses of the past are dealt with and people are really empowered to make their own decisions. To have a policy of small government in a capitalist economy is completely insane, as evidenced by the outfall of the economic crisis.

Neo Conservatism is doomed to failure due to its own internal contradictions. And Sarah Palin is but a caricature of those contradictions.

 

[Run DMB]

As an idealist libertarian, I am all for small government. However, the Republicans do not stand for small government and individual freedom, as evidenced by the support for the end of abortion rghts and gay rights, for example. I know this is not an exclusively republican issue, but nevertheless a TRUE small government party would never oppose such things.

Sure it could. Opposition to abortion and gay marriage has nothing to do with government size. It has everything to do with one's views on morality and justice. And you could make a case for restricting or outlawing abortion precisely from an individual freedom standpoint.

The problem with the GOP isn't social conservatism. There are two problems:

1) Incompetence
2) Abandonment of "small-government" and "fiscal responsibility" principles (but this has little or nothing to do with social conservatism)

 

[rhizome17]

Sure it could. Opposition to abortion and gay marriage has nothing to do with government size. It has everything to do with one's views on morality and justice. And you could make a case for restricting or outlawing abortion precisely from an individual freedom standpoint.

Do it then. Because I do not see how one can oppose abortion from an individual freedom standpoint.

 

[Help?]

It looks like Missouri went to McCain and NC to Obama to make it 364 - 174. Popular vote is somewhere around 53% to 46%, so we can officially call this election a landslide win.

 

[Bobby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezh2SNwPcKc

How!? Why!?

Guys, we really dodged a bullet here....

Seriously, consider what could have happened.

 

[Run DMB]

Do it then. Because I do not see how one can oppose abortion from an individual freedom standpoint.

Maybe not individual freedom, as "freedom" implies that the individual in question is cognitively capable of making a decision, but from a "protection of individual rights" standpoint. If we assume that there are such things as natural rights, whether God-given or derived from nontheistic morality, and if we agree that among them is the right to life, and if we agree that life begins at conception (which, medically, it does), and if we agree that within natural rights there is an inherent hierarchy wherein an unborn child's right to life supersedes a woman's right to have a medical operation performed on her body, then a law restricting or outlawing the medical practice of abortion can legitimately be seen as a protection of individual rights.

I wanted to see how long I could make that sentence.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

It looks like Missouri went to McCain and NC to Obama to make it 364 - 174. Popular vote is somewhere around 53% to 46%, so we can officially call this election a landslide win.

Actually it's going to be 365 because Nebraska gives out 1 EV for every Congressional District, and it looks like Obama won Omaha.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Do it then. Because I do not see how one can oppose abortion from an individual freedom standpoint.

Abortion ends human life. Even the smallest of governments have laws against murder.

It's not a hard argument to make. What is difficult is how to define human life. Even Thomas More believed in what is essentially the position the Court laid out in Roe v. Wade, which is that abortion can happen until "quickening". We have shortened that up now because of new medical knowledge, but that's still essentially the law. No one supports late term abortions, but pro-lifers keep fighting that straw man. What I have a problem with is their fight against something like the day after pill.

And yeah, the easiest "pro-abortion" argument to make is this: the nation is split on this issue. Isn't it better to not enforce one group's views on the other? Everyone can just practice what they believe.

 

[Run DMB]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_go_co/lieberman_republicans

We'll, it's good to see the Democrats are tolerant of diversity.

The funny thing is that Lieberman is liberal on pretty much every issue other than foreign policy/national security, but his unwillingness to go along with the party line on that solitary issue has made him persona non grata among the Democrats.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

It's not just one issue, dude is a massive ******* traitor. You know he begged Barack Obama to come to Connecticut and campaign for him (AGAINST the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont) in 2006 to get re-elected. Obama went and campaigned for Lieberman. Holy Joe then personally attacked Obama at both the RNC this year, and also on the stump and the news shows. Secondly, Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat since he was crushed in the Democratic Primary by Ned Lamont in 2006, the Democratic Caucus has no obligation to let him in, much less give him a prestigious Committee Chairmanship.

Thirdly, if Holy Joe really thinks putting an R next to his name will help his political future in Connecticut, then he can go to the Republican Caucus. My guess is that he's going to take Reid's Michael Corleone offer ("My offer is this: Nothing.") because he knows his political career is over if he doesn't accept.

Finally, Democrats are not kicking him out of the caucus. We are merely stripping him on his Homeland Security Committee Chairmanship, Lieberman says that this is "unacceptable" as if Mitch McConnell is going to let him chair anything. He has a ridiculous sense of entitlement. What sense does it make that Joe Lieberman, Democratic traitor, gets a major committee chairmanship when Hillary Clinton isn't the chair of any committee. Lieberman can suck my cock, and he's going to choke on Harry Reid's when he comes back on his knees accepting Reid's offer of Carlos ****.

What does Bush like to say: "Elections have consequences"? Elections have ******* consequences Lieberman.

 

[Run DMB]

It's not just one issue, dude is a massive ******* traitor. You know he begged Barack Obama to come to Connecticut and campaign for him (AGAINST the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont) in 2006 to get re-elected. Obama went and campaigned for Lieberman. Holy Joe then personally attacked Obama at both the RNC this year, and also on the stump and the news shows. Secondly, Lieberman hasn't been a Democrat since he was crushed in the Democratic Primary by Ned Lamont in 2006, the Democratic Caucus has no obligation to let him in, much less give him a prestigious Committee Chairmanship.

Thirdly, if Holy Joe really thinks putting an R next to his name will help his political future in Connecticut, then he can go to the Republican Caucus. My guess is that he's going to take Reid's Michael Corleone offer ("My offer is this: Nothing.") because he knows his political career is over if he doesn't accept.

Finally, Democrats are not kicking him out of the caucus. We are merely stripping him on his Homeland Security Committee Chairmanship, Lieberman says that this is "unacceptable" as if Mitch McConnell is going to let him chair anything. He has a ridiculous sense of entitlement. What sense does it make that Joe Lieberman, Democratic traitor, gets a major committee chairmanship when Hillary Clinton isn't the chair of any committee. Lieberman can suck my cock, and he's going to choke on Harry Reid's when he comes back on his knees accepting Reid's offer of Carlos ****.

What does Bush like to say: "Elections have consequences"? Elections have ******* consequences Lieberman.

 

[Bobby]

Ok, how about this: Since gay people can't get married, a basic right afforded to heterosexuals, they don't have to pay taxes until they enjoy the same civil rights as straight people.

[/left libertarian]

 

[newbie original]

Guys, we really dodged a bullet here....

Seriously, consider what could have happened.

She is utterly clueless!!!! She had lost the VP debate after less than 15 minutes. What were they thinking......!!!

 

[Parra Power]

Ok, how about this: Since gay people can't get married, a basic right afforded to heterosexuals, they don't have to pay taxes until they enjoy the same civil rights as straight people.

[/left libertarian]

What are you talking about? A gay man has as much right to wed a woman as a straight man does.

 

[Help?]

Ok, how about this: Since gay people can't get married, a basic right afforded to heterosexuals, they don't have to pay taxes until they enjoy the same civil rights as straight people.

[/left libertarian]

You gonna end up with a whole lot of gay claiming people

 

[Bobby]

You gonna end up with a whole lot of gay claiming people

Haha, make them prove it.

 

[RobbieD_PL]

Haha, make them prove it.

By making them jump off a cliff only for their fairyness to fly them to safety?

 

[Help?]

nice