UMD Libertarians

The way I see it, McCain has had multiple cancerous growths removed in the past. He is 72 years old, and (by no fault of his own) has had a lot of wear on him in his lifetime. With the added stress of the Whitehouse, it isn’t hard to say that there is about a 5-10% chance he could pass in the next 4 years.

So, if McCain passes (which would be unfortunate, but possible) then Palin is the President of the United States. Can you really imagine this woman filling this role? With no foreign experience to speak of, and very little familiarity with many issues of law?

I’m not even sure how this is still even close to be an even race, it just seems completely nutty to a foreigner like me.
It’s not really a close race. Media just has to spin it that way.

You’re right. McCain is in the lead
I don’t have a much easier time imagining Obama filling the role of president. And that’s aside from hating most of his policy stances. So it’s a choice between having someone inept as the president in some hypothetical scenario, or having someone inept as the president in point of fact, who also will have the cooperation of Congress for at least two years to pass all kinds of awful new legislation.

So there’s not really an ideal option, here. Were you expecting an argument for why Sarah Palin should be at the top of the ticket?

Obama’s current electoral college ftw

You gonna honestly say Obama would be inept? That his experience and clearly high level of intellect would make him inept???

"awful new legislation" as in what?

He seems to take issue with any social programs (even regardless of whether the returns are far greater than the investments)

Where is the media spinning this as a close race, except at the points in time where it actually has been close? There’s also the Bradley Effect to consider when you are looking at polls in this election. The numbers could end up being off by 5-10%

brb, my computer almost locked up when I googled "conservative media" and "close race"

New social spending, new gun bans, expanded federal government control over our health care, more federal government meddling in the economy picking winners and losers and creating make-work "green" jobs.

et. cetera.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but some very recent polls were within the margin of error. Obama has since pulled a bit further ahead in the averages.

It makes me sick, but Americans are stupid. McCain WILL lose, but right now he hasn’t fully sunk yet.

On principle, yes. With government spending comes government control comes reduction of choice and freedom. And usually lots of nasty unintended consequences.

As an aside, I’d like to know what exactly we have gotten for 40 years of Great Society programs which have cost us the bulk of the national debt you guys are always bitching about. (BEFORE YOU ASK, NO I AM NOT EXONERATING BUSH’S SPENDING.)

Social Security Found to Save Third of Elderly From Poverty

SOCIAL SECURITY LIFTS 13 MILLION SENIORS ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE:
A STATE-BY-STATE ANALYSIS

Hopefully.

You cannot possibly be serious with the scales on that graph.

Talk about distorting the numbers.

Probably preparing his acceptance speech for the VP role after Palin "unexpectedly" bows out.

Oh gawd! NBER is so full of shit! Huntz0r knows best!

Yeah, well… that’s just like, your opinion, man.

I’m not disputing the numbers. But that graph is truncated the fuck OUT.

Shared my 84,000 people last week and some like 37.8 million watching on TV like myself.

But that’s the great thing about our country, we can have opposing opinions.
I suppose next, Karnejj, you’re going to post the stats showing how much better a return we all get by giving the federal government 16% of each paycheck compared to putting 16% of each paycheck into a 401k or ROTH IRA.

And before you complain, no it’s not 9%. Because your employer has to match every dollar you pay, and at the end of the day, that would also be your money.

The graph is labelled clearly.

404 Error. Reason for objection not found

Not really. Not the appropriate thread and probably not worth my time. You’re gonna object no matter what.

I did not say anything about the clearness of the labels.

Do you know what a truncated graph is and how it can be used to grossly distort statistics?

Especially when two plot lines are truncated differently and overlaid, like in the one you posted?

…. showing a graph with nearly flat and indistiguishable lines is really useful!
A McCain Administration will likely be just as reckless with federal spending as Obama. He’ll cut that 1/2 of 1 percent that earmarks make up but then he’ll increase overall federal spending a few percent, and he’ll do nothing to address the long-term problems the country has. He’ll also probably get us into another war.

I’m not voting for either of the two, but I’d much rather have the socialist than the not-so conservative warmonger.

It is if you are comparing two plotlines and only one of them changed by a significant amount.

0.3% to 0.15% is halving, proportionally. However, it’s still only an overall change of 0.15%. This bears resemblance to a lot of other overblown arguments that focus on proportion while disregarding perspective, like ppm of arsenic in tap water.

$5000 per capita, on the other hand, is a LOT of money.

And a million people is just "not shit" ….

Get over it. The graph doesn’t purport to mean anymore than it shows …. evidence of an inverse relationship between spending and poverty.

That’s if you take for granted that there is a direct relationship, which is to ignore any number of other possible factors. A complex question, more complex than I want to get into, but I hope we can at least acknowledge that it ain’t simple.

But I didn’t say that a million people is "just shit"… on the other hand, it’s entirely arguable whether it is a very good return on a $1.5 trillion investment, even if you make the above-stated leap.

… nobody has EVER thought of this before. The experts completely miss this possibility every time. Hah! You’ve outsmarted everyone….
Actually, I must amend my comments, since it seems that chart is in fact not clearly labeled. The numbers on the left are per capita (n/1), not percent.

So the 17% reduction in poverty shows up, as a portion of today’s elderly population, as 6 million. For a $1.5 trillion per year investment. Certainly questionable, beyond the entire premise of the system which is the government just squatting on part of your paycheck till you turn 65, because you are apparently too stupid to invest it, even if the government made you as part of a privatization scheme.

Lots of people choose to ignore lots of really obvious things when it doesn’t fit their argument.

So what?
The issues justify it. America is full of welfare bums that Obama wants to support.

Seriously… The issues should be your main concern. If you support the issues for one candidate, and not the other, then your choice is pretty much made up.

Then again im not voting for either.

Related posts:

1. Everyone complaining about congress not voting: McCain hasn’t voted since April 8th. fuck you bitch, the man is a hero...he was a POW! He is trying to save this country from the...
2. I have decided to vote for the McCain / Palin ticket soley because You made this thread way before the massive threads of truth Pathetic. I hope you are joking. Words on a...
3. Obama answers 18 Science Related Questions W/Nature McCain Decline Interview Very interesting interview and LOL at McCain US election: Questioning the candidates Barack Obama accepted Nature's invitation to answer 18...
4. Here’s the fabled Sarah Palin/Supreme Court Question Video I haven't even watched it yet. Enjoy.well, found the gist... Can't say that I am overly surprised. Will watch...
5. In this thread, you will post LOGICAL reasons for voting for _______ That's right...list LOGICAL reasons. Not emotional reasons. I have yet to meet ONE fucking person who can give me a...