It's always the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This year that is the 4th.

By the way at intrade they are both selling for very close to 50 so it's basically even odds either way. Not sure what you can get in terms of lines elsewhere.

Sadly there's not a good way to be sure of who's right and who's wrong here. I would say that the rating systems you envision are only "usually assumed" by those who actually believe the system would work in the first place; those who say it won't probably "usually assume" these systems either won't be created or won't be effective.


On the flip side you have enforcement issues, and quite frankly I don't think you're any safer from various interference. Add that to the fact that some groups will naturally create their own governments, and then you're still not really protected from being annexed against your will from a "spiraling out of control government" and I think you haven't gained anything and just added to your problems.

I'm maybe responding to my own bias here, but I think Palin is more important than maybe any vice presidential candidate in recent elections. There are a few reasons for this, some good and some bad. The short of it is that because she is not a standard pick, the choice of her says more about McCain's judgment than the usual candidate. That could go either way. If people don't like her and especially if they don't think she's qualified they'll think McCain was being overly political and a little reckless with his choice. If people warm to her and feel by the end of the debate that she is qualified, McCain will look good because he was able to make a solid and not obvious choice, saying something about his ability to get and use good people as his top advisors.

I also think choosing her changed drastically the dynamic and dialogue. McCain went back to the maverick and reformer angle essentially dropping the experience thing. I think this is a better line for him to take. McCain doesn't have the Hillary baggage and the general is different from the primary, but she got nowhere playing up the experience angle. Also, it's going to be a tough sell going with experience as a Republican senator when 80% of the people don't like the direction the country is headed.

I think the solution if you are annexed by a government is clear: throw their tea into the harbor.

Sure, but I think the debates are too late. Most people have made up their minds on the issue and the debates aren't going to change it. If she bombs the debate, it will cost them points, if she manages to "win" the debate over Biden it will probably gain them a lot of votes, but that outcome seems unlikely, which is why it would be such a swing - people already assume how the debates will come out. I think the main takeaways from the debates from an election perspective will be if anyone says something that works as a soundbite to be played against them; much like Biden saying that people who make over $250K/year need to pay more taxes for the patriotic aspect. Time to step up! Time to help out! Time to pay more! It's a huge mistake for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he defined "rich". Always say "tax the rich" and then don't define rich - because people always assume you mean "someone with more money than me". Biden seems more likely to forget that he's talking into a national tape recorder and speak his mind in a potentially damaging way. I think Palin will be well-prepared with some "safe" soundbites for various topics but won't say much of real value. So, unless something unusual happens at the VP debates, the only bump of the meter I'd anticipate will be from negative ads based on short, simple statements that can be processed easily, and that seems more likely to be against Biden. But they're not going to be enough to move the election.

I'm betting on the Republicans btw. if it's currently about even.
They don't have the constraint that they need to advertise to the religious/extreme right this time around. They can just gun straight for the undecided/potential Democrats because you can be damn sure that the extreme folks are going to show up in numbers even if all they do is vote anti-Obama [Osama, the potential Islam dude....also black].
They are also better at rigging voting machines imo and most importantly I think the vendors of the machines can gain the most from a Republican win (even with anti-earmark MC)

What incentives would a foreign government have to invade people who care first and foremost about their freedom (likely defending it to the death, gurilla style and no single entity can surrender so you pretty much have to destroy lots of stuff and kill lots of people), are never going to attack foreign countries and are willing to trade with everyone pretty much?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...75/index5.html

For those interested in election politics, etc, etc. Generally just a great read all around.

Interesting stuff here, btw.

You're kidding, right?

Look at any war of invasion. The invaded always fight a guerilla war, even after the government surrenders. And if it's not always, it's almost always.

Countries would invade because they know - in time - the people who are the "defend my liberty unto death" types eventually will, and the people who only care about feeding their kids will still be there to make them richer and more powerful.

Why did the USA invade Iraq?
Why would the USA invade any country?
The USA is the single most agressive nation when it comes to fighting offensive wars in recent history so I'll use it as an example.

Politics forum...stopped reading
/madtown

I take it your argument is that invasions will happen once they are +EV for the invading nation?

The Bush Administration has deigned to actually introduce bailout legislation. And oh what a piece of legislation it is.

We have already seen unprecedented expansion of the powers of the executive branch in the past 8 years, to the extent that the idea of balance of power is now antiquated and quaint. We are so used to seeing governmental authority granting itself unlimited discretion that it barely even registers. So now another 700 billion dollars created out of thin air, greatly increasing the money supply, making every dollar you earn and save worth less. Authority granted the secretary of the treasury, an appointed cabinet post, to purchase the mortgage related assets of any financial institution in the US, without any check or review. These decisions by law cannot be challenged in court.

This isn't government by the people, for the people. This is the Leviathan State swallowing it's environment, driven by the unholy urge to feed. This is terrocracy unhinged, leveraging fear into control. This is a master laughing at his slaves as he reduces their rations.

Just picked up Naomi Wolf's new book Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries. Book report to come.

-John Locke

I'm practically speechless after reading that. Even the wife, who has zero interest in politics, thinks that's disgusting.

I don't really understand the last bit. Is that changing the overall amount of money in the US to 11 Trillion dollars and change? From whatever the previous amount was?

That's the national debt my friend.

low level politics question:
surely palin wasnt the best qualified running mate for cain, right? so he chose her because shes a woman. did they really know in advance about the kid and chose her anyway?

There's a theory that some democrats want to lose this election so Hilary can run in 2012.

With that in mind, Palin offers two great things for McCain (from a crass politicians point of view, obv)

1. She's a woman, which might encourage women to vote him that were on the fence because they want Hilary to win in 2012
2. She's young and fairly new, which is a good counter to McCain's old and been around forever

I would be shocked if they didn't know about the kid, tbh.

The kid doesn't matter since he doesn't have to cater to the extreme right at all.

Is this really unprecedented? I actually have no idea, but I'd have thought that there was a lot of governmental intervention during the New Deal years and in the aftermath of WW2, but as I said, I don't really know.

Where you see nefarious ulterior motives, I see pragmatic motives to salvage a damaged economy. I've gotta ask you this... What motives do you ascribe to the evil masters of this conspriacy? What are their goals? Who are they?

Personally, I think a lot of what I think you're espousing unravels by asking those questions, but I'm not that educated about these matters.

The unprecedented executive powers to which I refer are exemplified by the congress unconstitutionally abrogating their responsibility to determine whether we should go to war and assigning complete power to Bush, the alarming nature of Bush's signing statements, and the Patriot Act.

It's not a conspiracy, it is completely in the open. The motives are power and money. The motivators are the bankers who want a free ride, the politicians in the pocket of these bankers, the corrupt Federal Reserve System as a whole, and the politicians and bureaucrats who become more powerful by taking over, regulating, and nationalizing companies and industries.

Calling it a conspiracy theory is ad hominem.

im sure he did. I think it makes her look more human, and will help her win the moderate vote

ZT, one more thing. There is a reason the Jefferson said the tree of liberty must be refreshed with blood. The state looks out for its own interests. No matter how perfect a formulation of reasonable laws and how limited the functions of government, the state will immediately begin expanding its power and influence. The only permanent solution is to set up the best government you can and keep your gun loaded for when it goes rogue.

the extreme right loves that she chose life rather than abortion

How was the process leading up to the Iraq war unconstitutional? More importantly, when exactly did Bush receive complete power?

While I don't particularly like the Patriot Act I'm not necessarily sure it's unconstitutional, or even that bad.

My bad. I felt the language of your earlier posts was indicating a conspiratorial view of government. I see your point, kinda, but the pragmatic opposing viewpoint is that the government intervention has saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of jobs, and helped facilitate continued growth of the western economy. I'm all for smaller government, but I think a pragmatic approach is needed in particular cases (such as the recent crisis).

ZT, I love you but if you don't think the patriot act is that bad I'm afraid we have little chance of meaningful communication. I understand your point completely, if I thought that it was a function of government to manage the economy, if I thought that government intervention somehow saved millions of jobs, if I felt the the net effect of government on economic growth was positive, I'd have the same opinion as you.

Hey, I'm from Norway. Around these parts our government pretty much does everything for us! They'll hold our hand when we cross the road. They'll tuck us in when we go to bed. They'll issue hefty fines if we dare consider doing something that's unhealthy, but the upside is that they'll cover the cost if our unhealthy habits should lead to hospitalization. Etc. It's quite the racket really.

About the Patriotism Act, I'd be a lot more worried if there had been widespread reports about the provisions entitled to law enforcement agencies being abused. As it were, it seems like a rather logical response to the actual threat of terror evidenced by 9/11 (unless you subscribe to kooky conspiracy theories). Sure, it can theoretically be abused, but it pertains mostly to foreign intelligence gathering as I understand it. But yes, it reduces civil liberties, and I personally think it's incredibly dangerous even though it currently doesn't seem to infringe too much on the average citizen. Future interpretation might be different though, which is certainly scary. Basically, the provisions needs to be narrowed down and made more concrete.

Give me liberty or give me death, IPHO.