2008 Presidential Election - Obama v McCain (1 Viewer)

[Iron]

You think THAT video was shocking?

Have a look at this video of McCain

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

Yeah, I seriously overestimated him. Obama>Hill>Mc

50 state victory - Democratic tsunami

 

[withoutaface]

You're wrong, there IS infinate money, well, at least enough to ensure that prices always reflect the market's percieved probability of each outcome at a given time.

If McCain is priced at $2.50 and there is sudden news of video evidence of Obama molesting young boys, McCain's real odds would then be around $1.01. With McCain almost certain to win people would rush to take advantage of the excellent odds available on McCain. This would close the gap almost instantly.

You mistakenly view the market as a finite group of betters. If there is any chance for an excellent rate of return, it will attract speculators that have never previously contemplated the election betting markets. If the gains are attractive enough people will be prepared to sell assets to get in on it.

Of course this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the principals at work will ensure that the betting markets are an extremely efficient, accurate and up to date way of predicting most things.

You're right and I'm just being a communist, now shush

 

[bazookajoe]

Yeah, I seriously overestimated him. Obama>Hill>Mc

50 state victory - Democratic tsunami

lolololololololololololol

 

[withoutaface]

As someone who doesn't live in Iraq you'd be equally able to claim that their foreign policy (beside FTA's) has minimal impact.

 

[Republican]

John McCain.

 

[Graney]

I like how this poll is going.

 

[chicky_pie]

I like how this poll is going.

Epic troll movement.

 

[John McCain]

Epic troll movement.

The people know what they like.

 

[chicky_pie]

The people know what they like.

Vladimir Putin is Germany's President.

Yesterday Obama was leading by 20 votes, today he trails behind by more than 20. :rofl:




*waits for Barack Obama troll*

 

[Martyno1]

Re: Barrack OBama or John Mccain?

Obama. Easy.

 

[jb_nc]

I invented it.

bitch please

 

[Iron]

http://www.crikey.com.au/video.html

The great Gore Vidal on the Presidency, Bush, McCain, Obama and Clinton.
13 epic mins.

 

[Xayma]

Obama.

Lets see:
McCain has no problems spying on US citizens.
Apparently he can cut taxes across the board, have large increases in defence spending for slight decreases in space exploration and arts
He doesn't know what is in the constitution
Roe v. Wade was a good decision
For a person who has had extramarital affairs, talking about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is kind of annoying
Speaking out against waterboarding, really should suggest that you don't vote against a bill banning it

 

[Slidey]

In terms of being pragmatic? I'm happy to be an idealist and let others be pragmatic, because on an intellectual level I find it pretty satisfying.

Which we need. People like that keep things honest. The problem is when they accumulate in large amounts and their ideas are no longer a force of moderation, but a controlling force, e.g. America.

Also, when I start being pragmatic I find too many holes and contradictory or inconsistent positions for my liking. I used to probably be a lot more pragmatic on certain issues but I could never reconcile one viewpoint with another when I did that and it bothered me.

See, I'm the opposite. At least with being pragmatic I can recognise the flaws and try to find a balance, an equilibrium, a sweet point. With idealism you're left only with extremism, not to mention the ideas which are 'perfect' in theory cannot be translated onto reality perfectly, such that the greatest good in reality is actually served by compromise (pragmatism).

Case in point: strict libertarianism (no being shall be deprived of any rights), apart from being contradictory (there tends to be no distinction between inalienable rights and luxury rights), results in fewer rights and less net 'good' in the world than utilitarian humanism (greatest good for the greatest number, without violating any inalienable rights).

 

[jb_nc]

I'm going to vote for George Bush. He seem's like the type of guy you can share a beer with.

 

[A High Way Man]

only reason to vote mccain is that he LOOKS LIKE COLONEL SAUL TIGH

 

[Slidey]

Utilitarianism is a political movement in itself, and so you've got to justify what you believe in through that framework.

Fortunately, almost all Western countries (bar America), and the UN acknowledge that utilitarian humanism in democracy is the best political framework for maximising local and global human rights.

Also, I disagree with the fact that his changes will only have minimal effects on the US economy, particularly in regards to universal healthcare, which is a massively expensive government program which basically grows exponentially in cost.

No it doesn't. Have you actually checked the figures? Many of the countries with the best welfare and healthcare spend some of the lowest amounts on it. Australia for example spends less on healthcare per capita than America does, yet has one of the best systems in the world. America spends large amounts of money on voluntary incentive schemes which end up costing more, and targetting the middle and high income earners but ignoring the poor, which only serves to widen the income gap.

I know I've covered this before, so I'll go dig that post up for you.

 

[chicky_pie]

Well, I don't believe in spending the money on the war either. I'd say spend it on neither and reduce the tax burden on Americans, to be honest.

As for utilitarianism vs libertarianism, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, though I found the insight into the way you approach things very interesting. I tend to approach things from the point of view of, "Does this take away anybody's liberty?" and "How can we maximise people's individual freedom?" and "How can we reduce intervention into people's lives?"which is obviously rather different from the idea of "the greatest happiness for the greater number." (Although one of my favourite writers actually argued for libertarianism from a utilitarian point of view, which is interesting in itself.)

$543,236,299,998 Spent on Iraq as of 11th June 4:22 pm CST

 

[Slidey]

My conception of rights? Well I, like most the Western world, believe in upholding human rights. I don't really see how we could hold 'different' conceptions of rights, since as far as I can tell you're a good, kind, ultimately altruistic person.

Can't find my post, but:

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics

Government spending in US per capita is higher than all the others, but America's national level of health is also lower than all the others. America also spends twice as much per capita on healthcare as any other country. Can you perhaps see why universal healthcare is even the best option from your purely economic point of view?

The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.

The US currently (2007) has the most expensive health care of any OECD country and also has the highest percentage of costs paid privately.

In 2003, health care costs paid to hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, diagnostic laboratories, pharmacies, medical device manufacturers and other components of the health care system consumed 16.3 percent of the GDP of the United States, the largest of any country in the world. For the United States, the health share of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to hold steady in 2006 before resuming its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2016.[8] In 2001, for the OECD countries the average was 8.4 percent[9] with the United States (13.9%), Switzerland (10.9%), and Germany (10.7%) being the top three.

 

[Slidey]

Type 'human rights' into wikipedia. I agree with that, as I believe any sane person would. It's not exactly negotiable. And I would be perturbed if you tried to do so, though I will listen if your argument is genuine rather than distraction of the "it's all relative" sort.

The USA has a shitload of Governmental intervention in the HMO's though. It's not private in any sense of the word

EDIT: I don't mind universal healthcare, tbh. It's always done good by me. Except for the stringent testing processes on drugs.

The USA tries to put all thse checks and balances in place to emulate universal healthcare, but ends up spending twice as much as universal healthcare, whilst providing less coverage and health increase than universal health care, widening the income gap, and actualling burdening the people twice through tax then private expenditure. I would thus argue any sane person would declare that universal health care is in fact more in line with libertarian beliefs than America's voluntary healthcare is.

I'm just interested in how Malfoy justifes that.

Well, if I weren't altruistic I'd be a hypocrite given my beliefs in private charity and the merits of voluntarism in that regard.

You say human rights, but how do you define human rights? I'm curious as to what you consider fundamental human rights.

EDIT: Nolan's got a point re: American healthcare not actually being truly private.

Oh? You believe private healthcare would be any better? Why do you think America introduced those checks and balances to emulate universal healthcare? It was to improve private healthcare. Surely you're not promoting absolutely privatised healthcare.