US Election 2008

[Fop 1]

 

 

 

Maybe we should try to find out about the East Asian perception here too.

Sorry mate, me being a bit Dolly Dimple- d'you mean the Japs?

It's interesting that you say that.

 

I've answered everything

 

Oh no you havent.

He's behind you!

 

Ok Fop. If I ask you a question I (and about 5 other people) asked you yesterday. You can answer it and prove me wrong. Deal?

A paradox trap, interesting tactic.

 

Spare a thought for the poor bastard's parents when he gets wheeled out at family/social gatherings

I love how you think.

[Fop 1]

Obama's larger campaign budget was obviously a factor in his winning too. I doubt anyone could deny that. I don't think anyone is denying that though.

 

They can if I say it.

[Happy Face 29]

At what height does somebody become tall?

 

That is the question.

 

 

Aye, a shit question.

 

Most people would take "how long is a piece of string?" as a rhetorical question that indicates a dead end in the discussion. You seem to want to get into whether or not it's actually string and it's motives behind masquerading as string when some consider it rope.

[spongebob toonpants 3629]

you are just trying to argue (as you do), where as I'm trying to put across a point. But it's all fun anyway.

Honestly Fop. I'm perfectly willing to debate any points on here. You aren't even kidding yourself man. You've ducked virtually every question that's been asked about the ambiguous statements you've made by saying 'I've already answered that' when you patently haven't. I don't think I've ducked a single question you've asked me however. You know this is true and so does everyone else on here.

I've answered everything, as I always do, you just don't like the answers (as usual).

 

But that's the difference here, you are just trying to argue (as you do), where as I'm trying to put across a point.

Ahh, it's time for the ill-founded relationship spat tactics. "I'm not arguing, I'm having a discussion. I'm perfectly calm, thank you. There's no need to snap at me. No, you calm down."

I think it's fun, I just not pretending I don't is all.

 

Obama missed an opportunity for a big step in that direction

 

Obama missed an opportunity? He turned the most socially conservative democracy on the planet from voting republican (again) by the skin of his white teeth and he missed an opportunity?

 

Nonsense, he had to fight tooth (white) and nail (pink) just to get his ass (black) in the door.

 

 

 

How man Foppy, I think you might as well hoist yerself on your shoulders and carry yourself round the room because you will never be able to top that line. Absolutely magnificent.

 

Obama missed an opportunity for a big step in that direction

 

Genius

 

 

Again he had to fight hard to beat Hilary which was his biggest hurdle in his way to the Presidency. After he beat her the smart money was always on him. So what do you mean?

 

 

 

 

 

Self awareness FTW.

 

I am convinced you think that your (failing) attempts to prove some contrarian argument on a message board is a greater and more noble acheivement than possibly the single most iconic event in modern history

[Fop 1]

At what height does somebody become tall?

 

That is the question.

 

 

Aye, a shit question.

 

Most people would take "how long is a piece of string?" as a rhetorical question that indicates a dead end in the discussion. You seem to want to get into whether or not it's actually string and it's motives behind masquerading as string when some consider it rope.

But clearly people do make that judgement when it comes to "race".

[ChezGiven 0]

Wll you've learnt nothing from the analysis then, most political commentators are putting the victory down to the huge investiments spent in tactical county battles in the key states. The sound-biters are talking credit-crunch/Palin. 48% of the country still voted Republican after the almighty mess they created and taking the hit for the financial collapse. 48%!

 

Obama had a huge task and if he had tried to appear anythign other than a centrist american politician he could have lost the election. This wasnt the same for Clinton whose political equity and ground-level constituency are completely different to Obama's.

 

What did this opportunity look like? What were the practical steps he could have taken to realise this?

 

 

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight.

 

He just had to not lose after Hilary.

 

 

 

How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity?

 

Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to.

 

Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid.

 

Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread.

[Fop 1]

Self awareness FTW.

 

I am convinced you think that your (failing) attempts to prove some contrarian argument on a message board is a greater and more noble acheivement than possibly the single most iconic event in modern history

 

It's just funny tbh, the valid point gets lost in the frenzy, but it's still amusing.

[Guest alex]

Self awareness FTW.

 

I am convinced you think that your (failing) attempts to prove some contrarian argument on a message board is a greater and more noble acheivement than possibly the single most iconic event in modern history

 

It's just funny tbh, the valid point gets lost in the frenzy, but it's still amusing.

List the valid points you've made again. In fact, just give one of them.

[Happy Face 29]

At what height does somebody become tall?

 

That is the question.

 

 

Aye, a shit question.

 

Most people would take "how long is a piece of string?" as a rhetorical question that indicates a dead end in the discussion. You seem to want to get into whether or not it's actually string and it's motives behind masquerading as string when some consider it rope.

But clearly people do make that judgement when it comes to "race".

 

Example?

[Fop 1]

Wll you've learnt nothing from the analysis then, most political commentators are putting the victory down to the huge investiments spent in tactical county battles in the key states. The sound-biters are talking credit-crunch/Palin. 48% of the country still voted Republican after the almighty mess they created and taking the hit for the financial collapse. 48%!

 

Obama had a huge task and if he had tried to appear anythign other than a centrist american politician he could have lost the election. This wasnt the same for Clinton whose political equity and ground-level constituency are completely different to Obama's.

 

What did this opportunity look like? What were the practical steps he could have taken to realise this?

 

 

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight.

 

He just had to not lose after Hilary.

 

 

 

How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity?

 

Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to.

 

Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid.

 

Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread.

 

Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer.

 

I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year.

 

You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you.

[Fop 1]

Self awareness FTW.

 

I am convinced you think that your (failing) attempts to prove some contrarian argument on a message board is a greater and more noble acheivement than possibly the single most iconic event in modern history

 

It's just funny tbh, the valid point gets lost in the frenzy, but it's still amusing.

List the valid points you've made again. In fact, just give one of them.

List the invalid ones (I know your game too well and I won't play it )

 

At what height does somebody become tall?

 

That is the question.

 

 

Aye, a shit question.

 

Most people would take "how long is a piece of string?" as a rhetorical question that indicates a dead end in the discussion. You seem to want to get into whether or not it's actually string and it's motives behind masquerading as string when some consider it rope.

But clearly people do make that judgement when it comes to "race".

 

Example?

Page 7.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Fop

[spongebob toonpants 3629]

 

plus

 

 

 

equals

 

 

fop

[Fop 1]

 

plus

 

 

 

equals

 

 

fop

The posting pictures part is always fun (although we've already had one abortive attempt back on Page 14).

[spongebob toonpants 3629]

Self awareness FTW.

 

I am convinced you think that your (failing) attempts to prove some contrarian argument on a message board is a greater and more noble acheivement than possibly the single most iconic event in modern history

 

It's just funny tbh, the valid point gets lost in the frenzy, but it's still amusing.

 

 

That would be the valid point you have an inabilty to make I assume

[ChezGiven 0]

Wll you've learnt nothing from the analysis then, most political commentators are putting the victory down to the huge investiments spent in tactical county battles in the key states. The sound-biters are talking credit-crunch/Palin. 48% of the country still voted Republican after the almighty mess they created and taking the hit for the financial collapse. 48%!

 

Obama had a huge task and if he had tried to appear anythign other than a centrist american politician he could have lost the election. This wasnt the same for Clinton whose political equity and ground-level constituency are completely different to Obama's.

 

What did this opportunity look like? What were the practical steps he could have taken to realise this?

 

 

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight.

 

He just had to not lose after Hilary.

 

 

 

How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity?

 

Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to.

 

Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid.

 

Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread.

 

Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer.

 

I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year.

 

You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you.

 

I wasnt arguing that, perhaps if you slowed down with the trying too hard quippery you might read a post or two and reflect on the point. Obama's funds were measured at the end of the process, months after Clinton was out of the race, reflecting his campaigning (i.e fund-raising as this is obviously lost on you) in republican counties.

 

I'm saying he needed to raise that as thats what it took to win.

 

Fair enough though, got a clear opinion, you think it was easier for Obama than it would have been for Clinton. I disagree but thats not a problem.

 

I do think that the effort the Democratic strategists put into fund-raising (which essentially pays for people to go into areas to drum up support and things like the massive Florida campaign 4 weeks ago) shows that the best judges of that question thought it was a way from being in the bag right to the end.

 

I'll derive my opinion from the Democratic strategists.

[Fop 1]

Self awareness FTW.

 

I am convinced you think that your (failing) attempts to prove some contrarian argument on a message board is a greater and more noble acheivement than possibly the single most iconic event in modern history

 

It's just funny tbh, the valid point gets lost in the frenzy, but it's still amusing.

 

 

That would be the valid point you have an inabilty to make I assume

Well there's actually been several, history will be the judge.

[Monkeys Fist 38982]

Page 7.

Hmmm.. where on pge 7 exactly.

I refer you to my previous state of Dollyness

[Happy Face 29]

Self awareness FTW.

 

I am convinced you think that your (failing) attempts to prove some contrarian argument on a message board is a greater and more noble acheivement than possibly the single most iconic event in modern history

 

It's just funny tbh, the valid point gets lost in the frenzy, but it's still amusing.

List the valid points you've made again. In fact, just give one of them.

List the invalid ones (I know your game too well and I won't play it )

 

At what height does somebody become tall?

 

That is the question.

 

 

Aye, a shit question.

 

Most people would take "how long is a piece of string?" as a rhetorical question that indicates a dead end in the discussion. You seem to want to get into whether or not it's actually string and it's motives behind masquerading as string when some consider it rope.

But clearly people do make that judgement when it comes to "race".

 

Example?

Page 7.

 

 

You've not posted on there.

[Fop 1]

Wll you've learnt nothing from the analysis then, most political commentators are putting the victory down to the huge investiments spent in tactical county battles in the key states. The sound-biters are talking credit-crunch/Palin. 48% of the country still voted Republican after the almighty mess they created and taking the hit for the financial collapse. 48%!

 

Obama had a huge task and if he had tried to appear anythign other than a centrist american politician he could have lost the election. This wasnt the same for Clinton whose political equity and ground-level constituency are completely different to Obama's.

 

What did this opportunity look like? What were the practical steps he could have taken to realise this?

 

 

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight.

 

He just had to not lose after Hilary.

 

 

 

How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity?

 

Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to.

 

Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid.

 

Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread.

 

Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer.

 

I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year.

 

You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you.

 

I wasnt arguing that, perhaps if you slowed down with the trying too hard quippery you might read a post or two and reflect on the point. Obama's funds were measured at the end of the process, months after Clinton was out of the race, reflecting his campaigning (i.e fund-raising as this is obviously lost on you) in republican counties.

 

I'm saying he needed to raise that as thats what it took to win.

 

Fair enough though, got a clear opinion, you think it was easier for Obama than it would have been for Clinton. I disagree but thats not a problem.

 

I do think that the effort the Democratic strategists put into fund-raising (which essentially pays for people to go into areas to drum up support and things like the massive Florida campaign 4 weeks ago) shows that the best judges of that question thought it was a way from being in the bag right to the end.

 

I'll derive my opinion from the Democratic strategists.

 

If Obama beat Hilary how would it have been easier for Hilary to beat McCain? Hilary is a divisive figure in herself.

 

Obama beat Hilary on the funding stakes too didn't he? Although she raised a massive amount and the total amount spent this year has gone through the roof, $1.5b or something.

 

And I still don't understand why you think McCain was the front runner? He clearly wasn't. At best he had to run a perfect campaign with no mistakes and a couple of big hammer blows for a tight victory.

[Fop 1]

Page 7.

Hmmm.. where on pge 7 exactly.

I refer you to my previous state of Dollyness

 

 

 

You've not posted on there.

I just wondered if I could make you check.

 

 

(it was page 13 )

Edited November 6, 2008 by Fop

[spongebob toonpants 3629]

Wll you've learnt nothing from the analysis then, most political commentators are putting the victory down to the huge investiments spent in tactical county battles in the key states. The sound-biters are talking credit-crunch/Palin. 48% of the country still voted Republican after the almighty mess they created and taking the hit for the financial collapse. 48%!

 

Obama had a huge task and if he had tried to appear anythign other than a centrist american politician he could have lost the election. This wasnt the same for Clinton whose political equity and ground-level constituency are completely different to Obama's.

 

What did this opportunity look like? What were the practical steps he could have taken to realise this?

 

 

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight.

 

He just had to not lose after Hilary.

 

 

 

How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity?

 

Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to.

 

Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid.

 

Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread.

 

Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer.

 

I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year.

 

You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you.

 

I wasnt arguing that, perhaps if you slowed down with the trying too hard quippery you might read a post or two and reflect on the point. Obama's funds were measured at the end of the process, months after Clinton was out of the race, reflecting his campaigning (i.e fund-raising as this is obviously lost on you) in republican counties.

 

I'm saying he needed to raise that as thats what it took to win.

 

Fair enough though, got a clear opinion, you think it was easier for Obama than it would have been for Clinton. I disagree but thats not a problem.

 

I do think that the effort the Democratic strategists put into fund-raising (which essentially pays for people to go into areas to drum up support and things like the massive Florida campaign 4 weeks ago) shows that the best judges of that question thought it was a way from being in the bag right to the end.

 

I'll derive my opinion from the Democratic strategists.

 

 

The extent to which Obama inspired people to donate, and even more to get out and physically support him is astonishing. The amount of people he had on the ground canvassing, getting people out to the vote, manning phones etc is unreal. He mobilised an army of volunteers.

 

twoplustwo.com is a huge american poker forum I spend far too much time on, with a big old politics sub forum. The uncynical enthusiam, and the sheer number of people who got involved was fantastic to see.

[Monkeys Fist 38982]

Page 7.

Hmmm.. where on pge 7 exactly.

I refer you to my previous state of Dollyness

 

 

 

You've not posted on there.

I just wondered if I could make you check.

 

 

(it was page 13 )

how about you quote he relevant post here, saving us numpties the bother.

[spongebob toonpants 3629]

Wll you've learnt nothing from the analysis then, most political commentators are putting the victory down to the huge investiments spent in tactical county battles in the key states. The sound-biters are talking credit-crunch/Palin. 48% of the country still voted Republican after the almighty mess they created and taking the hit for the financial collapse. 48%!

 

Obama had a huge task and if he had tried to appear anythign other than a centrist american politician he could have lost the election. This wasnt the same for Clinton whose political equity and ground-level constituency are completely different to Obama's.

 

What did this opportunity look like? What were the practical steps he could have taken to realise this?

 

 

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight.

 

He just had to not lose after Hilary.

 

 

 

How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity?

 

Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to.

 

Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid.

 

Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread.

 

Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer.

 

I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year.

 

You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you.

 

I wasnt arguing that, perhaps if you slowed down with the trying too hard quippery you might read a post or two and reflect on the point. Obama's funds were measured at the end of the process, months after Clinton was out of the race, reflecting his campaigning (i.e fund-raising as this is obviously lost on you) in republican counties.

 

I'm saying he needed to raise that as thats what it took to win.

 

Fair enough though, got a clear opinion, you think it was easier for Obama than it would have been for Clinton. I disagree but thats not a problem.

 

I do think that the effort the Democratic strategists put into fund-raising (which essentially pays for people to go into areas to drum up support and things like the massive Florida campaign 4 weeks ago) shows that the best judges of that question thought it was a way from being in the bag right to the end.

 

I'll derive my opinion from the Democratic strategists.

 

If Obama beat Hilary how would it have been easier for Hilary to beat McCain? Hilary is a divisive figure in herself.

 

Obama beat Hilary on the funding stakes too didn't he? Although she raised a massive amount and the total amount spent this year has gone through the roof, $1.5b or something.

 

And I still don't understand why you think McCain was the front runner? He clearly wasn't. At best he had to run a perfect campaign with no mistakes and a couple of big hammer blows for a tight victory.

 

 

So you've now changed your argument from he isnt black to it wasnt much of an acheivement anyway

[Happy Face 29]

Page 7.

Hmmm.. where on pge 7 exactly.

I refer you to my previous state of Dollyness

 

 

 

You've not posted on there.

I just wondered if I could make you check.

 

 

(it was page 13 )

 

 

I'll admit, tearing apart your 'arguments' does help pass the time at work, but it's a shame when you stop even trying.

[Fop 1]

So you've now changed your argument from he isnt black to it wasnt much of an acheivement anyway

Nope.

 

Page 7.

Hmmm.. where on pge 7 exactly.

I refer you to my previous state of Dollyness

 

 

 

You've not posted on there.

I just wondered if I could make you check.

 

 

(it was page 13 )

how about you quote he relevant post here, saving us numpties the bother.

 

I think you missed the point, just a by tad...

 

Page 7.

Hmmm.. where on pge 7 exactly.

I refer you to my previous state of Dollyness

 

 

 

You've not posted on there.

I just wondered if I could make you check.

 

 

(it was page 13 )

 

 

I'll admit, tearing apart your 'arguments' does help pass the time at work, but it's a shame when you stop even trying.

 

In fairness that was too easy (and below the belt), but that it got at least two of you was pretty .