2008 Presidential Election

[Sanguinius]

Yeah, that was pretty much my point (and not that economics is wrong, whatever that means). You can have a successful model and yet it will fail to predict an event simply because too many independent factors can influence the outcome.

I don't really want to get into something of an abstract debate on what science is or anything but if you have a model and claim it shows what happens in the real world and then it doesn't do so as ther're factors infulencing the outcome outside of what the model shows, then it's quite simply wrong. What you're thinking of is probably some model you've seen showing what happens when you alter 1 variable, but for those you need to know that it's implicit that they assume everything else remains the same or ceteris paribus as is usually said. It's not meant to show what's happening with any particular real world event, it's meant to establish general rules on what effect a particular variable has but when analysing real world scenarios more than a single model is required. Also, it's not generally understood but even the models people generally see are a simplified version of the theory as pictographic model's cannot totally incapulsate the ideas expressed within economics. I would recommend watching that video series I added before to get a very good insight into the heart of economics.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=24nVarM20KQ

 

[Uriel]

Fascinating.

Well, the polls indicate that Obama won the evening. However, the winning image from the debate clearly goes to McCain.

Someone photoshop some kind of instrument in the old boys hands, please? Or better yet..... Obama between those gnarled hands?

 

[Aazealh]

I don't really want to get into something of an abstract debate on what science is or anything but if you have a model and claim it shows what happens in the real world and then it doesn't do so as ther're factors infulencing the outcome outside of what the model shows, then it's quite simply wrong. What you're thinking of is probably some model you've seen showing what happens when you alter 1 variable, but for those you need to know that it's implicit that they assume everything else remains the same or ceteris paribus as is usually said. It's not meant to show what's happening with any particular real world event, it's meant to establish general rules on what effect a particular variable has but when analysing real world scenarios more than a single model is required.

I know what economic models are meant for. What I'm telling you is that in the real world, your simple "A & B cause C" scenario just doesn't quite cut it, precisely because things don't always remain the same. That's all, and I'm pretty sure that's also what Griff meant.

 

[Sanguinius]

I know what economic models are meant for. What I'm telling you is that in the real world, your simple "A & B cause C" scenario just doesn't quite cut it, precisely because things don't always remain the same. That's all, and I'm pretty sure that's also what Griff meant.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, you seem to be trying to refute the idea of cause and effect. You seem to be saying that there're "magical forces" at play causing things to happen randomly and rejecting the idea that rational forces are at work in shaping the nature and direction of the economy and hence of human action.

If that's not what you meant then I'll just copy and embolden a bit of what I said in my last post, for either one or the other is the answer to your post.

What you're thinking of is probably some model you've seen showing what happens when you alter 1 variable, but for those you need to know that it's implicit that they assume everything else remains the same or ceteris paribus as is usually said. It's not meant to show what's happening with any particular real world event, it's meant to establish general rules on what effect a particular variable has but when analysing real world scenarios more than a single model is required.

 

[Aazealh]

It's not meant to show what's happening with any particular real world event, it's meant to establish general rules on what effect a particular variable has but when analysing real world scenarios more than a single model is required.

Yes, that's good. But you see, this doesn't answer what I said, it's just another, fancier way of saying the same thing, only you're trying to make it sound like you're explaining it to me. Since you're not sure yet, the point I'm making is that your response to Griffith didn't address his point. That he was talking about real world happenings involving politics and that you replied with "A & B cause C" as if no outside, more or less imprevisible factors were at work. No one said economic science was random so I don't even know why you brought it up. Man, is it ever tiring to try to talk to you about anything.

 

[Sanguinius]

Yes, that's good. But you see, this doesn't answer what I said, it's just another, fancier way of saying the same thing, only you're trying to make it sound like you're explaining it to me. Since you're not sure yet, the point I'm making is that your response to Griffith didn't address his point. That he was talking about real world happenings involving politics and that you replied with "A & B cause C" as if no outside, more or less imprevisible factors were at work. No one said economic science was random so I don't even know why you brought it up. Man, is it ever tiring to try to talk to you about anything.

That's funny, that's how I feel about you, it doesn't matter if it's 1,2,3 up to 10,000 or 100,000 or however many factors. Factor's which affect the economy are comprehensible, what you keep trying to say is that there're incomprehesible i.e. irrational forces at work. Also, if you don't see the practical utility of understanding the affect of a single variable in isolation, well then your loss.

 

[Guts intestines]

Economics is a science, if A & B cause C then A & B cause C whatever country it is in, whatever time it is in. It's "volatility" is merely the interaction of many forces, it's not volatile in the sense of being random. Look at the last link I posted in Adventures in youtube.

I think what our actual main difference is, is not in either McCain or Obama but in the Office of the Presidency, you seem to attribute far more power to the office than I do. In the context of a Democratic sweep of Congress I don't think it matters much what a McCain Presidency would like to do, just as it hasn't much mattered what President Bush wants to do when the Democrats control the HoR now. However, I do think having division of the executive and legaslative branches will not only keep the Presidency in check but the Congress as well. That's why I think Clinton was a relatively good president, not because of any great virtue of his personally but because of the balance of power with a Democratic Presidency and a Republican HoR.

Now normally I wouldn't jump into a "discussion" between others when it is becoming heated, but I definitely agree with Griff and Aaz on this. The main problem here Sanguinius is that you're missing the nuance in what Griff was saying when he said "volatile", so instead you took it to mean random. So to this you said that Economics work based off the principle of a+b= c, however the volatility lies in the fact that rarely in the real world are a and b given, which is what I believe Aaz meant when he said it isn't as simple as a+b=c, in fact you sorta said this yourself when you said that its volatility is merely based off the interactions of many forces, however you should have taken more stock in the fact that all of those many forces are the things that make it so volatile.

Right now, many are questioning where the bottom lies of this economic plunge that we're in, many claim that the economy can't really right itself until it hits this bottom because that'll be the time in which to start buying again, so that immediately changes the equation into ?+b=c, to further complicate it without knowing what "a" is we can't reliably predict when or what "b" will be, if "a" ends up being that the economy bottoms out so low that buyers don't want to/can't buy that adversely affect b, so that pretty much turns b into an undetermined variable. We know what we want "c" to be, and that'd be the economy fixing itself, but our desired end may not be what happens in reality, so who's to say what "c" will be either? So now the equation looks like ?+?=?, all because a, b, and c, each have variables affecting what they'll be.

You seemed to understand this when you said that the abc thing was simplified, but then you turned right around and defended it again after Aaz said that that was what he was telling you. But again the problem was when you misunderstood Griff's use of volatile as random when in a nutshell all he was saying is that we don't know how McCain will do as president, nor will we know how Obama does until either one of them have been pres long enough to make a judgement, and that since your "predictions" are in fact happening already within our economy, they only further complicate the situation, which overall makes an outcome unpredictable in the present moment, which is all I think Griff was saying.

Things would be much simpler if you'd just ask others to explain their reasoning instead of immediately assuming what they meant, then going further down a mislead path with big overly fancified language because it honestly makes you sound really pretentious and arrogant.

 

[Griffith]

Boy, I'm sure glad I chose to go to sleep last night (thanks Aaz and Guts' guts). =)

Anyway, you did misconstrue my point, Sang. Yes, economics is indeed a science, a very complex and fluid one at that, and like any science it is not complete. Whether or not you want to say there are irrational forces at work in it, my point was actually that due to the sheer numbers of forces and complexity in macro economics, there are comprehensible forces beyond complete understanding and control at this point, therefore creating uncontrolled variables for whomever is acting upon the problem. As you say, it may all be comprehensible, but that doesn't mean it's simple.

 

[Guts intestines]

Boy, I'm sure glad I chose to go to sleep last night (thanks Aaz and Guts' guts). =)

Anyway, you did misconstrue my point, Sang. Yes, economics is indeed a science, a very complex and fluid one at that, and like any science it is not complete. Whether or not you want to say there are irrational forces at work in it, my point was actually that due to the sheer numbers of forces and complexity in macro economics, there are comprehensible forces beyond complete understanding and control at this point, therefore creating uncontrolled variables for whomever is acting upon the problem. As you say, it may all be comprehensible, but that doesn't mean it's simple.

Exactly, if it were so simple as it's being made to sound then it wouldn't be much of a crisis now would it?

 

[Sanguinius]

Now normally I wouldn't jump into a "discussion" between others when it is becoming heated, but I definitely agree with Griff and Aaz on this. The main problem here Sanguinius is that you're missing the nuance in what Griff was saying when he said "volatile", so instead you took it to mean random. So to this you said that Economics work based off the principle of a+b= c, however the volatility lies in the fact that rarely in the real world are a and b given, which is what I believe Aaz meant when he said it isn't as simple as a+b=c, in fact you sorta said this yourself when you said that its volatility is merely based off the interactions of many forces, however you should have taken more stock in the fact that all of those many forces are the things that make it so volatile.

Right now, many are questioning where the bottom lies of this economic plunge that we're in, many claim that the economy can't really right itself until it hits this bottom because that'll be the time in which to start buying again, so that immediately changes the equation into ?+b=c, to further complicate it without knowing what "a" is we can't reliably predict when or what "b" will be, if "a" ends up being that the economy bottoms out so low that buyers don't want to/can't buy that adversely affect b, so that pretty much turns b into an undetermined variable. We know what we want "c" to be, and that'd be the economy fixing itself, but our desired end may not be what happens in reality, so who's to say what "c" will be either? So now the equation looks like ?+?=?, all because a, b, and c, each have variables affecting what they'll be.

You seemed to understand this when you said that the abc thing was simplified, but then you turned right around and defended it again after Aaz said that that was what he was telling you. But again the problem was when you misunderstood Griff's use of volatile as random when in a nutshell all he was saying is that we don't know how McCain will do as president, nor will we know how Obama does until either one of them have been pres long enough to make a judgement, and that since your "predictions" are in fact happening already within our economy, they only further complicate the situation, which overall makes an outcome unpredictable in the present moment, which is all I think Griff was saying.

Things would be much simpler if you'd just ask others to explain their reasoning instead of immediately assuming what they meant, then going further down a mislead path with big overly fancified language because it honestly makes you sound really pretentious and arrogant.

Well actually most of my comments were directed at Aaz not Griffith when he said economics was a "social" science like psychology, and was refuting the idea that rational forces infulence the direction of the economy. That's what i was talking about, a + b up to a quarillion factors as the case may be, cause and effect, it wasn't anything to do with what Griffith said it just sparked it. That's what makes it a science, that it can be studied because it is the by product of rational factors, whether we know the quadrillion factors or not is immeterial.

As for the current crises, it's not a mystery, it was overwhelmingly caused by 2 factors, so literally it is a+b= c "credit crunch" "a" being below true market rates of interest caused by price fixing in the federal reserve and "b" being government regulation mandating credit extension to high risk individuals and projects. Also, the Credit crunch isn't actually a problem, it's the sympton of a problem, although it does cause problems for certain individuals. As for my 5 points you'll see in time that they haven't happened in any meaningful way or at all in some cases yet, but you'll feel it when they do truly happen.

Also no need for "" around disussion, it wasn't a discussion at all, it you want to call it something, try parallel monologue.

Boy, I'm sure glad I chose to go to sleep last night (thanks Aaz and Guts' guts). =)

Anyway, you did misconstrue my point, Sang. Yes, economics is indeed a science, a very complex and fluid one at that, and like any science it is not complete. Whether or not you want to say there are irrational forces at work in it, my point was actually that due to the sheer numbers of forces and complexity in macro economics, there are comprehensible forces beyond complete understanding and control at this point, therefore creating uncontrolled variables for whomever is acting upon the problem. As you say, it may all be comprehensible, but that doesn't mean it's simple.

I'm not saying it's caused by irrational forces, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying, if my use of words isn't clear then sorry but I'm not an orator. Also, I never said it was simple if it was simple even governments would be able to organise the economy. Also it's not so much that it's incomplete although it is, it teaches that it's impossible to centrally plan due to the calculation problem, which is trying to measure the signals sent by evey person in the economy which cannot be known to central planners. Which is why you can make predictions on what'll happen when government does intervene because governments are so simplistic in camparison to the market, because they're so repetitive, like these "dialogues".

 

[Aazealh]

Factor's which affect the economy are comprehensible, what you keep trying to say is that there're incomprehesible i.e. irrational forces at work.

"Incomprehensible" and "irrational" don't mean the same thing, and what I said was just that those forces aren't all predictable. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Also, if you don't see the practical utility of understanding the affect of a single variable in isolation, well then your loss.

Totally gratuitous and unwarranted retort.

Well actually most of my comments were directed at Aaz not Griffith when he said economics was a "social" science like psychology

Well it is indeed a social science, now isn't it?

and was refuting the idea that rational forces infulence the direction of the economy.

I never said so.

That's what i was talking about, a + b up to a quarillion factors as the case may be, cause and effect, it wasn't anything to do with what Griffith said it just sparked it.

So you posted quoting Griffith but weren't replying to what he said? Should have said so.

 

[Griffith]

I'm not saying it's caused by irrational forces, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying, if my use of words isn't clear then sorry but I'm not an orator.

I know, it was my words that weren't clear, when I said, "Whether or not you want to say there are irrational forces at work in it" I was speaking generally, it was only specific to your in the case of "or not." I should have said "whether or not one wants..." In any case, I was only making it clear that I don't think that either, except arguably in certain cases with markets and other "human" factors which can be irrational, and lead to crisis.

Also, I never said it was simple if it was simple even governments would be able to organise the economy. Also it's not so much that it's incomplete although it is, it teaches that it's impossible to centrally plan due to the calculation problem, which is trying to measure the signals sent by evey person in the economy which cannot be known to central planners. Which is why you can make predictions on what'll happen when government does intervene because governments are so simplistic in camparison to the market, because they're so repetitive, like these "dialogues".

That's essentially what I was trying to imply, or at least part of what I was trying to convey. Anyway, I think we can agree there is a reason why they award a Nobel prize in Economics and not Government or Debate. =)

 

[Sanguinius]

"Incomprehensible" and "irrational" don't mean the same thing, and what I said was just that those forces aren't all predictable. Please don't put words in my mouth.

So some rational processes are incomprehensible, how can rational human action be incomprehensible to the human mind?

Totally gratuitous and unwarranted retort.

If you say so.

Well it is indeed a social science, now isn't it?

Indeed but the word social is a reference to it's area of study, it doesn't lessen its "scientific" status.

I never said so.

Well you kept trying to say the opposite of what I was saying when I was saying that, maybe we just got into a contrarian spiral.

So you posted quoting Griffith but weren't replying to what he said? Should have said so.

As I said my original post to Griffith was the spark, my subsequent "dialogue" with you was a seperate "dialogue".

I know, it was my words that weren't clear, when I said, "Whether or not you want to say there are irrational forces at work in it" I was speaking generally, it was only specific to your in the case of "or not." I should have said "whether or not one wants..." In any case, I was only making it clear that I don't think that either, except arguably in certain cases with markets and other "human" factors which can be irrational, and lead to crisis.

That's essentially what I was trying to imply, or at least part of what I was trying to convey. Anyway, I think we can agree there is a reason why they award a Nobel prize in Economics and not Government or Debate. =)

Just thinking, if I'd said A + B ...... = C would that have stopped this from starting? Also hopefully not going to start another spiral of bizarre conversation but human decisions are always rational, they can be misinformed and fail to achieve their objectives and people can have highly diverse objectives from a variety of motivational factors but they're always rational.

I will agree with you on your 2nd paragraph, although, as we're talking about economics to a degree. I do wonder, if "we" did award our politicans at the end of their terms some substantive reward based on their performance, I wonder how politicans actions would change.

 

[Griffith]

Just thinking, if I'd said A + B ...... = C would that have stopped this from starting?

I don't think so, I don't think it was any misunderstanding of that example which furthered the conversation.

Also hopefully not going to start another spiral of bizarre conversation but human decisions are always rational, they can be misinformed and fail to achieve their objectives and people can have highly diverse objections from a variety of motivational factors but they're always rational.

You should meet my ex-girlfriend.

I will agree with you on your 2nd paragraph, although, as we're talking about economics to a degree. I do wonder, if "we" did award our politicans at the end of their terms some substantive reward based on their performance, I wonder how politicans actions would change.

I thought of this too as soon as I wrote that sentence; why don't they award a Nobel prize for Government, and if they did, would Government planners, and even Governments themselves, be better motivated to experiment and strive for improvement, basically for the sake of winning an award with worldwide recognition? I think the answer is yes, and therefore they should award a prize for Government. =)

 

[Guts intestines]

Well actually most of my comments were directed at Aaz not Griffith when he said economics was a "social" science like psychology, and was refuting the idea that rational forces infulence the direction of the economy. That's what i was talking about, a + b up to a quarillion factors as the case may be, cause and effect, it wasn't anything to do with what Griffith said it just sparked it. That's what makes it a science, that it can be studied because it is the by product of rational factors, whether we know the quadrillion factors or not is immeterial.

Problem is that he was merely reiterating/clarifying what Griff was saying. Secondly economics is a social science, as in the sense that it deals with the social interactions of humans, you know dealing with the markets, which are based off the exchange of money in the simplest sense, it seeks to determine how wealth is produced and distributed, as Aazealh said it's a social science, hell the word "economics" is greek for family, household, etc. Psychology is a social science as well, he seemed to have just been correcting you, but you took it as some sort of attack or detraction on economics as a whole, I like psychology so should I take your immediate rebuttal of Aazealh pairing of economics with Psychology as some sort of attack?

And no, if you don't know the quadrillion factors you can't accurately explain where the by products of economics are coming from which muddies the science, it's the same way that Psychology can't quite explain why sociopaths are the way that they are because there's argument on whether or not evil exists or is something medically wrong with the brain. The existence of evil, or the existence of problems within the brain are just two unknown factors that affect that science, and there isn't any science that can write off unknown factors as immaterial and still be credible.

As for the current crises, it's not a mystery, it was overwhelmingly caused by 2 factors, so literally it is a+b= c "credit crunch" "a" being below true market rates of interest caused by price fixing in the federal reserve and "b" being government regulation mandating credit extension to high risk individuals and projects. Also, the Credit crunch isn't actually a problem, it's the sympton of a problem, although it does cause problems for certain individuals. As for my 5 points you'll see in time that they haven't happened in any meaningful way or at all in some cases yet, but you'll feel it when they do truly happen.

Yes, however we didn't know until after it happened the crisis what a, and b were in the sense of this equation because barring the credit crunch happening the things causing the credit crunch only exist on their own not as symptoms of something else.

Also no need for "" around disussion, it wasn't a discussion at all, it you want to call it something, try parallel monologue.

Okay?

So some rational processes are incomprehensible, how can rational human action be incomprehensible to the human mind?

Because we all have our own minds and think differently which is why what is rational to some may or may not be rational to someone else, also circumstance affects human rationality. Anyway, does anyone else think we should drop or redirect this discussion, er "parallel monologue" to something else political, because it isn't going anywhere right now except finding flaws in what others are saying.

 

[Aazealh]

So some rational processes are incomprehensible, how can rational human action be incomprehensible to the human mind?

"Incomprehensible" and "irrational" don't mean the same thing, and what I said was just that those forces aren't all predictable. Please don't put words in my mouth.

If you say so.

Then it must be true!

Indeed but the word social is a reference to it's area of study, it doesn't lessen its "scientific" status.

I didn't say it lessened its "scientific" status.

Well you kept trying to say the opposite of what I was saying when I was saying that, maybe we just got into a contrarian spiral.

No, I didn't keep trying to say the opposite of what you were saying. I was honestly just commenting on how I thought you didn't do Griff justice by answering his post like you did. I do believe that you were intent on refuting whatever I said though, which is why I think you mistook my point, and yeah that got us into a contrarian spiral.

human decisions are always rational

Ohohoh, are you sure? Does a madman always act rationally? (feel free to ignore this comment, I'm teasing you)

Anyway, does anyone else think we should drop or redirect this discussion, er "parallel monologue" to something else political, because it isn't going anywhere right now except finding flaws in what others are saying.

Yeah, you're probably right.

 

[Sanguinius]

Then it must be true!

Fair enough.

Ohohoh, are you sure? Does a madman always act rationally? (feel free to ignore this comment, I'm teasing you)

I know you're teasing me, but actually, yes, even a madman's actions are rational. You just have to ditinguish between motivation and rational action, motivation is subjective from human to human as it's based on differing value systems and information. But human action is a rational judgement towards an objective, the objective may be unique and highly bizarre or "mad" to some, but this does not reduce its rationality.

Yes, however we didn't know until after it happened the crisis what a, and b were in the sense of this equation because barring the credit crunch happening the things causing the credit crunch only exist on their own not as symptoms of something else.

Actually, I knew this was going to happen long before it did and the candidate I thought was best for the USA Ron Paul knew it was going to happen as well, as indeed did other followers of the Austrian School of Economics. If anything the process was the opposite, they seen A+B and by using economic theory, predicted the outcome C as is currently happening.

 

[Walter]

Hey, I voted today. What about you schmucks?

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

Hey, I voted today. What about you schmucks?

Nope. 

Edit: Nader '08!

 

[Griffith]

Actually, I knew this was going to happen long before it did and the candidate I thought was best for the USA Ron Paul knew it was going to happen as well, as indeed did other followers of the Austrian School of Economics. If anything the process was the opposite, they seen A+B and by using economic theory, predicted the outcome C as is currently happening.

As indeed did many others, and I wouldn't invoke of the Austrian School while discussing the scientific approach of economics considering it's lacking in scientific methodology, mathematics, and empirical testability are its major flaws. It's economics for people like me.

Hey, I voted today. What about you schmucks?

No such luck.

 

[Sanguinius]

As indeed did many others, and I wouldn't invoke of the Austrian School while discussing the scientific approach of economics considering it's lack of scientific methodology, mathematics, and empirical testability are its major flaws. It's economics for people like me.

No such luck.

That description of the Austrian School is a derogatory description as expressed by its detractors, the austrian school has a record of making accurate predictions about the economic systems throughout the World. It predicted the Great depression in the mid twenties it predicted that Hoover's solutions and then FDR's solutions wouldn't work and they didn't and why and how they wouldn't. It predicted that Bretton Woods would collapse after WW2 and all the way up to the present it predicted the Dot Com Boom and and this current crises. All the while the fundamentals of the School have not changed unlike the Keynesian and Monetarist schools which change on a regular basis always altering their theories to patch up over events which occured that they did not predict.

So the testing you describe is well demonstrated in their predictions of the economy in the real world. If you understand Austrian Economics you'd know that they cannot be subject to the emperical testing that other schools use as you'd realise how flawed their testing methods are. They're flawed becasue they use sample sizes which is to treat human activity as homogenous, whilst it is hetrogenous, if you like, the real world economy and the predictions that Austrian economists make about it are their emperical tests and given their record of prediction of real world events against that of the orthodox schools, I know which one seems to depict the real world more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

There's a reasonably good description of what Austrian Economics is and is not, athough obviously it's a wikipedia entry so it is sucinct and doesn't really make clear a number of ideas.

 

[Griffith]

That description of the Austrian School is a derogatory description as expressed by its detractors

Well, detractors usually use derogatory descriptions when describing what they're detracting. =)

It doesn't mean those criticisms are any less true, but that doesn't refute Austrian economics of course, I was simply pointing out that it does have it's critics in the economics community. Those factors are simply something that should be considered with it. I wasn't completely insulting myself when I said it was economics for people like me.

the austrian school has a record of making accurate predictions about the economic systems throughout the World. It predicted the Great depression in the mid twenties it predicted that Hoover's solutions and then FDR's solutions wouldn't work and they didn't and why and how they wouldn't. It predicted that Bretton Woods would collapse after WW2 and all the way up to the present it predicted the Dot Com Boom and and this current crises. All the while the fundamentals of the School have not changed unlike the Keynesian and Monetarist schools which change on a regular basis always altering their theories to patch up over events which occured that they did not predict.

Fair enough, I'm not denying it's success there, but by that same token one of the other major criticisms associated with it is its deficiency in viable solutions-oriented progressivism in economic theory, another drawback to a lack of testability.

So the testing you describe is well demonstrated in their predictions of the economy in the real world. If you understand Austrian Economics you'd know that they cannot be subject to the emperical testing that other schools use as you'd realise how flawed their testing methods are. They're flawed becasue they use sample sizes which is to treat human activity as homogenous, whilst it is hetrogenous, if you like, the real world economy and the predictions that Austrian economists make about it are their emperical tests and given their record of prediction of real world events against that of the orthodox schools, I know which one seems to depict the real world more.

I'm by no means throwing out Austrian economics, just pointing out its own potential pitfalls and practical limitations.

If you want to expand the discussion, perhaps you should start a thread on economics?

 

[Xem]

Nope.

Edit: Nader '08!

I can't even vote for him in Georgia sadly. :( Looks like I have to write in my cat again...

 

[Griffith]

It amounts to about the same.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

It amounts to about the same.

Except "My Cat" has a better chance of winning.