OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[bdunn13]

"Clinton's tax policies all you want but under the latter, the economy was a lot better, the fiscal condition was a lot better"

Mickey Mouse could have been president during the .dotcom boom and the economy would have soared. But the economy started to tank around 98 and no one ever mentions that unless they credit it to the .dotcom bust.

[JackB1]

I have heard that argument so many times for not voting for a 3rd party candidate. If people actually voted for who they wanted and not for who they thought had a chance to win, then we might see some better candidates.

What about the bigger issue of voting for the Democratic candidate in a state that is overwhelmingly Republican and vice versa? I am a case in point here.
Should I not bother to vote in GA because my democratic vote won't count towards anything when McCain wins the GA Electoral vote?

Does anyone think we will EVER move to a pure popular vote? I sure hope so.

[bdunn13]

No. It's in the constitution how the president is selected and that will NEVER be changed. How your state(GA) selects its electorates can change. I believe some states now are doing partial electorates based on their state's popular vote(which is basically what you want and would solve the populare vote thing you have issues with)... maybe Minnesota(I am not sure). However, most states will never do this either as it would help the right more as NY and Cali would then come into play as electorates could be split.


Hell, NO ONE in this country has a constitutional right to vote for president. I bet 90% of Americans or more think they do(or 800% of ACORN voters.... joke).

[JRod]

Does anyone think we will EVER move to a pure popular vote? I sure hope so.

Then the areas and states with large populations would dominate elections. Why would a candidate focus on New Mexico when he/she should just stay in Texas, Cali, New York etc.

The founders had the same argument.

[RobVarak]

Obama looks aloof because he is an intelligent individual and unfortunately for the rest of us there are a lot of stupid people out there who are offended by those brighter than they are. Get over it.

Actually, I think he looks aloof because he's a manipulative egghead who's trying to pull one over on the American electorate. Emotional distance helps the lies go down easier.

It's an old Chicago tactic to look bored and haughty when really sticking it to the voters. You look passionate and engaged only when you're behind.

Look at what happened the last time we had an intelligent well educated figure in the WH, things were prosperous and life was good. The worst thing that happened involved a cigar and black dress.

You mean the "intelligent well educated" guy who had his law license suspended as a sanction for unethical behavior and was impeached for lying under oath and who admittedly lied directly to the American people with all the fervor of a Baptist preacher? Yeah, he was a real rocket scientist. Took lots of brains to pull off that caper.

And the worst things that happened had nothing to do with Lewinsky. They had to do with ineptitude in foreign affairs, mishandling of the international terrorist threat, laying the foundation for the current economic crisis and decimating the military.

[wco81]

"Clinton's tax policies all you want but under the latter, the economy was a lot better, the fiscal condition was a lot better"

Mickey Mouse could have been president during the .dotcom boom and the economy would have soared. But the economy started to tank around 98 and no one ever mentions that unless they credit it to the .dotcom bust.

And what's been happening since the real estate boom and bust?

[bdunn13]

And what's been happening since the real estate boom and bust?

Whats your point? I don't recall ever patting Bush on the back for job well done.

[Brando70]

For all the complaints about the electoral college, it wouldn't really make a difference to have direct popular election of the president. It's true that, in states where there is a heavy leaning of votes toward one party, voters from the opposite party (or parties) would have more reason to vote. But it wouldn't alter the overall trend.

Furthermore, with the electoral college being proportional, it usually reflects the popular vote anyway. If you could split electoral votes, that probably would not affect the overall election, as votes lost in one state would be inevitably gained in another. You'd get the same result.

The simple rule is that the states elect the president, and the voters in those states determine how that state votes. The 2000 election obviously appears odd in having Gore win more of the overall popular vote, but that's not the criteria.

[wco81]

And the worst things that happened had nothing to do with Lewinsky. They had to do with ineptitude in foreign affairs, mishandling of the international terrorist threat, laying the foundation for the current economic crisis and decimating the military.

Right. It's Clinton's fault.

[RobVarak]

And the worst things that happened had nothing to do with Lewinsky. They had to do with ineptitude in foreign affairs, mishandling of the international terrorist threat, laying the foundation for the current economic crisis and decimating the military.

Right. It's Clinton's fault.

I assume that you're talking about the financial crisis. It's not solely, and not even mostly his fault. I said, "laying the foundation," because many of the predicating events happened on his watch, some at his direction. Even he admitted that Democrats' mishandling of F&F was a factor.

Then again he' been campaigning for McCain, so I'm not surprised. LOL

Incidentally, memo to Hillary re: post-debate spinning last night.

Anytime someone explicitly says over and over that they're doing something "enthusiastically," they're not really enthusiastic.

[RobVarak]

Edit: Didn't see that Teal already posted it.

I guess we really do have an education crisis...and it starts in Scranton

[wco81]

The only predicate Clinton was involved in was signing the 2000 CFMA.

And of course, this let the Bush administration turn a blind eye to all the questionable practices, from the loan origination level to derivatives.

Not that they needed a law to permit them to follow their ideological inclinations.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/ ... andin.html

[GameSeven]

And the worst things that happened had nothing to do with Lewinsky. They had to do with ineptitude in foreign affairs, mishandling of the international terrorist threat, laying the foundation for the current economic crisis and decimating the military.

Precisely. This is what most concerns me about the prospect of an Obama-nation.

[davet010]

And the worst things that happened had nothing to do with Lewinsky. They had to do with ineptitude in foreign affairs, mishandling of the international terrorist threat, laying the foundation for the current economic crisis and decimating the military.

Precisely. This is what most concerns me about the prospect of an Obama-nation.

From a foreigner's perspective, that is so amusing it's not true. Ineptitude in foreign affairs...inability to deal with an international threat and econonic crises....

That could be either Bush, it would appear to me.

[wco81]

And the worst things that happened had nothing to do with Lewinsky. They had to do with ineptitude in foreign affairs, mishandling of the international terrorist threat, laying the foundation for the current economic crisis and decimating the military.

Precisely. This is what most concerns me about the prospect of an Obama-nation.

From a foreigner's perspective, that is so amusing it's not true. Ineptitude in foreign affairs...inability to deal with an international threat and econonic crises....

That could be either Bush, it would appear to me.

It shouldn't be surprising. The ideological right in this country favors faith-based, rather than fact-based reality.

Scientists are scorned or suppressed if they try to report findings which don't conform to their orthodoxy, such as global climate change.

[pk500]

I have heard that argument so many times for not voting for a 3rd party candidate. If people actually voted for who they wanted and not for who they thought had a chance to win, then we might see some better candidates.

What about the bigger issue of voting for the Democratic candidate in a state that is overwhelmingly Republican and vice versa? I am a case in point here.
Should I not bother to vote in GA because my democratic vote won't count towards anything when McCain wins the GA Electoral vote?

Does anyone think we will EVER move to a pure popular vote? I sure hope so.

Agree with you on that, kemosabe.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Does anyone think we will EVER move to a pure popular vote? I sure hope so.

Then the areas and states with large populations would dominate elections. Why would a candidate focus on New Mexico when he/she should just stay in Texas, Cali, New York etc.

That's a quaint, yet very antiquated, argument in this era of instant information.

The Founding Fathers had it right for their times, in which information traveled at the speed of horse and buggy. You didn't want candidates campaigning in Washington, Philly, Boston and D.C. because the agrarian population never would have received much information on the candidates and their positions.

But saying the Electoral College keeps candidates visiting rural areas is folly in this era in which every campaign stop and speech is available within minutes on the Web either in blog or video form. People in the most remote regions of the nation have nearly the same information access to the candidates and their positions as those in metro areas.

The only reason candidates visit rural areas during campaigns is for speeches and photo ops to appear tuned in to "regular folk." That wouldn't change in a system without the Electoral College.

Take care,
PK

[Naples39]

Incidentally, I was horrified by something new in this debate. Obama's answer when asked about the qualifications for Federal judiciary appointments:

I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that's the kind of judge that I want.

Courts do not exist to "stand up" for anybody. That's the province of advocates like attorneys, legislators and other politicians. Justice must aspire to the blindness long attributed to her, and a judge who looks beyond the merits of the case and the rule of law ceases to be an arbiter and becomes something else entirely...and something incompatible with our legal system.

Just another glimpse inside the activist mind of the Senator from the great State of Government.

That is a deeply disturbing answer. I've said in the past that 'legislating from the bench' is usually a baseless accusation, but Obama is practically encouraging the practice in its purest form.

I would've hated to have Obama as my con law lecturer!

[Jackdog]

It shouldn't be surprising. The ideological right in this country favors faith-based, rather than fact-based reality.

Scientists are scorned or suppressed if they try to report findings which don't conform to their orthodoxy, such as global climate change.

I don't want to step on the "Ripping Christians" part of the thread,but what Scientist was suppressed?

[GameSeven]

Precisely. This is what most concerns me about the prospect of an Obama-nation.

From a foreigner's perspective, that is so amusing it's not true. Ineptitude in foreign affairs...inability to deal with an international threat and econonic crises....

That could be either Bush, it would appear to me.

It shouldn't be surprising. The ideological right in this country favors faith-based, rather than fact-based reality.

Scientists are scorned or suppressed if they try to report findings which don't conform to their orthodoxy, such as global climate change.

Generalize much?

[Naples39]

It shouldn't be surprising. The ideological right in this country favors faith-based, rather than fact-based reality.

Scientists are scorned or suppressed if they try to report findings which don't conform to their orthodoxy, such as global climate change.

I don't want to step on the "Ripping Christians" part of the thread,but what Scientist was suppressed?

I've always thought the ostracizing was the other way around, as the 'consensus' of scientists warning of global warming essentially blacklist anyone who dares to disagree or label him a wacko.

Now if you want to criticize evangelicals for some of the nonsense and hijinks around intelligent design I won't disagree with you.

[XXXIV]

It shouldn't be surprising. The ideological right in this country favors faith-based, rather than fact-based reality.

Scientists are scorned or suppressed if they try to report findings which don't conform to their orthodoxy, such as global climate change.

I don't want to step on the "Ripping Christians" part of the thread,but what Scientist was suppressed?

1) Christians are all evil .

2) Found some suppression. Anyone seen any talk of this on the news anywhere?
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo ... e10866.htm

[macsomjrr]

And the worst things that happened had nothing to do with Lewinsky. They had to do with ineptitude in foreign affairs, mishandling of the international terrorist threat, laying the foundation for the current economic crisis and decimating the military.

The Iraq War has single handedly done more damage to our economy and pissed off more potential terrorists than Clinton has done his entire life. I'd rather have Whitewater and Lewinsky over this travesty of a President any day of the week. McCain/Palin is Bush/Cheney part three and I'm not having any part of it. With Obama/Biden the worst we'll probably get is a torrid affair, oh my! Not infidelity! What's next? Affordable healthcare for everyone? Increased taxes for those making over $250,000/year? The stinking rich need to pay to get this economy back on track anyway. All those CEOs making ridiculous sums of cash and sitting back comfortably while the middle/lower class can barely feed their kids is just insanity. You get rich in America, you help America, it's very simple.

[Jackdog]

The Iraq War has single handedly done more damage to our economy and pissed off more potential terrorists than Clinton has done his entire life.

Where are they? They sure as hell haven't done anything on American soil since 9/11. I think the bullshit that happened over the last 2 years on Wall Street and in the hallways of Congress f***ed up our economy more than the war in Iraq.

Increased taxes for those making over $250,000/year? The stinking rich need to pay to get this economy back on track anyway. All those CEOs making ridiculous sums of cash and sitting back comfortably while the middle/lower class can barely feed their kids is just insanity. You get rich in America, you help America, it's very simple.

The hell with the CEO's. They need to be in jail. How about small business? I posted this a few pages ago. I had two small business that grossed ove 250,000 a year. My net after expenses was under 30,000. Is that rich? Not to me. I had to close the doors too both of them because of taxes owed.

Joe the Plumber gets it. He calls it what it is. Socialism. No thanks. If you worked your ass off to be a success you shouldn't have to carry the water for those that don't work at all.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... 6&src=news

[Naples39]

I'm not sure I'd classify someone making $250k a year as 'stinking rich.'

All these talk Obama loves to reiterate about CEOs making tons of money and 'closing corporate loopholes' are jargon and 'talking points' more than actual policy with any meat to it. It makes a neat and tidy news story when you hear about a few CEOs run amok like with Enron or Tyco but the reality is those are isolated cases of people who committed crimes regardless of who is in the oval office. It has nothing to do with tax policy.

And what happens in 2011 when the George Bush tax cuts sunset under a Dem congress and Prez Obama? That will raise the tax rates for people making as little as $28k a year.