2008 Presidential Primaries

Who ya got?

  • Clinton

    Votes: 6 15.8%
  • McCain

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Obama

    Votes: 25 65.8%

  • Total voters
    38

SMZKAH

I shall find the crystal of peace
John%20McCain.jpg
 

Okin

The Ultimate Battle Creature
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Are you trying to make a connection between Guts and McCain? They are not even related. :schierke:

I don't know...that picture makes me think otherwise. It is a canny similarity. :troll:
 

SMZKAH

I shall find the crystal of peace
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Are you trying to make a connection between Guts and McCain? They are not even related. :schierke:

No, not necessarily. I just found it ironic that I could find such an appropriate image.
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith No More! said:
Ironic, but late. :badbone:

Seems McCain does still fight against the odds.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11412562
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
Sanguinius said:
Seems McCain does still fight against the odds.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11412562

That article sounds exactly like every libertarian radio speaker that I've heard in the past week. Even down to when they mutter a coherent sentence about food stamps at the end of their spiel. The aid congress gives to farmers is high, but only untill recently have they actually started making enough money to where the can support their selves. Still this bill is designed to help out the POORER farmers which unlike the other farmers are not selling their entire corn stock as bio fuel.

Truth is, libertarians are against all government spending that is not Military or Police. Well, I call shenanigans on that.
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
That article sounds exactly like every libertarian radio speaker that I've heard in the past week. Even down to when they mutter a coherent sentence about food stamps at the end of their spiel. The aid congress gives to farmers is high, but only untill recently have they actually started making enough money to where the can support their selves. Still this bill is designed to help out the POORER farmers which unlike the other farmers are not selling their entire corn stock as bio fuel.

Truth is, libertarians are against all government spending that is not Military or Police. Well, I call shenanigans on that.

The economist is some 150 years old; read around the world and is one of the most respected publications in the world. With that in mind their statistics are as reliable as they come, and you're clearly not looking at the chart breakdown of recipients or not trusting it. In that chart it clearly shows that some 80% of recipients receive only about 10% of payments. Some 20% of recipients are receiving 90% of the money of this programme, now admittedly that chart isn't showing what their wealth is. However if you think that 20% is the poorest 20%, I'm not even going to bother showing you other breakdowns of those recipients as you'd probably just dismiss them in the way you did that.


Anyway, my point is that McCain still takes on vested interest groups (even whilst still running for his party's nomination) when it comes to policy, unlike Obama for example. Plus McCain has more to lose by it than Obama, as the types of people who benefit from those subsidies are on the whole more inclined towards the Republicans and he does this despite their natural inclination to the Republican Party. So while McCain is willing to shoot himself in the foot (to an extent) to do what's best for his country Obama focuses more on issues that can only boost his popularity. So what do you want in a leader? someone who takes on vested interest groups even if they're his own natural supporters and risks losing their support or someone who gives in to special interest groups to avoid any controversy. I challenge anyone to mention 1 major issue on which Obama is doing something that clashes with a vested interest group in the Democrat party or supports a highly unpopular policy among the general public.
 

Vampire_Hunter_Bob

Cats are great
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.

I don't understand this either because California already voted for their nominee and none of this has anything to do with bobby kennedy. So why bring it up?
 

CnC

Ad Oculos
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
I don't understand this either because California already voted for their nominee and none of this has anything to do with bobby kennedy. So why bring it up?

Well the argument for June doesn't have much validity as the primaries were earlier this year, and the delegate count wasn't the same for Bill Clinton.

The assassination thing is a bit wierd, tho. Perhaps she's hoping someone takes out Obama :troll:
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sanguinius said:
I challenge anyone to mention 1 major issue on which Obama is doing something that clashes with a vested interest group in the Democrat party or supports a highly unpopular policy among the general public.

Well, he was the only candidate not to vote for invading Iraq when it was apparently a popular choice at the time. To paraphrase our favorite publication, Barack Obama boldly voted against the bill; John McCain didn't. I guess it's just that simple, and represents that Obama is a harbinger of peace and utopia while John McCain is a regressive war mongering dinosaur. =)

Anyway, you're sure reading a lot into both of these candidates, and waxing poetic, on the basis of an article which mentions them once in a final sentence, and in a very deliberate and purposeful fashion. Not exactly the objective completist's guide to these two men. McCain has his own skeletons when it comes to special interest groups and scandal, such as his involvement as one of the "Keating Five", and the more recently the accusations of an improper relationship with a lobbyist, including an alleged affair, which wouldn't be as believable if McCain didn't have a history as a serial philanderer, and whose interest group he then went to bat for. Personally, I didn't like that he allowed himself to become somewhat of a lackey for George W. Bush, though I understood his political reasoning behind it. Now, that said, I wouldn't firmly hold those or similar gaffes against John McCain, or use them to solely define his character, that'd be ignorant, obtuse, and unfair.

Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
I don't understand this either because California already voted for their nominee and none of this has anything to do with bobby kennedy. So why bring it up?

Like CnC said, sounds like Hillary's subliminal campaign is in full swing. I'm surprised she doesn't just do it herself rather than simply putting the idea out there. I've seriously been waiting for her to start skirting the line of decency saying shit like this, because you know she's secretly hoping for it.
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith No More! said:
Well, he was the only candidate not to vote for invading Iraq when it was apparently a popular choice at the time. To paraphrase our favorite publication, Barack Obama boldly voted against the bill; John McCain didn't. I guess it's just that simple, and represents that Obama is a harbinger of peace and utopia while John McCain is a regressive war mongering dinosaur. =)

Well you’ll probably mock me some more for whatever comments I say but he was not that only candidate running to vote against the war Ron Paul voted against it too and he is still running. But as the only Democrat currently running who voted against the war you’re right. However, he did vote in favour of sending additional funds requested by the President to pay for that war, he did not try and cut the funding and force the President’s hand as some suggested. Plus he was not running for President when he did that, and maybe and I mean MAYBE not saying this is the case. That like me he might have known back then that as easily as it is to whip the American people into a frenzy it’s equally as easy to predict that whenever they have a long term foreign commitment that costs a lot of money and lives they will turn against it. Just as they did in Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin and other incidents, and that in the long term it would be electorally beneficial to be against it, especially for a democrat.

As for the nonsense you’re spewing about Obama being a harbinger of peace, (no doubt phrased just to annoy me) I’ll remind you in case you forgot that when Obama seemed to be getting a lot of negative press coverage saying he was weak on foreign affairs he came out with his oh so peaceful idea to take unilateral military action inside Pakistan against the wishes of its government. So yes McCain obviously has a very "hawkish" view on how to deal with countries like Iraq and Iran at least his views are well known and predictable, maybe Obama always thought that and his views are consist but it did seem that his Pakistan policy did jump out of nowhere at a time when he was trying not to look "weak" on foreign affairs.


Griffith No More! said:
Anyway, you're sure reading a lot into both of these candidates, and waxing poetic, on the basis of an article which mentions them once in a final sentence, and in a very deliberate and purposeful fashion. Not exactly the objective completist's guide to these two men. McCain has his own skeletons when it comes to special interest groups and scandal, such as his involvement as one of the "Keating Five", and the more recently the accusations of an improper relationship with a lobbyist, including an alleged affair, which wouldn't be as believable if McCain didn't have a history as a serial philanderer, and whose interest group he then went to bat for. Personally, I didn't like that he allowed himself to become somewhat of a lackey for George W. Bush, though I understood his political reasoning behind it. Now, that said, I wouldn't firmly hold those or similar gaffes against John McCain, or use them to solely define his character, that'd be ignorant, obtuse, and unfair.

It is only one issue and McCain does have his own problems too, but as for myself, I’m not looking for the perfect candidate here, I’m not even looking for the “best” candidate here, I’m looking for the least awful candidate out of this bunch. I also consider the agricultural issue to be extremely important issue as a matter of fact. It also annoys me that these politicians, especially on the “left”, who speak so much about helping the weakest in societies support policies like this even though these policies cause poverty and famine and hinder economic development in much of the developing world. So yes, one issue, but a very important issue, these policies in the US and EU are wrecking the Doha talks and are causing developing countries considerable economic hardship. In no small part they’re also responsible for the current rise in world food prices that’s bringing many people recently lifted out of absolute poverty back into it, and bringing inflationary pressure to many developing countries. Then of course there’s the lesser damage it does to the US and EU themselves, bringing higher taxes and higher food prices to every tax payer and everyone who eats food.

Also I'll give 1 more reason with a reasonable sensible person should definitely vote McCain, it's nothing to do with personality or policy. It's quite simply that the Democrats are going to control both the Houses of Congress, do you really think it's wise that a Democrat should be in the White house too? Didn't the republicans show that with the current bunch of politicians you have in DC the one thing you don't want either faction to have is dominance in both the Legislature and Executive? You'll just end of swapping the inherent flaws in the Republican party for the inherent flaws in the Democrat party. If there's one thing I've learnt from studying recent US politics is that the best governance is delivered by a divided US government as that provides some checks and balances, as the system was originally meant too.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sanguinius said:
Well you’ll probably mock me some more for whatever comments I say but he was not that only candidate running to vote against the war Ron Paul voted against it too and he is still running.

ron.paul.jpg


Ron is back!​

Sanguinius said:
But as the only Democrat currently running who voted against the war you’re right. However, he did vote in favour of sending additional funds requested by the President to pay for that war, he did not try and cut the funding and force the President’s hand as some suggested.

Personally, I don't fault him for not going with the cockamamy "strategy" of undercutting our own effort once it's already underway. It goes back to reasonableness and pliability, rather than perfect ideological stands. You say you're not looking for perfect, but that seems to be one of the complaints you have against Obama. I know not everyone is aware that he's a sneaky politician as any of them, but I'm counting on it.

Sanguinius said:
Plus he was not running for President when he did that, and maybe and I mean MAYBE not saying this is the case. That like me he might have known back then that as easily as it is to whip the American people into a frenzy it’s equally as easy to predict that whenever they have a long term foreign commitment that costs a lot of money and lives they will turn against it. Just as they did in Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin and other incidents, and that in the long term it would be electorally beneficial to be against it, especially for a democrat.

You could write this conspiratorial stuff about any of the candidates and their motivations, again, they're politicians, but if he had that much foresight, I'm all the more impressed, he made the right call in both cases. I figure he just got lucky, despite his claims to the contrary, he's naturally one of the more liberal members of congress anyway. I believe who he is actually just happened to work out for him, but if he's manipulating me, a job well done.

Sanguinius said:
As for the nonsense you’re spewing about Obama being a harbinger of peace, (no doubt phrased just to annoy me) I’ll remind you in case you forgot that when Obama seemed to be getting a lot of negative press coverage saying he was weak on foreign affairs he came out with his oh so peaceful idea to take unilateral military action inside Pakistan against the wishes of its government. So yes McCain obviously has a very "hawkish" view on how to deal with countries like Iraq and Iran at least his views are well known and predictable, maybe Obama always thought that and his views are consist but it did seem that his Pakistan policy did jump out of nowhere at a time when he was trying not to look "weak" on foreign affairs.

Well, why don't you give him the benefit of the doubt? =)

I don't think I can predict what John McCain would really do with his finger on the button, or Obama, and I don't believe their press releases anymore than Ron Paul's, even if they all mean it, it's not the same theoretically as it is on the job. I'll leave the guessing game to them when they're in office, because that's what it really is until they get right up in it. Again, that's why I actually prefer reasonable and flexable to someone with a lot of preconceived notions, though arguments can obviously be made either way on that.

Sanguinius said:
It is only one issue and McCain does have his own problems too, but as for myself, I’m not looking for the perfect candidate here, I’m not even looking for the “best” candidate here, I’m looking for the least awful candidate out of this bunch. I also consider the agricultural issue to be extremely important issue as a matter of fact. It also annoys me that these politicians, especially on the “left”, who speak so much about helping the weakest in societies support policies like this even though these policies cause poverty and famine and hinder economic development in much of the developing world. So yes, one issue, but a very important issue, these policies in the US and EU are wrecking the Doha talks and are causing developing countries considerable economic hardship. In no small part they’re also responsible for the current rise in world food prices that’s bringing many people recently lifted out of absolute poverty back into it, and bringing inflationary pressure to many developing countries. Then of course there’s the lesser damage it does to the US and EU themselves, bringing higher taxes and higher food prices to every tax payer and everyone who eats food.

Amen.

Sanguinius said:
Also I'll give 1 more reason with a reasonable sensible person should definitely vote McCain, it's nothing to do with personality or policy. It's quite simply that the Democrats are going to control both the Houses of Congress, do you really think it's wise that a Democrat should be in the White house too? Didn't the republicans show that with the current bunch of politicians you have in DC the one thing you don't want either faction to have is dominance in both the Legislature and Executive? You'll just end of swapping the inherent flaws in the Republican party for the inherent flaws in the Democrat party. If there's one thing I've learnt from studying recent US politics is that the best governance is delivered by a divided US government as that provides some checks and balances, as the system was originally meant too.

That's an attractive argument, I like it, but I don't think someone reasonable and sensible should definitely do anything on basic principle alone, but give it all very careful consideration. Although the Democrats are continuing to make gains, which are being facilitated further by Obama, I'm not sure that he'd be able to wield the kind of power Bush has regrettably had, hopefully nobody will. Whether it be McCain or Obama, I'm hoping it's going to be someone with a much better working relationship with Congress, as in working with them to compromise, not against them. Of course, maybe that dreamy charismatic leader can unite them all together for the greater good of the World, no more Democrats or Republicans, just Americans, one Nation, under Obama. =)
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith No More! said:
ron.paul.jpg


Ron is back!​

Who said he ever left :carcus:

Griffith No More! said:
Personally, I don't fault him for not going with the cockamamy "strategy" of undercutting our own effort once it's already underway. It goes back to reasonableness and pliability, rather than perfect ideological stands. You say you're not looking for perfect, but that seems to be one of the complaints you have against Obama. I know not everyone is aware that he's a sneaky politician as any of them, but I'm counting on it.

You could write this conspiratorial stuff about any of the candidates and their motivations, again, they're politicians, but if he had that much foresight, I'm all the more impressed, he made the right call in both cases. I figure he just got lucky, despite his claims to the contrary, he's naturally one of the more liberal members of congress anyway. I believe who he is actually just happened to work out for him, but if he's manipulating me, a job well done.

Well indeed, I am in the school of "real politick" and in that sense if he was as cunning and forward thinking as that would require that would be a positive for him, but if you're from the "I have a dream" school it's not such a nice image.

Griffith No More! said:
Well, why don't you give him the benefit of the doubt? =)

The track record of just about every politician in the world? & even his own short record in the Senate.

Griffith No More! said:

Thank you!

Griffith No More! said:
That's an attractive argument, I like it, but I don't think someone reasonable and sensible should definitely do anything on basic principle alone, but give it all very careful consideration.

Well not as an iron clad law but it's a pretty strong basic principle, to go against a core principal I think you'd need an extremely strong reason that leaves few it any doubts that it could all go horribly wrong.

Griffith No More! said:
Although the Democrats are continuing to make gains, which are being facilitated further by Obama, I'm not sure that he'd be able to wield the kind of power Bush has regrettably had, hopefully nobody will. Whether it be McCain or Obama, I'm hoping it's going to be someone with a much better working relationship with Congress, as in working with them to compromise, not against them. Of course, maybe that dreamy charismatic leader can unite them all together for the greater good of the World, no more Democrats or Republicans, just Americans, one Nation, under Obama. =)

I think I know what this sentiment needs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPROGyJ2FNA
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Sanguinius said:
Well not as an iron clad law but it's a pretty strong basic principle, to go against a core principal I think you'd need an extremely strong reason that leaves few it any doubts that it could all go horribly wrong.

That's what I mean though, for example, would you rather have say 4 more years of George W. Bush (no judgment on McCain here, just an extreme example) with a strong Democrat run Congress, or Obama under the same conditions?

Sanguinius said:
I think I know what this sentiment needs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPROGyJ2FNA

Hahaha, excellent!
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith No More! said:
That's what I mean though, for example, would you rather have say 4 more years of George W. Bush (no judgment on McCain here, just an extreme example) with a strong Democrat run Congress, or Obama under the same conditions?

Even with Bush it would depend, if it was clear that the Democrats would have a large majority in both the Senate and Rep. houses I would not want the democrats to hold the Presidency as well. Same with the Republicans, if they were going to have a large majority in both houses I would not want them to have the Presidency as well even if they had a good candidate running. The democrats seem to be moving into a big economic isolationist trend with trade bashing seeming to be their most popular topic. Economic nationalism and ideas bordering on autarky for "special economic sectors" or "strategic industries" and growing federal direction of economic activity. If they controlled all branches of government it wouldn't even be easy for less protectionist Democrats to oppose this as they'd mainly be opposing their own party and would have to fight it largely on their own as there was no branch that the Republicans held to obstruct their wilder inclinations.

Most power rests with Congress so even if there was a bad President Congress can still puch ahead with the most necessary legisation as the most necessary legisation would receive some cross party support, and as shown with this farm bill previously mentioned a presidential veto can clearly be overriden by congress.

The big problem with people like Bush is that even more than the mess they can make while in power they can get "pendulum politics" going where their dominance is replaced by the opposition dominance. So you end up having the extremes and corruption of one side without any real checks being replaced by the extremes and corruption of the other side that also have no checks.

Bush could not have gotten away with so much had he not had a Republican Congress for a lot of his time in office. In addition even Bush is not a president wholly without use, on issues like immigration he has gone against most Republicans and lost support from a fair few when it was clear they wanted a policy that would very badly affect the US. And again with this agricultural bill he goes against what many Republicans support for what is clearly a bill that will impact very badly on the US and the wider world. This emphasis my point of when you have dominance by a single party moderating infulences can get squashed and extremes can reign even if they come from the Presidency.

His foreign escapades wouldn't even be a problem if Congress actually exerted itself in opposition to these things but they didn't, it wasn't Bush going on some one man band that created the situation in Iraq and elsewhere, there where a lot of people in congress on both sides going with it for quite a while. The President really can't do much on his own, he does need support in congress, in converse the Congress doesn't need the president's approval if it can get a veto busting majority.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Very good, you even managed to even-handedly extricate the virtues of Dubya! So let me ask you another question and give you a platform I think you're going to relish; what if Ron Paul were in serious contention with a Republican controlled Congress? Would you take him, and technically violate the principle (though you can argue he's by no means a typical Republican), or would you rather have a Democrat like Obama for that true friction and balance?


On another note, McCain is doing a lot of house cleaning this week, severing ties with lobbyists, pastors, anyone that could be an embarrassment, releasing his medical records and he and his wife's tax returns, and basically dumping a lot of baggage going into this memorial day weekend.
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Griffith No More! said:
Very good, you even managed to even-handedly extricate the virtues of Dubya! So let me ask you another question and give you a platform I think you're going to relish; what if Ron Paul were in serious contention with a Republican controlled Congress? Would you take him, and technically violate the principle (though you can argue he's by no means a typical Republican), or would you rather have a Democrat like Obama for that true friction and balance?

On another note, McCain is doing a lot of house cleaning this week, severing ties with lobbyists, pastors, anyone that could be an embarrassment, releasing his medical records and he and his wife's tax returns, and basically dumping a lot of baggage going into this memorial day weekend.

A fair question, the principle exists to balance the power of the different branches of government and crucially government as a whole. If different branches of government spend a lot of their energies working against each other they cannot focus on what is their natural inclination of building a culture of government funded patronage and increase their own support. If there's no one to seriously oppose their questions it's easy to allow government sprawl to appease lobbysists and supporters and the natural inclination of most politicans to control and direct things as they naturally believe they know better than others (why else would they run for office?). If Ron Paul stays true to what he campaigns on, and I can't see why he wouldn't when he has done so for decades even when it left him in the political wilderness even making him leave the Republican Party for a while. I don't see why he'd change after he gets into office, normally people drop their principles before they get it in in a kind of faustian bargain. So on this I'd see him as different as his entire purpose is to reduce the power of the Presidency and wider government even if he is the President. On many issues such as the farm bill we talked about earlier I think he'd probably end up a bit like Bush now even in a Republican controlled Congress with his veto of it overturned. It would still not be ideal however and I'd probably vote democrat for the congessional elections if he was President.

Although the Principal is also not as simple as that, it also depends on the circumstances of the constituency I was in, I would not vote in a "solid" democrat seat or Republican in a "solid" Republican seat as this brings an automatic assumption from the parties that they can depend on these however flawed their candidate or their policies. Then sometimes if can be desirable to hand temporary dominance to one party to "punish" another that's clearly been dominated by their most fanatical section(s) so that a crushing defeat will hopefully force them to clean house. So yes like you said not an iron clad rule, more of a rule of thumb.

As for McCain, I think he's just being quite pragmatic during his nomination run, he's getting close to the religious right and others who he has in the past had some trouble with but I imagine he'll seperate himself from them to an extent when he runs for the presidency rather than the nomination.

Edit: Just another example of US food policy (and another country)

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11412525
 

Escalus

Kiss My Cons
I just wanted to say to Griff and San, your posts on this thread have really gotten exceptional (of late), so big ups. Informative. Quality.

Also, I love the 'doctored' photo of RP, esp. the implication that he's trying to resucitate the flatlined Constitution. Brilliant.

Books I read on Vacation In Greece:
"The Death of Right and Wrong" by Tammy Bruce. Grade:A+
"The New American Revolution" by Tammy Bruce. Grade: D-
"Neverwhere" by Neil Gaiman. Grade: B+
"Kitchen Confidential" by Anthony Bourdain. Grade: A-
"Revolution" by Ron Paul (sorry, I couldn't help it!) Grade:A-

The RP book is a light, incisive read. Highly Recommended.
 

Uriel

This journey isn't ov--AARGH!
Hey guys, I've been out of town and I noticed you were all quoting a lot.

Does this mean we've got clear winners on both sides now? Surely that's what all the activity is about! :serpico:
 
S

Sanguinius

Guest
Seems Florida and Michagan will be seated at the Democratic convention but will only have half a vote per delegate. Also seems that Obama has left that church that was causing him some publicity problems.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7428909.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7429667.stm
 
Top Bottom