Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Yes. That was unbelievably stupid.

But mad props to you for admitting your mistake. That takes some serious character, particularly given all the "I-told-you-so" us anti-Bues have been storing up for 8 years now, waiting to be unleashed upon you.

In my defense though, I am not an American citizen, so my backing of GWB really didnt help him or deny either of his opponents. Still doesnt erase the fact, that I am an idiot for believing in this guy.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I love it how the Democrats are set on a pedestal despite controlling Congress, having a worse approval rating than the President, and just passing a budget that isn't exactly helping things either.

Hilarious.

What's so funny about it?

Last time the Democrats were running things everything was going well enough. They certainly weren't headed for a recession or lying their way into a stupid war.

They are put on a pedestal just for the simple fact that they would be better by default, even if they are no good. They certainly can't be worse.

I don't think a new Republican President could be any worse, but it's possible.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

Anyone else here willing to admit that they backed Bush in both of the last 2 elections?

I did, and regardless of how history views Bush 50 years down the road I still think he was a better choice then those 2 clowns. If I'm going to assign blame it goes to the Democratic party for nominating those 2 guys to run against bush. As someone else stated, it was a battle of who was less an idiot, and at the time yes Bush won.

[BlackEleven]

Speaking of Obama speeches, anyone who hasn't heard his speech (on religion) that made him well known in politics can see in here in its entirety. Its what Hilary was referring to when she called Obama (and I'm paraphrasing) "just a guy who gave a good speech two years ago".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Azure, wtf are you even talking about? Bush supporters are now Obama supporters?

They weren't stupid for voting for Bush. Bush pushed his agenda in a historically convincing way. It was complete BS propaganda, but it did it's job.

Drawing comparisons between Bush supporters and Obama supporters is pure garbage. The US is in a much different state than either of the past two elections. Different priorities, different circumstances. Unbelievable.

Yes, according to some people around here, people who were 'dittoheads' the past two elections....and voted for Bush, are now supporting Obama.

Course I don't agree with that....its just hilarious to read the spin on it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What's so funny about it?

Last time the Democrats were running things everything was going well enough. They certainly weren't headed for a recession or lying their way into a stupid war.

They are put on a pedestal just for the simple fact that they would be better by default, even if they are no good. They certainly can't be worse.

I don't think a new Republican President could be any worse, but it's possible.

Okay, maybe not so funny.

Just really stupid. They control Congres....they have the power to cut back on spending and start fixing things....but I suppose there is a reason Congress' approval rating is so low.

Last time the Democrats ran things doesn't change the fact that they did crap all with the latest budget.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I love it how the Democrats are set on a pedestal despite controlling Congress, having a worse approval rating than the President, and just passing a budget that isn't exactly helping things either.

Hilarious.

Hey Sparky, care to explain how Congress or the Senate can pass a bill when the President gets to veto everything in sight? Oh yeah, that somehow slipped right through the strangle-hold you have on American politics. How did you put that? Hilarious.

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, according to some people around here, people who were 'dittoheads' the past two elections....and voted for Bush, are now supporting Obama.

Course I don't agree with that....its just hilarious to read the spin on it.

Who would those people be? I'm quite curious?

[badnarik]

i hope i'm wrong, but the next president is going to be in a world of crap no matter who it is. if you really like obama you should hope that clinton or mccain gets thrown to the wolves.

people will be pointing across the aisle when they should be looking at the fed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Hey Sparky, care to explain how Congress or the Senate can pass a bill when the President gets to veto everything in sight? Oh yeah, that somehow slipped right through the strangle-hold you have on American politics. How did you put that? Hilarious.

Nice Lanny, very nice. So the excuse is that Congress shouldn't even make an effort to pass a balanced budget because Bush will veto it anyways. Spin away.

Oh right....and how many bills has Bush vetoed in the past 8 years?

Keep spinning.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Okay, maybe not so funny.

Just really stupid. They control Congres....they have the power to cut back on spending and start fixing things....but I suppose there is a reason Congress' approval rating is so low.

Last time the Democrats ran things doesn't change the fact that they did crap all with the latest budget.

The impression I get here is that since they didn't fix the budget to your approval on the first go-round is evidence that they are no good.

Fair enough I guess. Just seems kind of odd to me.

It's like picking a parent to live with after a divorce. "Well, dad has been beating me with a pool cue for the last 7 years and spending food money at the casino, but mom didn't buy me a new bike, so I'll stick with dad".

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Lanny, that speech by Barack still amounts to a hill of beans when it comes to implementation. All this talk of unity is reminiscent of the great fascists of history.

America needs a Ron Paul. They need to realize that they aren't the be-all and end-all of the world. They are no longer the most powerful entity in the universe. Get your ego in check, stop devaluing the dollar to prop up an economy, and cut back on military spending.

Really, the problem with America is that it has shared too much and cannot sustain it's relative strength as other countries learn from them.

Maybe Obama wasn't your number 1 choice at the beginning. He wasn't mine either. That's over and done with and neither here nor there, unfortunately.

At this point there are three choices:
Clinton
Obama
McCain

Which candidate would you support?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The impression I get here is that since they didn't fix the budget to your approval on the first go-round is evidence that they are no good.

Fair enough I guess. Just seems kind of odd to me.

It's like picking a parent to live with after a divorce. "Well, dad has been beating me with a pool cue for the last 7 years and spending food money at the casino, but mom didn't buy me a new bike, so I'll stick with dad".

Except it isn't that simple.

I'm sure the Democrats know that the economy is heading into a recession/possible depression, and despite the belief that you should actually spend your way out of it(does that work with 8 trillion in debt?)....there is absolutely no excuse for not sending at least a 'better' budget to the President.

I know a lot of people are wondering what should be cut.....outside of the obvious pork and earmarks....well something HAS to be cut. When you're running a budget at a 450 billion dollar deficit year after year....something is wrong.

And yes, I blame Bush and the Republicans for that too. Probably more than the Democrats considering who has held Congress the past half decade or so.

In fact, I don't see a change for one candidate to the other....its all just spend, spend, spend.....the only candidate that was actually noticeably different was Ron Paul.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nice Lanny, very nice. So the excuse is that Congress shouldn't even make an effort to pass a balanced budget because Bush will veto it anyways. Spin away.

Oh right....and how many bills has Bush vetoed in the past 8 years?

Keep spinning.

Let me see. Off the top of my head Bush has vetoed bills on Stem Cell Research, Military Funding (tied to a pull timeline), Healthcare for Children all in the past year. While not actual vetos, President Bush has used the Executive Signing Statement to ammend bills to read how he wants them. This is essentially a veto because he changes the bill to read how HE wants it. This historically very seldom used executive priviledge, in combination with executive orders, has been used 173 times during Bush's time in office. That's no spin, that is all documented in black, white, and magenta crayola (the President likes to use his favorite color when he makes his signing statements) and maintained in the national archives.

BTW... you are aware that Congress has to pass a budget that the President will sign? To balance the budget Congress would have had to lop off billions of dollars in programs that help us Americans here in the actual United States of America, just do the President could go on pouring more money into Iraq. Given the choice, Congress made the right decision on running a deficit budget. Education, medicare and infrastructure can only be cut so deep. The country is falling a part as it is.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Clinton takes another hit...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2008031...forfloridafade

Florida is bust and Michigan is being rallied by the UAW chief, who endorsed Obama. Hopefully this brings an end to this sooner rather than later.

[MacDougalbry]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except it isn't that simple.

I'm sure the Democrats know that the economy is heading into a recession/possible depression, and despite the belief that you should actually spend your way out of it(does that work with 8 trillion in debt?)....there is absolutely no excuse for not sending at least a 'better' budget to the President.

I know a lot of people are wondering what should be cut.....outside of the obvious pork and earmarks....well something HAS to be cut. When you're running a budget at a 450 billion dollar deficit year after year....something is wrong.

And yes, I blame Bush and the Republicans for that too. Probably more than the Democrats considering who has held Congress the past half decade or so.

In fact, I don't see a change for one candidate to the other....its all just spend, spend, spend.....the only candidate that was actually noticeably different was Ron Paul.

Healthy economies create balanced budgets; balancing the budget will not automatically heal their economy. Fiscal restraint was the first thing they tried during the great depression, and it had dire consequences. Regardless, there is no way the budget will get balanced until the war in Iraq is ended. If you are arguing for a balanced buget then you must also advocate for an end to the war as well.

[Itse]

Funny thing is, if you looked for it, you could find that most studies agree that (properly executed) social spending actually saves money in the long run.

Depending on the country you live in a dollar spent on public healthcare that tries to tackle the minor health issues of poor people (the type of spending that gets most easily cut from budgets since it's not exactly flashy and it's about the poor anyway) can save you anything from 10 to 100 dollars in the future due to less need for specialized healthcare when some of those small issues have come big issues, or some of those big issues have made people effectively disabled, or at least unable to get and keep a job.

Same on education. Education is what keeps countries developing. It also helps tackle things like racism, teenage pregnancies, crime, drug-use and just generally makes the society work better because people just understand more about what goes on around them. It makes people better equipped to make their own futures, to create new companies, to get jobs in those companies. Essentially, just about everything and anything in a modern socieaty is dependant on how educated people are. Ridiculous amounts of young talent is currently wasted in the US (and many other countries) simply because they can't afford to get proper education.

It's just like business really; you can't just be making cuts all the time, you have to invest too. Otherwise your business will eventually fall behind those that have made smart invest in their future.

And also, what Lanny said; Republicans are the big spenders. The Clinton administration on the other hand could be said to be pretty much a model of smart government. They got more done with less money.

I don't much like Hillary Clintons rhetorics, but I have to say that at least it's very propably she'd be good for the US economy. She already has all the contacts she needs, good staff to draw from and the previous experience of Bill which obviously should help. The only problem would propably be that I don't see her getting the Republicans to support her plans this time any better than the last time around, which effectively would mean that a lot of good ideas would be buried in partisan strife.

That's why I see Obama as the better candidate in this area too; it's impossible to know how well he'd handle it, but he'd propably have much of the same staff, and anyway he seems much more capable of getting the US political scene out of the partisan rhetoric fortresses and get stuff done. (Of course, that could be simply impossible, but you can always hope.)

[llama64]

The only thing I want Obama to do now is to actually declare a platform. Change is a powerful rhetorical device. It's not an action plan for the Presidential Election. He's brining up a lot of important situations faced by many American's, but so far he really hasn't provided any decent potential solutions. That's my only hesitation on the guy.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by llama64

The only thing I want Obama to do now is to actually declare a platform. Change is a powerful rhetorical device. It's not an action plan for the Presidential Election. He's brining up a lot of important situations faced by many American's, but so far he really hasn't provided any decent potential solutions. That's my only hesitation on the guy.

I agree, would be better for ALL the candidates to go into more detail but...

"Change is good"
or
"My plans are too secretive to divulge"
or
"100 YEAR WAR!! 100 YEAR WAR!!! KILL EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!"

[Nehkara]

Delegate Update!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1479
Obama 1621 (139 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1242
Obama 1413(171 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 237 (29 ahead)
Obama 208


Obama gains 2 pledged delegates, 1 superdelegate.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Delegate Update!

<snip>

Superdelegates:

Clinton 237 (29 ahead)
Obama 208


Obama gains 2 pledged delegates, 1 superdelegate.

I wonder who will win the super delegate race. I always assumed Clinton would take it without breaking a sweat but now I'm not so sure. There was some commentator on CNN yesterday talking about it and he brought up an interesting situation. Apparently most of the undecideds are the older party members who were around in the 90's. They apparently view the time much differently then the average American does mostly because the 90's ended with the Democrats mostly locked out of all aspects of government. They blame Clinton for this, or so this guy claims.

Anyone have any insight/thoughts?