Text Size

No Holds Barred

Who's your candidate?

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Who's your candidate?

Unread postby swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:47 am

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

There's a bunch of those quiz sites out there that lay out all the issues, ask you some questions, then tell you which candidate is most in line with your thinking. The above one is one of the best I've seen. USA Today and The Washington Post also have pretty good ones on their sites.
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17874
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby ProgRocker » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:04 pm

Except that site has literally dozens of ads you have to click through if you aren't careful. Go to the top and click out of all the ads if you want to take the survey and not get bombarded.
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:38 pm

In my opinion, the one on the Washington Posts website is the most thorough and really helps best define who your preferred candidate should be based on your views.

Takes a little longer than some of the others, but it's good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... idatequiz/
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17874
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby waborat » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:18 pm

I wish every voter had to take one of these...I love seeing ignorant people vote for someone who really know nothing about that candidates views
User avatar
waborat
 
Posts: 4096
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Concord
Favorite Player: Megyn Kelly
Least Favorite Player: Single digit temps

Unread postby FUDU » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:09 pm

My candidate is the person who will do what they claimed they would do...that person has yet to run for office.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby Steve Buffum » Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:17 pm

FUDU wrote:My candidate is the person who will do what they claimed they would do...that person has yet to run for office.


Lyndon LaRouche?
User avatar
Steve Buffum
Prose Flayer
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:32 am
Location: Austin TX
Favorite Player: Withheld
Least Favorite Player: David Huff

Unread postby swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:00 pm

Every time I do one of these, it comes up Romney, with McCain and Fred Thompson just behind him.

Going into this election, I thought my politics (left of center on most social issues, right of center on most of everything else) lined up with Giuliani. But they don't. And he just fails to impress me.

One things for sure. Its going to be a very divisive election this fall, with sharp differences between the two candidates on just about every issue. DVR'd the dual debates Sat night on ABC, and it's like the Repubs and the Dems were talking about two different countries.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17874
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby FUDU » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:04 pm

Steve Buffum wrote:
FUDU wrote:My candidate is the person who will do what they claimed they would do...that person has yet to run for office.


Lyndon LaRouche?


What does he claim he'll do?

Please don't say time.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby Steve Buffum » Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:08 pm

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

(It was tongue in cheek: he's a nut. But a sincere nut.)

(Sort of like Ron Paul: tip of the hat to a friend (RK) on another list for the links: http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca )
User avatar
Steve Buffum
Prose Flayer
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:32 am
Location: Austin TX
Favorite Player: Withheld
Least Favorite Player: David Huff

Unread postby FUDU » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:01 pm

I knew that, sorry.

BTW FWIW I like Ron Paul, does he get my vote, I have no clue yet.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby municipalmutt » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:59 pm

There is not a single candidate on either side that would get me to the polls. If this is the best of the 2 party system, we are fucked.

edit: I consider myself pretty right wing, minus the RR, corporate welfare whores, and foreign policy nation builders.

The left scares the shit out of me and I'm pretty liberal socially.

Romney would have my vote but someone who believes the teachings of a person that thought the garden of Eden was in Missouri, Indians are the lost tribe of Israel, and there are people living on the moon kind of scares me a little.

As an American you can believe whatever the hell you want to or follow any crazy cult you desire but I sure can question your judgment for believing crazy horseshit.
User avatar
municipalmutt
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:42 am

Unread postby Indians88 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:19 pm

municipalmutt wrote:There is not a single candidate on either side that would get me to the polls. If this is the best of the 2 party system, we are fucked.

edit: I consider myself pretty right wing, minus the RR, corporate welfare whores, and foreign policy nation builders.

The left scares the shit out of me and I'm pretty liberal socially.

Romney would have my vote but someone who believes the teachings of a person that thought the garden of Eden was in Missouri, Indians are the lost tribe of Israel, and there are people living on the moon kind of scares me a little.

As an American you can believe whatever the hell you want to or follow any crazy cult you desire but I sure can question your judgment for believing crazy horseshit.


I agree that is fucked up my friend. But the thing is, you can't let someones religious views factor into your decision making in this case. He came out with his speech about this religious shit and said that his policies and his decision making will be totally separate of his religious doctrine. I actually bought it too. It had the whole JFK Catholic speech to it, only (dare I say it) better. You might want to check it out. Just to address your concern.
User avatar
Indians88
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:45 pm
Favorite Player: Eddie Murray
Least Favorite Player: Paul O'Neal

Unread postby swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:43 pm

McCain wins New Hampshire. Exit polling suggesting Obama's gonna beat Hillary again. A couple new frontrunners.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17874
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby fundamentals » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:55 pm

Swerb,

Do you have a link to that exit poll info.?

Last I saw was Clinton at 40% to Obama's 34%
fundamentals
Goodwill Ambassador
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:59 pm
Favorite Player: Mariano Rivera
Least Favorite Player: Rex Ryan

Unread postby municipalmutt » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:57 pm

Thanks for the response Indians. My intent is not to turn this into a religious bash or even arguing against his claim to separate his beliefs from his politics. I am only pointing out that IMO his religion has some serious factual flaws in it that have been disproved using empirical evidence.

I question the judgment of a person that believes things that have proven to be patently false.

I do not question his right to believe what he chooses.
Last edited by municipalmutt on Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
municipalmutt
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:42 am

Unread postby swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:00 pm

fundamentals wrote:Swerb,

Do you have a link to that exit poll info.?

Last I saw was Clinton at 40% to Obama's 34%

CNN and Fox News both reported exit polling data right after 8 PM with Obama 5 points up on Hillary. But with 26% of the actual vote in, shes got a 6 point lead on him.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17874
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby fundamentals » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:03 pm

Thank you Swerb.

Not trying to threadjack here, but how do you guys feel about the influence of the poll information that is put out by the media? Any substance to it or just a tool to maybe discourage some from voting at all?
fundamentals
Goodwill Ambassador
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:59 pm
Favorite Player: Mariano Rivera
Least Favorite Player: Rex Ryan

Unread postby swerb » Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:13 pm

fundamentals wrote:Thank you Swerb.

Not trying to threadjack here, but how do you guys feel about the influence of the poll information that is put out by the media? Any substance to it or just a tool to maybe discourage some from voting at all?

I think that may have been the case in '04. No one says anything now until the polls close. Both CNN and FOX literally released their exit polling data at exactly 8 PM, after counting down the close to the polls.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17874
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby leadpipe » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:05 pm

I'm still waiting for the candidate that addresses things that really matter to Americans.

Remember, years ago, when Ross Perot brought out his little charts and woke everyone up? Not saying the guy was presidential worthy, but God Damn if the things he brought up which effected each and every one of us hasn't been swept under the rug by politics as usual.

The National Debt is still there. The Education system, which was poor then, is still deteriorating. He was spot on about NAFTA, and those effects are still being felt today, only stronger. And a hundred other things.

Most importantly, he stated that this generation (at the time) would be the first in American history to leave it's children worse off. Well, now we're into the second and it is twice as poor.

Here's my neandrathal comment: my choice centers around money. Modern politics is all about it, so my modern vote is all about it. I work my ass off for myself and my family. I'm sick of giving it away to others. Sick of it.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Unread postby municipalmutt » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:38 pm

Here's my neandrathal comment: my choice centers around money. Modern politics is all about it, so my modern vote is all about it. I work my ass off for myself and my family. I'm sick of giving it away to others. Sick of it.


So the reality of the situation is that you are going to give your money away. The choice is only to whom. The poor who abuse the system and have no incentive to better themselves? Or the rich in the hope that some of it will trickle back down to you?
User avatar
municipalmutt
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:42 am

Unread postby Indians88 » Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:41 pm

municipalmutt wrote:Thanks for the response Indians. My intent is not to turn this into a religious bash or even arguing against his claim to separate his beliefs from his politics. I am only pointing out that IMO his religion has some serious factual flaws in it that have been disproved using empirical evidence.

I question the judgment of a person that believes things that have proven to be patently false.

I do not question his right to believe what he chooses.


Very valid point my friend. One that rattles my brain too.

I still feel like out of the group we have to choose from, his policies make the most sense.

What I really like about him is that everything (business wise) the man touches completely takes off (including the state which he ran). I think with the way our economy is in this country, we need someone outside of Washington that know who is not yet a "Washington politician" to run Washington like a business. Because right now, if our government was a business, all our investors would jump ship (tax payers) and we would flat out declare bankruptcy. You look at the monsters staring back at us in the form of social security (google it) and you just about shit your pants. We need someone that isn't a Washington insider to reform Washington.

Anyways, that's where I am at this point (at least on the economy). But again, you make a good point.
User avatar
Indians88
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:45 pm
Favorite Player: Eddie Murray
Least Favorite Player: Paul O'Neal

Unread postby leadpipe » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:33 am

municipalmutt wrote:
Here's my neandrathal comment: my choice centers around money. Modern politics is all about it, so my modern vote is all about it. I work my ass off for myself and my family. I'm sick of giving it away to others. Sick of it.


So the reality of the situation is that you are going to give your money away. The choice is only to whom. The poor who abuse the system and have no incentive to better themselves? Or the rich in the hope that some of it will trickle back down to you?


The one I feel is going to take less. Which I think at this point is the latter.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Unread postby consigliere » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:18 pm

Swerb wrote:In my opinion, the one on the Washington Posts website is the most thorough and really helps best define who your preferred candidate should be based on your views.

Takes a little longer than some of the others, but it's good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... idatequiz/


I finally did this.....and Huckabee came out on top for me. Clearly.
Indians Prospect Insider: http://www.indiansprospectinsider.com/
Image
User avatar
consigliere
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:22 am
Location: Painesville Twp, OH
Favorite Player: Jeff Stevens
Least Favorite Player: Carl Willis

Unread postby mattvan1 » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:37 pm

Swerb wrote:In my opinion, the one on the Washington Posts website is the most thorough and really helps best define who your preferred candidate should be based on your views.

Takes a little longer than some of the others, but it's good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... idatequiz/


The thing I didn't care for about the Post site was the upfront declation of Republican or Democrat. It would be nice to just answer the questions once, instead of one time for each party.
User avatar
mattvan1
 
Posts: 3629
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Houston

Unread postby General » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Lead Pipe wrote:I'm still waiting for the candidate that addresses things that really matter to Americans.

Remember, years ago, when Ross Perot brought out his little charts and woke everyone up? Not saying the guy was presidential worthy, but God Damn if the things he brought up which effected each and every one of us hasn't been swept under the rug by politics as usual.

The National Debt is still there. The Education system, which was poor then, is still deteriorating. He was spot on about NAFTA, and those effects are still being felt today, only stronger. And a hundred other things.

Most importantly, he stated that this generation (at the time) would be the first in American history to leave it's children worse off. Well, now we're into the second and it is twice as poor.

Here's my neandrathal comment: my choice centers around money. Modern politics is all about it, so my modern vote is all about it. I work my ass off for myself and my family. I'm sick of giving it away to others. Sick of it.


Amen. I work like a "hebrew slave making bricks without straw" (joke), have a Bachelors degree, get steady raises but don't feel like I am getting ahead. We are paying down a mortgage, saving for retirement, but it feels like your always a banana peel away from disaster. We are childless so we don't have to deal with college costs or supporting grandchildren and all of that. My gut is that the average national politico doesn't give a rip about my (our) life and is essentially ineffective in things that the average schmo is concerned about. The individual that puts more money in my pocket and household will have my allegiance.
Browns are an irrelevant and comical organization
User avatar
General
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Pensacola
Favorite Player: Paul Warfield
Least Favorite Player: 537 Idiots in DC

Unread postby skatingtripods » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:23 pm

I was 66% for McCain. My primary vote will go to him or Rudolph Giuliani. Whoever has the better shot to win Ohio I will vote for because that is who will, likely, be nominated by the Republican party.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby dpdad » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:41 am

McCain came out on top for me using that website, and I suppose I would support him in the fall if he is the GOP nominee. There are some issues that I do not agree with him on, but on the big issue of the war on terror he is right on the mark.

However, I think it will all be a moot point, because I believe that Hillary will be the next President. 2008 will likely be a Democratic year with many Republicans suffering from Bush fatigue. I supported Bush in '00 and '04, and frankly I can't wait to see him leave office. He's done good on the war on terror, tax cuts, and Supreme Court nominations, but has been a big disappointment on cutting government spending, illegal immigration (just build the wall!), and a few others.

Assuming Hillary gets the nomination and picks a midwesterner for her running mate such as Bayh of Indiana or Strickland of Ohio, I think she will win the election. With all the GOP scandals in Ohio, the poor local economy, and the horrible performance of former Gov. Taft, I think Ohio will be on the Democratic side of the column in 2008.
dpdad
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:42 am
Location: Independence, Ohio

Unread postby swerb » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:54 pm

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl ... /801120436

With just two days left before the primary, Michigan's volatile Republican presidential race is going down to the wire for frontrunners John McCain and Mitt Romney.

And Mike Huckabee is still a factor.

A Detroit News/WXYZ Action News poll shows McCain with 27 percent, Romney at 26 percent; and Huckabee at 19 percent.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17874
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby skatingtripods » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:57 am

This week will be very telling. If Romney can't win the state his dad was governor in (Michigan) and Thompson fails to win South Carolina, it will be a three-horse race with McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani. If Giuliani doesn't take down Florida, he's done for. Then it's up to JMC and Huckabee for the nomination.

Although Rudy would likely be the best candidate to win the Repubs the office in the general November election, if he consistently takes 3rds and 4ths, they can't rightly nominate him.

As a very strong conservative, my concern is increasingly growing that the Dems are going to win in November.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:15 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:This week will be very telling. If Romney can't win the state his dad was governor in (Michigan) and Thompson fails to win South Carolina, it will be a three-horse race with McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani. If Giuliani doesn't take down Florida, he's done for. Then it's up to JMC and Huckabee for the nomination.

Although Rudy would likely be the best candidate to win the Repubs the office in the general November election, if he consistently takes 3rds and 4ths, they can't rightly nominate him.

As a very strong conservative, my concern is increasingly growing that the Dems are going to win in November.


McCain or Huckabee are the nightmare scenario for me. I'd probably end up voting for Hillary Clinton over Mike Huckabee if it came down to it. I'd have to take a really long shower to wash the stench off. Problem I have with Huckabee is he's too much of a populist and is a goober when it comes to foreign policy. I don't trust him at all when it comes to national defense and that's a huge priority. While I despise Clinton's stances on domestic issues (healthcare, taxation, etc), I do believe that when it comes down to it that she'd be a warhawk no matter what she's saying now to get elected.

I like Romney the best and don't think losing Michigan does him in at all. Michigan is not winner take all AND it is an open primary where Democrats and Independents can vote in the Republican primary. With the Democrats largely out of Michigan, many may move to cause mischief on the Republican side. Even down here in Florida where the primary is closed, we've seen Democrats switch party affiliations in an attempt to select the easiest Republican to beat in November. They're flocking to Mike Huckabee.

For me, either Guiliani or Romney are the best choices. I'm working down here for the Romney camp as we work our way towards Jan 29. It's currently a four-way tie in Florida and we are a winner take all state for the delegates. Romney and Guiliani are the best organized in the state and I think that will help both significantly.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby skatingtripods » Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:51 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:McCain or Huckabee are the nightmare scenario for me. I'd probably end up voting for Hillary Clinton over Mike Huckabee if it came down to it. I'd have to take a really long shower to wash the stench off. Problem I have with Huckabee is he's too much of a populist and is a goober when it comes to foreign policy. I don't trust him at all when it comes to national defense and that's a huge priority. While I despise Clinton's stances on domestic issues (healthcare, taxation, etc), I do believe that when it comes down to it that she'd be a warhawk no matter what she's saying now to get elected.


What's wrong with McCain?

I'm not a huge Huckabee fan either. I'm in the minority as a Republican (I'm agnostic) and I just think that Huckabee would be too blinded by his religious background to effectively lead in moral dilemmas and dilemmas against other religions (though history has shown that religious warfare is very frequent). Huckabee is no doubt the most fluent speaker remaining for the GOP, but I think that there are quite a few grey areas in his positions on things like immigration and trying to use diplomacy instead of military force so as not to look "arrogant". The fact is, our major enemies are not interested in being diplomatic with us. And if they are, it's just a big facade to get us off their ass.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary no matter what. I don't care if Ron Paul somehow gets the nomination.

I like Romney the best and don't think losing Michigan does him in at all. Michigan is not winner take all AND it is an open primary where Democrats and Independents can vote in the Republican primary. With the Democrats largely out of Michigan, many may move to cause mischief on the Republican side. Even down here in Florida where the primary is closed, we've seen Democrats switch party affiliations in an attempt to select the easiest Republican to beat in November. They're flocking to Mike Huckabee.


I think Romney is dead in the water if he fails in Michigan. First off, that would be two midwestern states that he has lost. Second, his only real hope after that is California. He won't win in Florida, he has very little shot in Texas, and he probably wouldn't win Ohio.

I agree, however, with where you say Michigan is wide open. It certainly is. Michigan probably votes Democrat in the November election anyway, so I can't see the GOP putting a lot of stake in Romney based on a good performance in Michigan.

I also agree with you saying that Huckabee is the most beatable Republican. Those tricky bastards down in Florida. Setting everybody up for this election with the voting problems in previous elections. :lol:

For me, either Guiliani or Romney are the best choices. I'm working down here for the Romney camp as we work our way towards Jan 29. It's currently a four-way tie in Florida and we are a winner take all state for the delegates. Romney and Guiliani are the best organized in the state and I think that will help both significantly.


Giuliani's strategy has not worked ever before. He may be the first to make it work. I have a very open mind about Giuliani. Many people have questioned how conservative he is by his policies in New York City with gun control, immigration, and allowance of civil unions. Even still, he's not a stupid man. He knows that his policies need to be widened out when they are for the country as a whole. If he wins, though, it will be on his foreign policy views and that alone. Those arguing about him just being a mayor, well, New York City is a country in and of itself. Surely, he will have a significantly larger jurisdiction if he were to become President, but leading a city like New York isn't a bad precursor. He does have Washington experience, people tend to overlook that.

Props to you for being active in a campaign. That's the beauty of democracy right there.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby jfiling » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:46 pm

I'm not too shocked to find that Ron Paul is my best actively running match, but I am surprised that John McCain was number two. The man was endorsed by "Vinegar" Joe Lieberman, who is as repugnant as they come.
jfiling
Old School Writer
 
Posts: 3873
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:14 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio
Favorite Player: Silky Johnston
Least Favorite Player: Buck Nasty

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:57 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:
What's wrong with McCain?


There's a laundry list. I hate the McCain-Feingold bill that negatively impacts free speech through political contributions. The McCain-Kennedy immigration bills were far too lenient. I will not call them amnesty like others, but I do not like the idea of extending permanent Z visas to current illegal aliens that have no expiration and no incentive for pursuing citizenship and learning the language. He still supports giving social security benefits to illegal aliens for time spent in the country illegally. He also did not support the Bush tax cuts and would probably be in favor of increasing taxes on the high income bracket - a bad idea since that is where investment in jobs and technology comes from.

I'm also sure that McCain would not consider cutting the corporate tax rate, currently tied for Japan for the highest in the world. It is effectively 35% and incentivizes either moving things offshore or playing with the books instead of creating a more open, honest environment. Same thing on the top end of the income tax brackets. Rich people can hide money and so can companies. You need to discourage that with a low tax rate that will encourage growth. Take a look at Ireland's growth and their ultra-low 12.5% tax rate.

McCain is also unlikely to work for change with the EPA and that also costs us money and jobs. My uncle is a high up for Dow Chemical and recently told me about how difficult it was for them to build a new plant. They had to have another company build the plant for them and buy the new plant from them, costing them 50% more than just building the plant under current EPA regs. If the regs were streamlined I would guess that manufacturing companies could cut prices in half at many plants.

McCain also is an advocate for increasing taxes on energy companies. His current plans would increase taxes on gasoline by $0.26 per gallon over the next 15 years or so and add hundreds in costs for the average consumer in their electric bills.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, blocking the confirmation of strict constructionist judges on federal benches that only care about what the Constitution says and not how much they can read into it. Many on the bench currently are a lot like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. She has publicly said that she uses her feelings on issues above the actual law. These are not the kind of people that should be judges.

I'm not a huge Huckabee fan either. I'm in the minority as a Republican (I'm agnostic) and I just think that Huckabee would be too blinded by his religious background to effectively lead in moral dilemmas and dilemmas against other religions (though history has shown that religious warfare is very frequent). Huckabee is no doubt the most fluent speaker remaining for the GOP, but I think that there are quite a few grey areas in his positions on things like immigration and trying to use diplomacy instead of military force so as not to look "arrogant". The fact is, our major enemies are not interested in being diplomatic with us. And if they are, it's just a big facade to get us off their ass.


I agree there. As someone who identifies himself as an evangelical, I'm not a fan of Huckabee. I think he's utilized identity politics too much, running on his evangelical status almost entirely in states where that would play. We've been getting a lot of that down here.

I didn't like him calling US foreign policy "arrogant". Aggressive, certainly. The guy has basically said that the only reason Iran is a problem is because we haven't been talking with them.

Huckabee strikes me as a guy who believes that all the world's problems can be solved through talking. That sounds a lot like Neville Chamberlain in Great Britain, believing that Hitler could be appeased and conflict could be prevented. Sure, we could let Iran destroy Israel, the lone bulwark for sanity in the Middle East, but then they'd want more. The mullahs in Iran are truly nuts, believing that they can get the 12th Imam to make an appearance if they cause a worldwide catastrophe. We need to talk to the moderate Iranians who are striking and protesting throughout that country. America is not unpopular with the youths in Iran - we need to encourage revolt against the regime there.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary no matter what. I don't care if Ron Paul somehow gets the nomination.


I probably wouldn't either, but the sad thing for me is that Huckabee has me thinking about it.

I think Romney is dead in the water if he fails in Michigan. First off, that would be two midwestern states that he has lost. Second, his only real hope after that is California. He won't win in Florida, he has very little shot in Texas, and he probably wouldn't win Ohio.


It largely depends. If McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee, and Romney split up on delegates then there will be no clear winners and someone will have to broker a deal at the convention. I know Romney's camp is well aware of Convention rules and could play that card.

Here's a great take on that over at Red State:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/thunder/2 ... nomination

I agree, however, with where you say Michigan is wide open. It certainly is. Michigan probably votes Democrat in the November election anyway, so I can't see the GOP putting a lot of stake in Romney based on a good performance in Michigan.


I'm not sure if Michigan will go Democrat. Romney is a guy who may be able to pull that state out. His father still is fondly remembered there. He has the right pedigree because he father headed AMC during the Rambler days. He is really the only guy out there who can claim to be a friend to the American auto industry and that will play big. I like his positive message about not giving up, that we need to invest in technology and work to find ways to lower cost for US manufacturers to encourage increase in manufacturing in the States.

I think his knowledge of China and how to compete with them will play BIG in the midwest. He's the only one who really talks about it. He's the only one I've heard state that we need to create an environment to ensure US dominance in manufacturing and design going forward.

I also agree with you saying that Huckabee is the most beatable Republican. Those tricky bastards down in Florida. Setting everybody up for this election with the voting problems in previous elections. :lol:


There are a lot of tricky bastards down here. It is a statistical dead heat between McCain, Romney, Guiliani, and Huckabee. We're working hard for Romney throughout the state. We've got buses and cars ready to go to get people to the voting booth and we've got a lot of people committed to Romney. Michigan will play down here in Florida. A Romney win would probably hurt McCain, especially if Thompson or Huckabee take South Carolina. Governor Romney may take Nevada. That could swing to Romney's favor. Then it'd get interesting. Romney will take Vermont, Massachusetts, and Utah on Super Tuesday - all winner take all states. California will be a big pickup for everyone because delegates are decided by districts. It'd take probably five or six votes to win Nancy Pelosi's district in the Republican primary.

Giuliani's strategy has not worked ever before. He may be the first to make it work. I have a very open mind about Giuliani. Many people have questioned how conservative he is by his policies in New York City with gun control, immigration, and allowance of civil unions. Even still, he's not a stupid man. He knows that his policies need to be widened out when they are for the country as a whole. If he wins, though, it will be on his foreign policy views and that alone. Those arguing about him just being a mayor, well, New York City is a country in and of itself. Surely, he will have a significantly larger jurisdiction if he were to become President, but leading a city like New York isn't a bad precursor. He does have Washington experience, people tend to overlook that.


My hope is that one way or the either we get a ticket with Romney AND Guiliani on it. Guiliani puts New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in play - and it is very possible that a Republican could pick up Lieberman's endorsement this time around. That'll play in Connecticut.

Romney would put Massachusetts in play and could also pull Vermont and Rhode Island. His ties to Michigan would help there.

Rudy might also be able to swing some votes in Philly, sending Pennsylvania into their column.

There's also California. They're voting on a measure to split up their electoral vote. The way they're doing it would give the Republicans 20 extra electoral votes from California.

Romney and Guiliani both are well liked here in Florida and Jeb Bush will back either candidate - Jeb is still hugely popular here. The major concern would be them being out of touch with the rest of the SE due to their Northeastern backgrounds, but I doubt Texas, SC, NC, Georgia, etc would swing to Clinton. They might if it were Bill, but not for Hillary.

Props to you for being active in a campaign. That's the beauty of democracy right there.


It's been a blast. Done it before more locally. I'll probably work for whoever gets the nomination, but I'll be more enthused if it is Romney or Guiliani. I think their executive experience will play well against the opposition. Obama is a first term Senator with no executive experience. Clinton's best playing card is that she is married to a former President. Edwards is a blood sucking lawyer known in medical circles to be one reason why malpractice rates have gone through the roof.

I think executive experience will matter in this election and a Romney/Guiliani ticket would have a lot of it with the ability to steal some electoral votes in the normally blue NE.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby skatingtripods » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:07 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:There's a laundry list. I hate the McCain-Feingold bill that negatively impacts free speech through political contributions. The McCain-Kennedy immigration bills were far too lenient. I will not call them amnesty like others, but I do not like the idea of extending permanent Z visas to current illegal aliens that have no expiration and no incentive for pursuing citizenship and learning the language. He still supports giving social security benefits to illegal aliens for time spent in the country illegally. He also did not support the Bush tax cuts and would probably be in favor of increasing taxes on the high income bracket - a bad idea since that is where investment in jobs and technology comes from.


Guess I asked you a loaded question, eh?

I agree with you. I want an extremely hard stance on immigration. The only ones with a very strong stance on the question of illegal immigration are Romney and Thompson. I like Fred Thompson, but I just think that he's not Presidential. I love his dry humor, but he entered the race too late and he's not a very fluent speaker at all whatsoever. Giuliani's a good, strong speaker, despite the little hitch in his voice.

Back to immigration, I am a realist on the subject, too. I want all 12 million illegals deported ASAP, but I know that's pretty unrealistic. I mean, that's a lot of people that could be harbored in any number of sanctuary cities, houses of relatives, houses of sympathizers, etc. Everybody has the same stance on those who have committed crimes. They should be extradited to prisons in their former country immediately. The task of finding all of the illegals is monumental and could probably be "needle-in-a-haystack" at best. Any number exceeding 40% would probably have to be sufficient for people like us.

As another note, I agree that illegals should receive none of the benefits that we as Americans receive. For me, that also includes public education.

I'll group the tax comments together.

He also did not support the Bush tax cuts and would probably be in favor of increasing taxes on the high income bracket - a bad idea since that is where investment in jobs and technology comes fromI'm also sure that McCain would not consider cutting the corporate tax rate, currently tied for Japan for the highest in the world. It is effectively 35% and incentivizes either moving things offshore or playing with the books instead of creating a more open, honest environment. Same thing on the top end of the income tax brackets. Rich people can hide money and so can companies. You need to discourage that with a low tax rate that will encourage growth. Take a look at Ireland's growth and their ultra-low 12.5% tax rate.


I think that cutting taxes is very necessary for any Republican who takes the office. I don't think that the high income individuals should be taxed any more sharply. A large amount of these people did work for their money and are the best in their field. It's just like athletes. If you are the best, you deserve more money.

The high tax bracket for companies does endorse outsourcing in order to cut costs. That I certainly agree with as well. In this day and age, and as an Ohio resident, I understand how important it is to keep as many jobs here as possible. My father's been a steelworker for 28 years and he's gone through three different companies at the same location. ArcelorMittal is a worldwide titan in the industry. Luckily, the plant that my dad works at produces and ships more steel per manpower than any other plant in the world. With results like that, he should be safe with his job. Many other people don't have that luxury.

While I support big companies, I think that, as you do, tax breaks and cuts are necessary to prevent outsourcing. It is about making money, but money can be made while preserving jobs. That said, states need to be more adamant in providing breaks for these companies. Federal taxes are one thing, but states, especially like Ohio, are more than dependent on the slowly-dying manufacturing sector.

McCain is also unlikely to work for change with the EPA and that also costs us money and jobs. My uncle is a high up for Dow Chemical and recently told me about how difficult it was for them to build a new plant. They had to have another company build the plant for them and buy the new plant from them, costing them 50% more than just building the plant under current EPA regs. If the regs were streamlined I would guess that manufacturing companies could cut prices in half at many plants.


I really hate the EPA. I'm aware that it's necessary to be careful with emissions and help to provide some regulations, but it is absurd. In a country that is growing more and more dependent on foreign fossil fuels and materials, the standards do need to be lowered. Once again, EPA reorganization will do what I alluded to above. It will cut costs for companies to build new plants and be able to cut some prices, thus allowing more jobs to stay.


McCain also led the Gang of 14, blocking the confirmation of strict constructionist judges on federal benches that only care about what the Constitution says and not how much they can read into it. Many on the bench currently are a lot like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. She has publicly said that she uses her feelings on issues above the actual law. These are not the kind of people that should be judges.


This isn't just McCain though. This has been done throughout the history of politics. I agree, though. The law is the law. This is again, why I'd be concerned with a person like Huckabee, or even Romney, being in the office. Religion holds so much precedent in those two, more than the others. This isn't to say that Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson don't have religious affiliations and follow their moral code, but they aren't to the extent that the other two are.

I agree there. As someone who identifies himself as an evangelical, I'm not a fan of Huckabee. I think he's utilized identity politics too much, running on his evangelical status almost entirely in states where that would play. We've been getting a lot of that down here.


By and large, that's his real chance to get in. Giuliani, probably the best hope in the mind of party strategists, has very few cohorts in the religious right. Huckabee's best shot is to get the votes of some of these evangelicals and get the economic conservatives on his side.

I didn't like him calling US foreign policy "arrogant". Aggressive, certainly. The guy has basically said that the only reason Iran is a problem is because we haven't been talking with them.


He has no clue with foreign policy. Like I said, diplomacy is not the way to deal with people who don't believe in the American system of democracy. They hate our ideals of equality and rights for women. Let's face it. We shouldn't associate with those known to be heavily influenced by radical Islam and a strong hatred of American society and ideals. It's never going to be beneficial and it only looks weak.

Huckabee strikes me as a guy who believes that all the world's problems can be solved through talking. That sounds a lot like Neville Chamberlain in Great Britain, believing that Hitler could be appeased and conflict could be prevented. Sure, we could let Iran destroy Israel, the lone bulwark for sanity in the Middle East, but then they'd want more. The mullahs in Iran are truly nuts, believing that they can get the 12th Imam to make an appearance if they cause a worldwide catastrophe. We need to talk to the moderate Iranians who are striking and protesting throughout that country. America is not unpopular with the youths in Iran - we need to encourage revolt against the regime there.


That worked out well for Chamberlain. Churchill was the best thing to happen to Great Britain during that time period.

I don't understand the argument of people who think that it is a good idea to just up and leave the Middle East, thinking that peace will somehow sustain itself. I'd say that history is a pretty good gauge of that. We left Germany to fend for itself after World War I. No explanation needed of how that turned out. After we aided Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, we abandoned them with our weapons and our military tactics. We're paying for that one now.

There are no conceiveable benefits to leaving Iraq as unstable as it is now except for the saving of the lives of our soldiers. Other than that, it's just going to create future problems for the generations that will follow.


It largely depends. If McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee, and Romney split up on delegates then there will be no clear winners and someone will have to broker a deal at the convention. I know Romney's camp is well aware of Convention rules and could play that card.


That is a good take, but I still don't think that it can happen. Romney is too much of an artificial candidate for me. First off, he looked like he was manufactured in the John F. Kennedy school of physically looking like a President. Second, I have never been impressed with Romney in any of the debates. I just thought that his only way to talk was to throw shit at somebody else and then respond after they made their points. It just seemed like he wasn't informed enough on their position to offer his own before he could have it reiterated to him. Once again, too, his Mormon faith bothers me. Whether it would affect his Presidency or not, it's just one of those things that is disconcerting.


I'm not sure if Michigan will go Democrat. Romney is a guy who may be able to pull that state out. His father still is fondly remembered there. He has the right pedigree because he father headed AMC during the Rambler days. He is really the only guy out there who can claim to be a friend to the American auto industry and that will play big. I like his positive message about not giving up, that we need to invest in technology and work to find ways to lower cost for US manufacturers to encourage increase in manufacturing in the States.


With so much of the issue on Michigan on the economy, I think Huckabee wins there. Like I said, he's probably got one of the better economic policies because he's so deficient on foreign policy.


There are a lot of tricky bastards down here. It is a statistical dead heat between McCain, Romney, Guiliani, and Huckabee. We're working hard for Romney throughout the state. We've got buses and cars ready to go to get people to the voting booth and we've got a lot of people committed to Romney. Michigan will play down here in Florida. A Romney win would probably hurt McCain, especially if Thompson or Huckabee take South Carolina. Governor Romney may take Nevada. That could swing to Romney's favor. Then it'd get interesting. Romney will take Vermont, Massachusetts, and Utah on Super Tuesday - all winner take all states. California will be a big pickup for everyone because delegates are decided by districts. It'd take probably five or six votes to win Nancy Pelosi's district in the Republican primary.


This is such a difficult year for us Republicans. There are no clear cut front runners at all. I pretty much agree with everything you have said except for Nevada. I don't know how I feel about Nevada's importance. By and large, it has very few real voting trends in terms of the country.

A Florida loss is crippling to McCain. Romney has the most to gain and lose there. Huckabee's camp couldn't have been too expectant to win Florida. Rudy's done for if he doesn't win or at least finish second in Florida. A shame for me, as he's my favorite candidate right now because he hammers home my biggest concerns, while being mostly like me on social issues. His immigration policy is sketchy at times. But like I said, when facing the country as a whole instead of a city compromised of a large portion of immigrants, it's bound to morph into something that is more strict on immigration.


My hope is that one way or the either we get a ticket with Romney AND Guiliani on it. Guiliani puts New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in play - and it is very possible that a Republican could pick up Lieberman's endorsement this time around. That'll play in Connecticut.

Romney would put Massachusetts in play and could also pull Vermont and Rhode Island. His ties to Michigan would help there.

Rudy might also be able to swing some votes in Philly, sending Pennsylvania into their column.


This is all well and good for the states you mentioned. However, it's not the ideal conservative ticket. It completely abandons the south. If Romney, or Giuliani, were to get the nomination, I think a southerner as VP is absolutely essential. I have a theory that if McCain got the nomination, his VP would be Lindsey Graham, a senator from SC. That's a much better pairing for the GOP than a Romney/Giuliani ticket.

There's also California. They're voting on a measure to split up their electoral vote. The way they're doing it would give the Republicans 20 extra electoral votes from California.


God love Arnold!

Romney and Guiliani both are well liked here in Florida and Jeb Bush will back either candidate - Jeb is still hugely popular here. The major concern would be them being out of touch with the rest of the SE due to their Northeastern backgrounds, but I doubt Texas, SC, NC, Georgia, etc would swing to Clinton. They might if it were Bill, but not for Hillary.


This is assuming Hillary is the nominee. Barack has a better shot. He can absolutely run the table on the young voters. He'll be a poster child for minorities and get a lot of their votes. The key vote in Texas is the Latin vote. That needs to go Republican for sure.


It's been a blast. Done it before more locally. I'll probably work for whoever gets the nomination, but I'll be more enthused if it is Romney or Guiliani. I think their executive experience will play well against the opposition. Obama is a first term Senator with no executive experience. Clinton's best playing card is that she is married to a former President. Edwards is a blood sucking lawyer known in medical circles to be one reason why malpractice rates have gone through the roof.


I agree with all of the above, except Romney. I'm still a Giuliani/McCain man first. But any Republican is light years better than Hillary or Barack.

Clinton couldn't even keep her husband loyal. Forget running a country, she can't handle a marriage.

I think executive experience will matter in this election and a Romney/Guiliani ticket would have a lot of it with the ability to steal some electoral votes in the normally blue NE.


This last note: the American south > the NE in terms of importance for the Republicans. I'd be worried about the south vote if that were the ticket.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:43 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:
Guess I asked you a loaded question, eh?


Yeah. I can get pretty heated in regards to McCain.

I agree with you. I want an extremely hard stance on immigration. The only ones with a very strong stance on the question of illegal immigration are Romney and Thompson. I like Fred Thompson, but I just think that he's not Presidential. I love his dry humor, but he entered the race too late and he's not a very fluent speaker at all whatsoever. Giuliani's a good, strong speaker, despite the little hitch in his voice.


I think Rudy is also very likable. He's a guy you could imagine chatting with. I really like Romney and have met the guy (played flag football with him prior to the Florida CNN debate a while back), but in public appearance he does appear to be a little out of reach mainly due to his polish and his record. The guy has practically turned everything he's touched to gold - it's easy to feel small in comparison.

Back to immigration, I am a realist on the subject, too. I want all 12 million illegals deported ASAP, but I know that's pretty unrealistic. I mean, that's a lot of people that could be harbored in any number of sanctuary cities, houses of relatives, houses of sympathizers, etc. Everybody has the same stance on those who have committed crimes. They should be extradited to prisons in their former country immediately. The task of finding all of the illegals is monumental and could probably be "needle-in-a-haystack" at best. Any number exceeding 40% would probably have to be sufficient for people like us.


I agree. I like Romney's plan of a controlled withdrawal essentially where he doesn't deport people and instead attempts to take certain issues into account, give people time to set their affairs in order, and leave by a certain time. His is a tiered system that would allow them to apply for a visa after they return to their home country, but they'd be given no preferential treatment. Those in line before them will get visas before them.

We really need to secure the border and clean up our legal immigrant issues. It's difficult for highly educated, highly skilled people to come here. That needs to end. There are a lot of people in Europe that hate the socialist states and the rise of radical Islamic youth that want to come here but it is so difficult for them to become permanent residents.

I just don't like being demonized because I dislike it when people break laws and come here without learning the language. Most of my ancestors came here to Massachusetts and Virginia in the first half of the 1600s, but I'm 1/4 German. That part of my family learned the language when they came here and settled in Missouri. They still spoke German with family and often around town (it was a small 100% German community near Jefferson City), but they all knew English and spoke it outside of their community. It is difficult to unite as a nation when you cannot speak a common language. Look at Canada and Belgium as examples.

As another note, I agree that illegals should receive none of the benefits that we as Americans receive. For me, that also includes public education.


Agree. I have no problem giving benefits to those here legally, but I don't want to do the same for those that broke the law in coming here. I know Mexico sucks economically, but they just dump people on us instead of trying to solve their own problems. I truly do feel bad for those caught in the middle, but the law is the law. Just because you're in bad straits gives you no right to break the law.

I think that cutting taxes is very necessary for any Republican who takes the office. I don't think that the high income individuals should be taxed any more sharply. A large amount of these people did work for their money and are the best in their field. It's just like athletes. If you are the best, you deserve more money.


Agree 100%. I have suspicions that many of the Democrats in leadership are "old money" people who like the high tax bracket to prevent many from joining their elite status. I could be wrong there, but I see no reason to penalize someone for doing well. Too many think the government needs to stick it to successful people. Those same people often are unwilling to put the amount of work in to take home the big bucks. There's a lot of sacrifice involved. It means you don't always watch the movies, football games, etc that you want to watch. The idea is that you have time to do that after you've done the work, years down the line.

The high tax bracket for companies does endorse outsourcing in order to cut costs. That I certainly agree with as well. In this day and age, and as an Ohio resident, I understand how important it is to keep as many jobs here as possible. My father's been a steelworker for 28 years and he's gone through three different companies at the same location. ArcelorMittal is a worldwide titan in the industry. Luckily, the plant that my dad works at produces and ships more steel per manpower than any other plant in the world. With results like that, he should be safe with his job. Many other people don't have that luxury.


That's great to hear. I really would like to see a resurgence in steel here in the US along with other industries associated with it. I'm a huge domestic car guy and would like to see us incentive electronics manufacture.

The US factory worker is the most efficient in the world, but government disincentives those kind of jobs right now. We need to work with domestic and foreign companies to get more goods made here. For one, it gives better oversight. Most big companies have a strong presence in the US. You're less like to get lead toys, etc here AND the government shouldn't be breathing down your neck like in China (in theory anyways).

While I support big companies, I think that, as you do, tax breaks and cuts are necessary to prevent outsourcing. It is about making money, but money can be made while preserving jobs. That said, states need to be more adamant in providing breaks for these companies. Federal taxes are one thing, but states, especially like Ohio, are more than dependent on the slowly-dying manufacturing sector.


Agree. What's happening to Ohio, Michigan, etc is really killing me inside. Those states have so much to do with their own issues - nearly as much as the Feds. The Ohio tax rate on businesses is high and then there's the state income tax. The state also has more bureaucracy for environmental issues and gives few breaks to business. Why not give some property tax reductions? Why not create laws that create more open shop environments? Living in the south, I have no love of unions at this point. They've done well for workers in the past, but lately I think they've been an impedance. Businesses need to be given an easier time in this area without screwing over the workers in the process.

I really hate the EPA. I'm aware that it's necessary to be careful with emissions and help to provide some regulations, but it is absurd. In a country that is growing more and more dependent on foreign fossil fuels and materials, the standards do need to be lowered. Once again, EPA reorganization will do what I alluded to above. It will cut costs for companies to build new plants and be able to cut some prices, thus allowing more jobs to stay.


I think the EPA is largely unnecessary in the modern era with a 24 hour news cycle that people can easily access online. Companies need to be forthright about waste disposal, exhausts, etc. This can be managed by having them post this data online. I seriously doubt big manufacturers will be able to get away with mass pollution in this day and age. Everyone wants clean air and water and that means that businesses want it to for a better image. I think it is good that more companies are conscious of this, though I am skeptical about how much of a crisis "global warming" is (I think there is some warming but that it is likely cyclical - Earth's temperature is always in flux and we're going through some warming after a long term cooling). I am at least glad that companies care about their image when it comes to the environment.

This isn't just McCain though. This has been done throughout the history of politics. I agree, though. The law is the law. This is again, why I'd be concerned with a person like Huckabee, or even Romney, being in the office. Religion holds so much precedent in those two, more than the others. This isn't to say that Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson don't have religious affiliations and follow their moral code, but they aren't to the extent that the other two are.


I think it is less of an issue with Romney based on my dealings with Mormons. It is an issue with others because it is considered weird (and I agree with those assertions, I have Mormons in my family and thought about converting in high school). Huckabee I have greater concerns with, especially with him saying today (apparently) that he wants to amend the Constitution to acknowledge the Bible as the ultimate law. I love the Bible and study it regularly, but I do not believe it has any place in a civil government. Christianity cannot be forced down peoples' throats. While I do believe that the Judeo-Christian traditions help to form our government, that does not mean that everyone here must adhere to the Bible - that is actually a very unbiblical thing to do, believe it or not.

By and large, that's his real chance to get in. Giuliani, probably the best hope in the mind of party strategists, has very few cohorts in the religious right. Huckabee's best shot is to get the votes of some of these evangelicals and get the economic conservatives on his side.


That is his best hope, but I don't think it's happening. Many evangelicals like Romney. Some do support Guiliani (Pat Robertson, for instance) and others like Thompson. It played in Iowa and might in South Carolina. I could see Georgia, maybe. It will largely depend on what happens before Feb. 5. With Romney winning by 10 points tonight in an OPEN primary, we could be seeing the beginning of a surge for him. I hope that's the case.

He has no clue with foreign policy. Like I said, diplomacy is not the way to deal with people who don't believe in the American system of democracy. They hate our ideals of equality and rights for women. Let's face it. We shouldn't associate with those known to be heavily influenced by radical Islam and a strong hatred of American society and ideals. It's never going to be beneficial and it only looks weak.


Agreed. We need to also be sure to finish what we start. One of the reasons why bin Laden and others went after us is because of our apparent weakness. We pulled out of Vietnam and left millions to be brainwashed or killed. We didn't respond to terrorist bombings in Beirut and were weak against the Iranians. We didn't finish off Saddam Hussein the first time. An America with no will to fight for what it believes in looks very vulnerable.

That worked out well for Chamberlain. Churchill was the best thing to happen to Great Britain during that time period.


Winston Churchill was the greatest man of the 20th century. He sounded the warning long before 1939. If the world had listened to him then Hitler would have been a footnote to history. Neville Chamberlain prevented the French from stopping Hitler's takeover of the Rhineland.

Churchill said that the Treaty of Versailles was too nasty towards the Germans from the getgo.

Fortunately he kept Britain afloat with our help. WWII was the finest moment thus far for the English speaking peoples, especially here in America. We saved the world from cruel despots and then the US took Japan and Western Europe on our backs and rebuilt them. I'm so proud of that.

I don't understand the argument of people who think that it is a good idea to just up and leave the Middle East, thinking that peace will somehow sustain itself. I'd say that history is a pretty good gauge of that. We left Germany to fend for itself after World War I. No explanation needed of how that turned out. After we aided Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, we abandoned them with our weapons and our military tactics. We're paying for that one now.

There are no conceiveable benefits to leaving Iraq as unstable as it is now except for the saving of the lives of our soldiers. Other than that, it's just going to create future problems for the generations that will follow.


I heard a startling fact today. In 2005 there were 9000 people of military age (18-34) murdered throughout the US. That's more than double the amount of deaths in the military since 2001. I think we need to focus more on concerns about those who stay here.

I'd love to see the death toll abroad drop, but I think there's been a lot of progress made over the past year. We can't abandon the Iraqis.


That is a good take, but I still don't think that it can happen. Romney is too much of an artificial candidate for me. First off, he looked like he was manufactured in the John F. Kennedy school of physically looking like a President. Second, I have never been impressed with Romney in any of the debates. I just thought that his only way to talk was to throw shit at somebody else and then respond after they made their points. It just seemed like he wasn't informed enough on their position to offer his own before he could have it reiterated to him. Once again, too, his Mormon faith bothers me. Whether it would affect his Presidency or not, it's just one of those things that is disconcerting.


I think he's done well in the debates. The focus groups have really liked him a lot, but I can see why some are turned off.

I do believe that Romney is more concerned about his own positions at this point. He has stressed the records of his opponents, but it can be difficult to pin down everyone's positions in a primary season.

The Mormon thing doesn't bother me. They're pretty good about separating politics from faith there. The biggest influence of it you'll see is in his strong family bonds. Mormons are generally great in that regard as they all set aside family nights and work to strengthening bonds in the family. Having attended a Mormon stake on a few occasions I can tell you that there aren't many people in the world friendlier.



With so much of the issue on Michigan on the economy, I think Huckabee wins there. Like I said, he's probably got one of the better economic policies because he's so deficient on foreign policy.


Huckabee did horribly tonight in an open primary while Romney did very well. I think Romney's ties to business and his family experience with the automotive industry will play well in the Rust Belt. He's the one guy who can actually claim some affinity for line workers on a more personal basis. While his father was in charge of AMC he was well liked and Romney clearly wants American manufacturing to succeed, he just doesn't want to create protectionist policies to do so.

This is such a difficult year for us Republicans. There are no clear cut front runners at all. I pretty much agree with everything you have said except for Nevada. I don't know how I feel about Nevada's importance. By and large, it has very few real voting trends in terms of the country.


True, but it is really about momentum at this point. I'm not sure where South Carolina will go, but a strong showing from Romney and a win in Nevada and Michigan will be what leads into the Florida primary. That momentum could propel Mitt in a tight race.

A Florida loss is crippling to McCain. Romney has the most to gain and lose there. Huckabee's camp couldn't have been too expectant to win Florida. Rudy's done for if he doesn't win or at least finish second in Florida. A shame for me, as he's my favorite candidate right now because he hammers home my biggest concerns, while being mostly like me on social issues. His immigration policy is sketchy at times. But like I said, when facing the country as a whole instead of a city compromised of a large portion of immigrants, it's bound to morph into something that is more strict on immigration.


Second place for Rudy in Florida would hurt greatly if this is going to be a battle of delegates because the #1 guy gets all the marbles in Florida. Even with the delegates cut in half, we've still got quite a few down here as the fourth largest state in the nation.

I'd have no problem with Rudy winning down here because I do like him a lot, I just like Mitt more because of his business background and track record for really bring change and turning things around.

I'm a fan of Romney because I do think he can cut government spending and work for change in Washington. He did it in Massachusetts and was able to get Democrats to participate in some fairly conservative initiatives, like cutting down the size of government. I also believe that his ability to at least listen to all sides could win him more support from the less liberal Democrats and bring some real progress on cutting back government waste and deregulating the health industry to open up competition. He also is very hopeful for the future while addressing serious issues, like how we need to deal with China now in order to continue to be the world's economic superpower. He's spoken about balancing the budget and actually running a surplus to pay off the debt and that will resonate.

This is all well and good for the states you mentioned. However, it's not the ideal conservative ticket. It completely abandons the south. If Romney, or Giuliani, were to get the nomination, I think a southerner as VP is absolutely essential. I have a theory that if McCain got the nomination, his VP would be Lindsey Graham, a senator from SC. That's a much better pairing for the GOP than a Romney/Giuliani ticket.


Lindsey Graham is another Senator I do not care much for.

There has been talk about our Governor, Charlie Crist, being a potential VP for Romney or Guiliani, but he just got into office last year. Jeb Bush has also been talked about, but I don't think the country will respond well to another Bush on the ticket, though Jeb is still very popular down here.

You could see Romney possibly name someone like Georgia's Governor, Sonny Perdue, as a VP candidate. That would open up Guiliani to be named as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense and I'd be find with that. He'd also make a great Attorney General.

This is assuming Hillary is the nominee. Barack has a better shot. He can absolutely run the table on the young voters. He'll be a poster child for minorities and get a lot of their votes. The key vote in Texas is the Latin vote. That needs to go Republican for sure.


Obama would make it a different game, for sure. Romney and Guiliani both have the Executive experience that none of the Democrats have, but that might not play with Obama.

Clinton, IMHO, is the easier target. She's got 50% of the country that dislikes here from the getgo. It's hard to win with so many people hating you from the beginning.


I agree with all of the above, except Romney. I'm still a Giuliani/McCain man first. But any Republican is light years better than Hillary or Barack.

Clinton couldn't even keep her husband loyal. Forget running a country, she can't handle a marriage.


I've always thought it was a marriage of convenience for her. She's always known that she didn't have the personality to win on her own and Bill is oozing with it. The guy is a masterful politician. I don't like him much either, but I'll give him that.

This last note: the American south > the NE in terms of importance for the Republicans. I'd be worried about the south vote if that were the ticket.


I'm not sure. I would be more worried against Obama... maybe. The South votes more on platform than other places. A lot of people down here are Democrats that vote Republican because the Republicans are more traditional nowadays. If Hillary is the candidate, I think her healthcare solutions would scare people down here. They won't confuse her with her husband. Granted, Perdue would be a better choice to really firm up the Southern vote for either candidate. Having someone from Georgia on the ticket would pull weight in the South due to Atlanta being the hub of the SE.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby skatingtripods » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:34 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:I think Rudy is also very likable. He's a guy you could imagine chatting with. I really like Romney and have met the guy (played flag football with him prior to the Florida CNN debate a while back), but in public appearance he does appear to be a little out of reach mainly due to his polish and his record. The guy has practically turned everything he's touched to gold - it's easy to feel small in comparison.


Right now I'm reading Leadership by Rudy Giuliani and so far, the man really has his head on straight. He realizes that authoritarian leadership is far from the right idea. Even in his pre-9/11 administration, he wisely and carefully chose who to delegate certain powers to and made sure that all of his mayoral cabinet members were up to speed on all the goings on and they all had a chance to have the floor at a daily meeting. I think that's extremely important for any administration to work.

My real problems with Mitt are in health care and foreign policy. I think his health care system is nationalized health care with a private option. I don't like that one bit. Enforcing that people purchase health care, and giving them tax penalties if they don't, is too much government. I understand it worked in Massachusetts, but this sure as hell won't work in depleted and poor parts of the southeast, and the Rocky Mountain regions of the northwest (Wyoming, Montana, etc.). On foreign policy, he's not as strong as Rudy, McCain, or Thompson. It just seems as though he wouldn't be interested in increasing the size of the military, which I think is necessary, and being more assertive in discussions with world organizations like the UN.


I agree. I like Romney's plan of a controlled withdrawal essentially where he doesn't deport people and instead attempts to take certain issues into account, give people time to set their affairs in order, and leave by a certain time. His is a tiered system that would allow them to apply for a visa after they return to their home country, but they'd be given no preferential treatment. Those in line before them will get visas before them.


It's standard for the party except that he is providing amnesty, in my mind, to those that fit his certain conditions. Though illogical, I would want them all deported, regardless of situation. Unless of course, my previous plan of a form of indentured servitude, in which they over time become citizens, start to have their own possessions, learn the American way of life (including English) would be my favorite plan. I don't know what kind of compensation exactly to give them. It's just a more elaborated system of the work visa, but it makes them the property of a business/land owner and therefore, makes them knowingly responsible. This way, if they do something wrong, the government can hold both the worker and the employee accountable. Thus giving these owners much more risk to acquire more illegal help due to stiff punishment, whether it be punitive or jail time.

I guess, by that same token Rudy provided amnesty to those children of illegal immigrants. In a way, that's different. But my immigration views are that they should not be in the public education system. Children are being held back enough. Illegal immigrants shouldn't complicate that any more.

We really need to secure the border and clean up our legal immigrant issues. It's difficult for highly educated, highly skilled people to come here. That needs to end. There are a lot of people in Europe that hate the socialist states and the rise of radical Islamic youth that want to come here but it is so difficult for them to become permanent residents.


Yes. This is the first task. If we were to irradicate illegal immigration as much as possible, we would likely have to curtail some of the residency restrictions and make it easier to get into this country legally. I'm not sure how I would feel about that.

Look at Canada and Belgium as examples.


Quebec has wanted to break away for how long? I agree. A national language of English is also a pretty necessary principle, even if it isn't going to be enforced strictly.


Agree. I have no problem giving benefits to those here legally, but I don't want to do the same for those that broke the law in coming here. I know Mexico sucks economically, but they just dump people on us instead of trying to solve their own problems. I truly do feel bad for those caught in the middle, but the law is the law. Just because you're in bad straits gives you no right to break the law.


Exactly. I agree word for word. Legal immigrants are paying into the system. They are, therefore, entitled to those benefits. That's the way it should stay.

Agree 100%. I have suspicions that many of the Democrats in leadership are "old money" people who like the high tax bracket to prevent many from joining their elite status. I could be wrong there, but I see no reason to penalize someone for doing well. Too many think the government needs to stick it to successful people. Those same people often are unwilling to put the amount of work in to take home the big bucks. There's a lot of sacrifice involved. It means you don't always watch the movies, football games, etc that you want to watch. The idea is that you have time to do that after you've done the work, years down the line.


Wholeheartedly agree. I don't understand how punishing people for being prosperous does any good. Mostly, it discourages people from going that extra mile because they don't want to fall into the higher tax bracket. Anything that discourages economic growth and prosperity is just an absurd concept.

Democrats just get upset at the sharp class divisions. Every society needs a structure of the population. It is almost imperative for a society to have an upper class, a middle class, and a poor class. Every republic that has tried to abolish the middle class (Russia, Venezuela, Chile, etc) has faced more problems in doing that than if they had taken a different route. Shit, Chavez in Venezuela is forcing the middle class out, which is really his only means of domestic wealth. Since they don't refine their own oil, he needs to stop oppressing the middle class because they are the only wealth in his country.

I say that because Democrats want to slowly drag the upper classes down towards the middle. This is absurd. Not only does a large middle class create tons of problems, it's just not plausible. It's just another example of the Democratic Party trying to be so idealistic for votes that they forget about the ramifications of what they propose. I see health care in this same light.

That's great to hear. I really would like to see a resurgence in steel here in the US along with other industries associated with it. I'm a huge domestic car guy and would like to see us incentive electronics manufacture.

The US factory worker is the most efficient in the world, but government disincentives those kind of jobs right now. We need to work with domestic and foreign companies to get more goods made here. For one, it gives better oversight. Most big companies have a strong presence in the US. You're less like to get lead toys, etc here AND the government shouldn't be breathing down your neck like in China (in theory anyways).


A steel resurgence is beyond unlikely. Cheaper labor, cheaper production costs, cheaper materials, it all bodes poorly for the United States steel industry. As my dad has told me numerous times, they roll more steel for Nissan and Toyota than they do for Ford and GM.

What we really need to do with our industry is cement ourselves as the dominant economic power in medicine, technology, and communications. Those are the three biggest industries in the world today and as far as I'm concerned, we need to further our growth in those. As communications and technology become more and more advanced, we occasionally fall behind because of those people who just can't seem to realize that this is the new global climate for those fields. Young new leadership is essential to this, mostly on a state and local level. I find that there are too many instances of policies that hinder growth in those fields instead of promote it.

Agree. What's happening to Ohio, Michigan, etc is really killing me inside. Those states have so much to do with their own issues - nearly as much as the Feds. The Ohio tax rate on businesses is high and then there's the state income tax. The state also has more bureaucracy for environmental issues and gives few breaks to business. Why not give some property tax reductions? Why not create laws that create more open shop environments? Living in the south, I have no love of unions at this point. They've done well for workers in the past, but lately I think they've been an impedance. Businesses need to be given an easier time in this area without screwing over the workers in the process.


This is because these manufacturing states feel as though they can't keep up with states that are big into technology like California, Texas, etc.

I would be in favor of property tax reductions for sure. It's just too expensive to run any kind of expansive business anymore. That is another thing that hinders growth. In Ohio's case, the only way that they get money is to tax the hell out of industry. New leaders need to emerge that understand that the best way to get growth out of the economy is to encourage businesses to want to come to Ohio. More businesses and more efficient industry will always make more money for a state than high taxes and environmental fines.

On unions, it's kind of a fine line for me. My dad's in the USWA and they actually have to sign a new agreement this September. They're likely going to get screwed over a bit by the company. So, it personally is a hardship for my family. I'm glad that there is someone to oversee the workers, but as a bureaucracy that is supposed to help the people, their own interests supercede the employee more often than not.

I think the EPA is largely unnecessary in the modern era with a 24 hour news cycle that people can easily access online. Companies need to be forthright about waste disposal, exhausts, etc. This can be managed by having them post this data online. I seriously doubt big manufacturers will be able to get away with mass pollution in this day and age. Everyone wants clean air and water and that means that businesses want it to for a better image. I think it is good that more companies are conscious of this, though I am skeptical about how much of a crisis "global warming" is (I think there is some warming but that it is likely cyclical - Earth's temperature is always in flux and we're going through some warming after a long term cooling). I am at least glad that companies care about their image when it comes to the environment.


Agreed. The EPA is just too much government. The fact that we are concerned about some smokestacks screwing up the environment while the planet has been through ice ages, tectonic plate shifts, and so many other phenomenon is asinine. Let industry continue to benefit the economy without fear of pissing off some environmentalist. The planet is a self-sustaining body with the means to rectify it's own atmosphere. It has done so in the past.

I think it is less of an issue with Romney based on my dealings with Mormons. It is an issue with others because it is considered weird (and I agree with those assertions, I have Mormons in my family and thought about converting in high school). Huckabee I have greater concerns with, especially with him saying today (apparently) that he wants to amend the Constitution to acknowledge the Bible as the ultimate law. I love the Bible and study it regularly, but I do not believe it has any place in a civil government. Christianity cannot be forced down peoples' throats. While I do believe that the Judeo-Christian traditions help to form our government, that does not mean that everyone here must adhere to the Bible - that is actually a very unbiblical thing to do, believe it or not.


By and large, people who have problems with religious affiliations have them because they don't understand the religion. I will admit that I'm not fully aware of everything that goes into a Mormon's personal beliefs. Even still, I'd piss off the religious right because I'm not tied down to a religion. I guess I'm just not that big into religion and I think it is blinding more than anything else. Going through Catholic grade school and high school, through religious study, I saw more of the corruption and idealism than anything else.

I'm also a proponent of taxing churches, so, you know how I feel about the importance of religions and places of worship. It's too easy to build a church to run something else and mask whatever it is that a group is doing by saying that it is a church. I don't know about Florida, but Ohio churches are overrun with weekend bingo. These operations rake in huge amounts of revenue and are not taxed because they are considered a church program. I think that is another reason why casino gambling has never taken off in the state. It would cripple the bingo revenues and shut some of the churches down.

That is his best hope, but I don't think it's happening. Many evangelicals like Romney. Some do support Guiliani (Pat Robertson, for instance) and others like Thompson. It played in Iowa and might in South Carolina. I could see Georgia, maybe. It will largely depend on what happens before Feb. 5. With Romney winning by 10 points tonight in an OPEN primary, we could be seeing the beginning of a surge for him. I hope that's the case.


Like I said earlier, I think Romney is out of touch with the south. He's a Republican former governor from Massachusetts who is also Mormon. That's not exactly the framework of a southern Republican. Realistically, Giuliani isn't either. Not to mention, Giuliani's pissed off the NRA. They have a huge southern following.

Agreed. We need to also be sure to finish what we start. One of the reasons why bin Laden and others went after us is because of our apparent weakness. We pulled out of Vietnam and left millions to be brainwashed or killed. We didn't respond to terrorist bombings in Beirut and were weak against the Iranians. We didn't finish off Saddam Hussein the first time. An America with no will to fight for what it believes in looks very vulnerable.


We had Saddam Hussein during the Clinton administration too, but we weren't allowed to enter Baghdad. What a shame.

We were weak with the Iranians because Jimmy Carter didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground on foreign policy. He's a great humanitarian, no doubt about it. But he was not an effective president.

Winston Churchill was the greatest man of the 20th century. He sounded the warning long before 1939. If the world had listened to him then Hitler would have been a footnote to history. Neville Chamberlain prevented the French from stopping Hitler's takeover of the Rhineland.

Churchill said that the Treaty of Versailles was too nasty towards the Germans from the getgo.

Fortunately he kept Britain afloat with our help. WWII was the finest moment thus far for the English speaking peoples, especially here in America. We saved the world from cruel despots and then the US took Japan and Western Europe on our backs and rebuilt them. I'm so proud of that.


The first notion of Hitler's plans should have been how he appealed to the young people, who really had minimal knowledge of what really happened during WWI. The outright manipulation of people who always seem to be desperate for change is the way to begin a revolution and radicalism. Ok, now I just scared myself more into the idea of Obama becoming President.

Either way, I agree that Churchill's importance is immeasurable.

On Japan, I don't think we had much of a choice but to help rebuild them. We had so many interests in the area and we wanted to ensure that they would not have any military capabilities to try and create an empire like they had tried to do since the late 1800s. Our alliance with China was huge and we needed another buffer against the Soviet Union. We had opened Japan's borders years before that and weren't about to let them close because we beat them in WWII.

I heard a startling fact today. In 2005 there were 9000 people of military age (18-34) murdered throughout the US. That's more than double the amount of deaths in the military since 2001. I think we need to focus more on concerns about those who stay here.


That's one thing I have always said. It's a shame, but the fact that only some 3200 or so soldiers have died is pretty remarkable. Think of previous wars and the severe loss of life. For a series of conflicts that has gone on over 7 years, less than 500 soldiers a year losing their lives is pretty small in comparison to other conflicts. It is only magnified because of the controversiality of the war.

I think he's done well in the debates. The focus groups have really liked him a lot, but I can see why some are turned off.

I do believe that Romney is more concerned about his own positions at this point. He has stressed the records of his opponents, but it can be difficult to pin down everyone's positions in a primary season.


This is where we differ. I think Romney has been more concerned with being different from anybody's policy than really having his own. The only thing I remember about any of Romney's policies is that his health care isn't favorable to my opinion on health care. That's how pedestrian the rest of his policies have been to me.

Huckabee did horribly tonight in an open primary while Romney did very well. I think Romney's ties to business and his family experience with the automotive industry will play well in the Rust Belt. He's the one guy who can actually claim some affinity for line workers on a more personal basis. While his father was in charge of AMC he was well liked and Romney clearly wants American manufacturing to succeed, he just doesn't want to create protectionist policies to do so.


I am surprised with how poorly Huckabee did. I guess the state was just disenchanted with a preacher from the south. These primaries really show how different the two sections of the country are. I was pleasantly surprised to see how McCain did, in a state where I pegged him for third place.

True, but it is really about momentum at this point. I'm not sure where South Carolina will go, but a strong showing from Romney and a win in Nevada and Michigan will be what leads into the Florida primary. That momentum could propel Mitt in a tight race.


It's going to be interesting. Even still, the ultimate decision comes down to the party, right?

Second place for Rudy in Florida would hurt greatly if this is going to be a battle of delegates because the #1 guy gets all the marbles in Florida. Even with the delegates cut in half, we've still got quite a few down here as the fourth largest state in the nation.


Rudy's eggs are all in one basket. Conversely, if he can win Texas, Florida, California, and Ohio, he's in good shape. I think that the party would like so much more favorably on that than someone winning Michigan, Iowa, Nevada, or any of the other states. They would probably feel that a guy like Giuliani could hold his own in the south and midwest enough to beat out the Dems.

Lindsey Graham is another Senator I do not care much for.


My girlfriend is originally from South Carolina and she speaks volumes about him. Even still, we greatly differ on our candidate. She's still a southern Republican and likes Huckabee. She also likes McCain. Meanwhile, I like Rudy and McCain.

There has been talk about our Governor, Charlie Crist, being a potential VP for Romney or Guiliani, but he just got into office last year. Jeb Bush has also been talked about, but I don't think the country will respond well to another Bush on the ticket, though Jeb is still very popular down here.


I'd be afraid that Florida's past voting foibles and some of the scandals down there with that one Congressman, his name escapes me, would turn some people off. Even still, I think a southeast Republican, not from Florida, or a midwesterner would be the best hope for a VP.

You could see Romney possibly name someone like Georgia's Governor, Sonny Perdue, as a VP candidate. That would open up Guiliani to be named as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense and I'd be find with that. He'd also make a great Attorney General.


I'd be very content with Rudy in any of those positions.

Obama would make it a different game, for sure. Romney and Guiliani both have the Executive experience that none of the Democrats have, but that might not play with Obama.


Of course the biggest argument on Giuliani is, can he go from mayor to President? Executively, yes. And like I said, he had government experience under Reagan. I know you're not a fan, but don't sell out Huckabee on executive experience. Though it's a small, sparsely populated state, he has that experience too.

Clinton, IMHO, is the easier target. She's got 50% of the country that dislikes here from the getgo. It's hard to win with so many people hating you from the beginning.


I really began hating her when I read in one of Bill O'Reilly's books that she took campaign donations for her seat in New York and published a book with them. Now every time I hear her voice, I want to punch her in the testicles (and we know she has them).

I've always thought it was a marriage of convenience for her. She's always known that she didn't have the personality to win on her own and Bill is oozing with it. The guy is a masterful politician. I don't like him much either, but I'll give him that.


Agreed completely. Bill was always an extremely charming man and a great speaker.

I'm not sure. I would be more worried against Obama... maybe. The South votes more on platform than other places. A lot of people down here are Democrats that vote Republican because the Republicans are more traditional nowadays. If Hillary is the candidate, I think her healthcare solutions would scare people down here. They won't confuse her with her husband. Granted, Perdue would be a better choice to really firm up the Southern vote for either candidate. Having someone from Georgia on the ticket would pull weight in the South due to Atlanta being the hub of the SE.


How often have Republicans honestly won the NE? It may, in all honesty, be the VP who determines if the Republicans get in or not.

Good chat with you, Mac. One question I'd like to ask you. Do you think that people equate Giuliani's running for President as taking advantage of 9/11? I mean, we'll be honest here. He's in relative obscurity without 9/11. I don't think he's manipulating 9/11, so much as, taking his image of strength and picture of leadership from those horrible days and months and using them to try and become the kind of President people want. A leader with a hard stance on global terrorism who has executive experience in the most important city in the country.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:25 pm

That's one thing I have always said. It's a shame, but the fact that only some 3200 or so soldiers have died is pretty remarkable. Think of previous wars and the severe loss of life. For a series of conflicts that has gone on over 7 years, less than 500 soldiers a year losing their lives is pretty small in comparison to other conflicts. It is only magnified because of the controversiality of the war.


Agreed. It's amazing in comparison with Vietnam. Every life is precious, but the casualty count is so law. The odds of our servicemen coming back are much higher than they were in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Civil Wr, and maybe the Spanish-American War (have to check the figures on that one, but I'm pretty sure of it).

This is where we differ. I think Romney has been more concerned with being different from anybody's policy than really having his own. The only thing I remember about any of Romney's policies is that his health care isn't favorable to my opinion on health care. That's how pedestrian the rest of his policies have been to me.


I've been on board with Romney since the beginning and have heard everything consistently being in line with what I understood from him a year ago.

I am surprised with how poorly Huckabee did. I guess the state was just disenchanted with a preacher from the south. These primaries really show how different the two sections of the country are. I was pleasantly surprised to see how McCain did, in a state where I pegged him for third place.


Most pundits thought McCain would win because he won big in 2000 due to Democrats and Independents crossing over to vote for him. They didn't last night.

Romney won the evangelicals 34-29 over Huckabee as well. Romney won in every category, winning a large majority of Republicans, winning with those who support the war.

The polls prior had the candidates pretty even, many had McCain with a slight advantage. None anticipated a Romney blowout.

As for McCain, here's a nice blast from the past:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/ ... 5508.shtml

"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy," he said. "But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before."


Take a look at the Michigan breakdown:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... html#MIREP



It's going to be interesting. Even still, the ultimate decision comes down to the party, right?


To the delegates. They can cut deals if the first ballot does not decide the nominee.

Rudy's eggs are all in one basket. Conversely, if he can win Texas, Florida, California, and Ohio, he's in good shape. I think that the party would like so much more favorably on that than someone winning Michigan, Iowa, Nevada, or any of the other states. They would probably feel that a guy like Giuliani could hold his own in the south and midwest enough to beat out the Dems.


I agree there, but it really hinges on Florida for him. If he loses here, especially to Romney, then it probably won't work out for Rudy in the long tun.

My girlfriend is originally from South Carolina and she speaks volumes about him. Even still, we greatly differ on our candidate. She's still a southern Republican and likes Huckabee. She also likes McCain. Meanwhile, I like Rudy and McCain.


Graham was a Gang of 14 member and a supporter of McCain-Kennedy. That's enough to make me not care for him.

I'd be afraid that Florida's past voting foibles and some of the scandals down there with that one Congressman, his name escapes me, would turn some people off. Even still, I think a southeast Republican, not from Florida, or a midwesterner would be the best hope for a VP.


I'd agree with you there when being realistic about it. I'm not sure of which midwesterner at this point. There's not a good Ohioan that comes to mind and Ohio may be swinging to the Democrats this time around, so that could provide an assist in keeping Ohio red. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota would be a possibility, especially with McCain. Dave Heineman of Nebraska is a Romney supporter. He's a West Point grad and former treasurer of Nebraska that is very popular in the state (got 76% of the vote in 2006).

A Governor from Nebraska would probably please the Midwest and the South as a VP nominee.

Matt Blunt, Missouri's governor, would probably really sooth both as Missouri is kinda a midwestern state and kinda a southern state. Blunt, however, is very young (37). There's been some controversy around him, so it might not be a good idea.

I'd be very content with Rudy in any of those positions.


My personal favorite for Rudy would be Attorney General. I'd like to see John Bolton as the Secretary of State.

Of course the biggest argument on Giuliani is, can he go from mayor to President? Executively, yes. And like I said, he had government experience under Reagan. I know you're not a fan, but don't sell out Huckabee on executive experience. Though it's a small, sparsely populated state, he has that experience too.


True, but Huckabee also has a lot of issues that will haunt him from his days as Governor. Rudy and Mitt have experience in foreign dealings. Mitt did so with business and with the Olympics (he also had some experience as Governor of Mass). Rudy got experience under Ford, I think. I know there's experience there and he had some as Mayor.

I really began hating her when I read in one of Bill O'Reilly's books that she took campaign donations for her seat in New York and published a book with them. Now every time I hear her voice, I want to punch her in the testicles (and we know she has them).


And they're more grandiose than her husband's.

How often have Republicans honestly won the NE? It may, in all honesty, be the VP who determines if the Republicans get in or not.


May be right there.

Reagan won the full NE outside of Rhode Island in 1980. Reagan took everything except Minnesota in 1984.

George HW Bush took Maine, Vermont, NH, Connecticut, and New Jersey in '88 while running against a man from Mass.

It was really under Clinton that those states fell out of play.

Good chat with you, Mac. One question I'd like to ask you. Do you think that people equate Giuliani's running for President as taking advantage of 9/11? I mean, we'll be honest here. He's in relative obscurity without 9/11. I don't think he's manipulating 9/11, so much as, taking his image of strength and picture of leadership from those horrible days and months and using them to try and become the kind of President people want. A leader with a hard stance on global terrorism who has executive experience in the most important city in the country.


Likewise. Really enjoy the intelligent banter.

I know of several people who wish Guiliani would shut up about 9/11. The problem for him is overstressing it so that people think that's all he's done. Rudy was interviewed on a local radio show a few days ago that is syndicated outside of the state (The Schnitt Show). A friend said that he actually finally liked Rudy there because he took the emphasis off 9/11 and put it more on what his plans were.

I think people already know about 9/11 and they'd prefer not to be reminded all the time. Most realize there's still a credible danger, but they're more interested in the future and not in the past. Rudy needs to focus on what he wants to do to fix things in DC and beyond. Anyone of voting age remembers seeing him on TV six plus years ago, seeing what he did for the city and country with his strength.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby skatingtripods » Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:20 pm

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby ProgRocker » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:10 pm

I see I'm about to enter a lion's den of conservative Republicans, which is fine. I'm happy because I FINALLY got my avatar to load onto this web site properly, and I'd like to respond if I could to the question and the discussion as I understand ...

First, I'm not averse to voting Republican. Here in Illinois we have one of the most arrogant punks I've ever seen running any government -- a Devo-haired Democrat named Rod Blagojevich, who brags about getting his daughter Hannah Montana tickets when others couldn't even get through the phone lines, but then turns around and brings public transit statewide to the brink of massive cutbacks simply because he has personal grudges against other Democrats (all of which grows out of his wife's dad, who goes back to the elder Daley Machine). It shows that absolute power can corrupt absolutely no matter what the party.

Having said that, here's my problem with modern Republicanism: they hate Government. Sounds odd, but after Katrina and what I think are the blatant lies that led us into Iraq, the fact is I believe you need a government that MUST represent the people, MUST work to curb what I think is way too much corporate power, and MUST provide basic services that corporations have now proven beyond a doubt they won't provide -- like health care, environmental protections, and not doing harm to the citizenry.

Simply put, I don't see how a political party that is proud of being hands-off and hand in hand with corporations can do any of that. In fact, listening to every Republican candidate, they seem to embrace NOT doing all of the above, and in the 21st century I for one can't handle that.

To me, everything I've read about what conservatives want is what George W. Bush and lockstep Congress gave them between 2001 and 2007 ... and what has it gotten us? A misbegotten war, a filthy and degrading environment, an economy that is now starting to crumble under our feet, hatred from the rest of the world, a loss in leadership in everything from technical innovation to actually being a beacon of freedom, and a political climate where everyone's at each other's throat. Blech.

So who am I looking at on the Democratic side?

Well, surprisingly, not really Hillary. To me, she (and her husband) are just a slightly more liberal version of the corporations-first philosophy that is really more of a Republican enclave, at least to me. She doesn't represent enough change to me. I was hoping for Edwards, but after tonight I don't even know if he'll be around long enough to be a spoiler. So by default that leaves me with Obama, and I can tell you as someone who followed him in IL that the DC establishment 'got' to him, and he's not the Great Hope most people think he is. I'm still hopeful, but not idealistic enough to believe it'll be automatic.

But then, I'm long past the time when I thought a vote every four years was going to be enough to get politicians to at least make believe he's listening to me. I'm one of those people who makes phone calls and sends e-mails to try to get my elected officials to do what they claim they're supposed to. Frankly, I think more like me are what's needed to turn this country around more than whoever we elect, at least to try to break through the money and the lobbyists and the corporateocracy (is that a word?).

So that's me. Feel free to kick it around as you see fit. I get the sense it'll be a lot more fun here than on TheOBR's WWR, which has turned into an absolute radical right wing freak show.

And thanks for allowing me to spout off!
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby skatingtripods » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:56 pm

ProgRocker wrote:I see I'm about to enter a lion's den of conservative Republicans, which is fine. I'm happy because I FINALLY got my avatar to load onto this web site properly, and I'd like to respond if I could to the question and the discussion as I understand ...


Welcome to the boards and the thread.

It shows that absolute power can corrupt absolutely no matter what the party.


I'll come back to this, but I wanted to quote it.

Having said that, here's my problem with modern Republicanism: they hate Government. Sounds odd, but after Katrina and what I think are the blatant lies that led us into Iraq, the fact is I believe you need a government that MUST represent the people, MUST work to curb what I think is way too much corporate power, and MUST provide basic services that corporations have now proven beyond a doubt they won't provide -- like health care, environmental protections, and not doing harm to the citizenry.


I wouldn't say that they hate government. They hate too much federal government oversight. The Republicans want the states to assume more power. I like that idea. I don't think that all problems should be the burden of the national government. Some states really need to start rectifying their own problems and stop waiting for the federal government.

Do you feel that the state and local governments have a responsibility to represent the people? Republicans do. Democrats, by and large, don't.

Simply put, I don't see how a political party that is proud of being hands-off and hand in hand with corporations can do any of that. In fact, listening to every Republican candidate, they seem to embrace NOT doing all of the above, and in the 21st century I for one can't handle that.


This is reasonable. My argument would be that corporations create the financial framework and infrastructure of the country, and should be appeased. If that comes at the expense of some individuals, this may sound cold, but the whole is more important than the individual, especially on a federal level.

To me, everything I've read about what conservatives want is what George W. Bush and lockstep Congress gave them between 2001 and 2007 ... and what has it gotten us? A misbegotten war, a filthy and degrading environment, an economy that is now starting to crumble under our feet, hatred from the rest of the world, a loss in leadership in everything from technical innovation to actually being a beacon of freedom, and a political climate where everyone's at each other's throat. Blech.


You're right in saying that the economy is crumbling. Most of that can be attributed to the housing crisis and high inflation. I do agree, even as a Bush supporter, that his economic policies are not helpful. His recent tax rebates aren't going to rectify the problem. Tax cuts would be better, because then inflation can be lowered and some of the money can be put back into the consumer culture.

Before the housing crisis and the problems of energy taxes, the Dow Jones had set groundbreaking high values. The economy was doing very well, but this foreclosure problem is really crippling. This isn't really the Bush admins' problem. Banks needed to understand that giving loans to people who did not have the means to pay them was a recipe for disaster.


Well, surprisingly, not really Hillary. To me, she (and her husband) are just a slightly more liberal version of the corporations-first philosophy that is really more of a Republican enclave, at least to me. She doesn't represent enough change to me. I was hoping for Edwards, but after tonight I don't even know if he'll be around long enough to be a spoiler. So by default that leaves me with Obama, and I can tell you as someone who followed him in IL that the DC establishment 'got' to him, and he's not the Great Hope most people think he is. I'm still hopeful, but not idealistic enough to believe it'll be automatic.


If I had a gun to my head, I'd have to vote for Edwards too. Obama's past is troubling to me and his brother's ties to fundamentalist Muslims in Africa is frightening. I hate Hillary more than anyone in the political landscape. Democrats, like Republicans, are really in a tough spot during this election. I have many Democratic friends who are voting for Obama because of the notion of change. However, they feel that Obama really hasn't clarified anything and is stuck in vaguery.

Back to what I quoted. You're right, absolute power does corrupt absolutely. What else corrupts absolutely is idealism. My greatest fear is that a Democrat will win the Presidency and care so much about reforming social policies that so many of the other issues (immigration, the economy, foreign policy) will be completely overlooked.

Republicans know that concept and that's why they want state governments to be more assertive in their own state problems. This isn't to say that Republicans want to dump everything on the states, because many things can't be taken care of by any government but the federal government. States need to encourage economic growth, housing stability, and maintain their own environmental regulations and not sit around waiting for the federal government to take charge.


Prog, if you don't mind my asking, which Republican appeals the most to you?
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby ProgRocker » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:16 pm

Tripods,

At least you aren't attacking global warming as a myth! AAIIIEEE!!!

I'll get to what I think the crux of your Repub/Dem point was, but first I must correct a horrible distortion: Barack Obama and his family DO NOT -- I repeat, DO NOT -- have ANY radical Muslim ties whatsoever. I'm from Chicago and worked with him (not directly) on some issues surrounding the problems with capital punishment that led to the moratorium. I know many people that worked with him in the State Senate on a lot of issues and I can vouch for his organizational abilities and his character. Wherever you read or heard of the story of his brother being tied to radicals -- or even the "Barack Hussein Osama" e-mails -- it and they are slurs, plain and simple. Not one iota of truth to them.

With that out of the way, the main argument you make is states' rights, and the belief that the states should take care of a lot of the problems I would argue the feds should. Three retorts:

(1) Some problems are simply beyond the ability of states to handle. That's why we have a military, as you know. It's why we often federalize disaster management, and we saw with Katrina the absolute necessity of that. It's also why something like health care is just not something that can be solved from state to state. California may be able to pull it off -- I doubt that Ohio could. So do we let Californians bask and then start getting illegal immigrants from Ohio? That leads me to ...

(2) Unequal distribution of rights. If we have some states that had universal health care while others simply can't do it, and still others (stereotypically, I'm going to pick Mississippi for my example) don't want to, what you have in essence are mini-countries who have more than other states. I don't think that's equitable, and the Supreme Court's rulings on voting rights and schooling will, I think, back me up on it. Which also, conveniently enough, leads to ...

(3) States rights has for too long in this country been used as an excuse for denying rights. It was the thing used by Southern states to keep slavery for many years, and after that Jim Crow laws as well. It's an ugly precedent, and with no overarching power (like the Federal courts or the Federal government) to make them not do it, they often respond by doing the wrong thing. (That's a similar argument I use for universal health care, too, by the way -- the HMOs have now gotten to the point where they make big money by not giving out services, and "the market" is designed to make money and not give services, so to me it proves they won't give care unless forced to by some force like a Government).

So to summarize, I think states' rights are a big loophole, leads to inequalities, and are fundamentally unfair to the rest of the country.

(I'm kind of doing this fast, so if there are holes I apologize).

We could probably argue about the in-progress mortgage meltdown, and I'm torn because I can see how folks who should never have gotten mortgages did (is that the fault of the banks or them?) while I also know a few people that rolled dice on the ARMs and should be burned (I had one for about a year and flipped to a 30-year-fixed immediately because I didn't want that uncertainty burning me), but I would simply say that the seemingly Republican economic tendency to scream "TAX CUTS!" for everything from budget surpluses to budget deficits to Social Security to the gout has got. To. Stop. We don't like taxes and we need to be judicious, but every once in awhile we DO need to pay a few more bucks for taxes.

As for Republicans I like ... I actually liked a lot of what I read about Huckabee until the rewrite-the-Constitution-under-God stuff came out ... we had a couple of decent ones as IL Governor in Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar ... but I have to admit, at this point I am very leery of any Republican that proudly supported Bush without atoning big-time. I would tend to lean towards the Goldwater-style of as little Government as possible (and pay for things!) than the Grover Norquist types.

And I absolutely loathe the Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter tendencies to demonize and name-call everything I as a Democrat say simply because I am a Democrat and therefore are evil/criminal/unpatriotic/ love to see the troops die/etc. If there's one strain of Republicanism I think really has to stop, that's it. That more than anything is why I am more pro-Obama (who openly asks for a turn away from that rhetoric) from Hillary (who, I think out of habit by now, dishes out as well as she gets - which I used to like but I'm just exhausted with that crap, and the prospect of eight more years of it is just spiritually deadening to me, because if she's there, the Rushes and the Malkins will not let it go. Indeed, I know more than a few Republicans who pray it is Hillary because they want to keep those wars going, on the theory that it's the only way they stay in power. God help us.)
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby skatingtripods » Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:43 pm

ProgRocker wrote:At least you aren't attacking global warming as a myth! AAIIIEEE!!!


I'll leave that to Mac. It's not that it's a myth, it's that it is overglorified. The planet goes through spells like this, and currently, it's getting warmer. As for Al Gore, he's an embarrassment.

I'll get to what I think the crux of your Repub/Dem point was, but first I must correct a horrible distortion: Barack Obama and his family DO NOT -- I repeat, DO NOT -- have ANY radical Muslim ties whatsoever. I'm from Chicago and worked with him (not directly) on some issues surrounding the problems with capital punishment that led to the moratorium. I know many people that worked with him in the State Senate on a lot of issues and I can vouch for his organizational abilities and his character. Wherever you read or heard of the story of his brother being tied to radicals -- or even the "Barack Hussein Osama" e-mails -- it and they are slurs, plain and simple. Not one iota of truth to them.


I'm sorry, but I can't take your word over a published story in a respected business magazine. There is no question that there is widespread corruption throughout Islam and the fact that he has any association greatly enhances the risk for radical ties. I'm not saying that Islam is exclusive in being corrupt by any means. I'm inclined to believe that story. It's not uncommon for family members to have different levels of religious affiliation. Even if he, himself, doesn't have the ties, his family members might. That's extremely disconcerting to me.

With that out of the way, the main argument you make is states' rights, and the belief that the states should take care of a lot of the problems I would argue the feds should. Three retorts:


Re-read what I said. I didn't say that every problem was the burden of the states, but there are plenty that should be.

(1) Some problems are simply beyond the ability of states to handle. That's why we have a military, as you know. It's why we often federalize disaster management, and we saw with Katrina the absolute necessity of that. It's also why something like health care is just not something that can be solved from state to state. California may be able to pull it off -- I doubt that Ohio could. So do we let Californians bask and then start getting illegal immigrants from Ohio? That leads me to ...


Health care isn't a state issue. It's a consumer option. Private health care is widely available. Many of the people who are uninsured can afford it and choose not to. They should not be the burden of the taxpayer. Neither should those who can't afford it. States can encourage better health care rates, as Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. While I don't agree with how he did it, it worked in his state and many people are now insured.

In terms of federal emergency management, FEMA sucks. I won't disagree there. States, specifically coastal states, need to incorporate budgets into their own fiscal structure to help account for such events. Sure, the federal government can be of assistance as well. Nevertheless, we would never be having this discussion if the inept leadership of New Orleans, and Louisiana, had done something about the levees that were broken and doomed before Katrina hit. Case in point on why states should be held accountable for means of prevention and immediate help.

(2) Unequal distribution of rights. If we have some states that had universal health care while others simply can't do it, and still others (stereotypically, I'm going to pick Mississippi for my example) don't want to, what you have in essence are mini-countries who have more than other states. I don't think that's equitable, and the Supreme Court's rulings on voting rights and schooling will, I think, back me up on it. Which also, conveniently enough, leads to ...


People need to assume some of their own responsibility for their finances. If certain people do not want to accomodate the need for medical care and coverage in their finances, then that should not be the federal government's problem. Now I know your reply. What about the people that don't have the means to help themselves with health care? That is an altogether different animal. I can honestly say that I don't have an answer for that one. I'm not knowledgeable on the subject to discuss those people, but the Republican candidates do have plans in place for those individuals. Re-structuring the system to allow for more competition and lower rates will help these people at least get some coverage.

As an example, I will use a friend of mine, unnamed. Their family is spread across parts of the country. The father is unable to work due to disability, and because it is inferred that he could work a desk job (he was previously a laborer his whole working life), he gets no unemployment or disability. This family's mother has found a job at a calling center for a cable operator. She pays into the health care system with a chunk of her paycheck and provides health insurance for herself, her husband, and her only remaining dependent child. Without going into specific details on this individual or family, the house payment is a large chunk of the earnings and the working parent has a GED.

Now, I tell you that because it is possible for people, even in the poorer sector of the public to sustain themselves with health care. It is just a matter of the will to do so. If larger families want to partake in the system, an alternative to welfare that provides basic health care and CANNOT be abused as easily would be a much better concept.

(3) States rights has for too long in this country been used as an excuse for denying rights. It was the thing used by Southern states to keep slavery for many years, and after that Jim Crow laws as well. It's an ugly precedent, and with no overarching power (like the Federal courts or the Federal government) to make them not do it, they often respond by doing the wrong thing. (That's a similar argument I use for universal health care, too, by the way -- the HMOs have now gotten to the point where they make big money by not giving out services, and "the market" is designed to make money and not give services, so to me it proves they won't give care unless forced to by some force like a Government).


This wonderful country in which we can have this argument was founded on the principle of states' rights. It isn't a crutch. It has been abandoned for so long by governors and state legislatures that it has become ineffective. States need to take more accountability for their borders, their citizens, and their emergencies. Contrary to what you may argue, it is not an outdated idea. States have not been pushed enough to uphold their end of the bargain. If anything, the federal government needs to be stricter on states and encourage their compliance with new policies that put more responsibilities on them. Certain states that don't comply don't get the same amount of aid.

So to summarize, I think states' rights are a big loophole, leads to inequalities, and are fundamentally unfair to the rest of the country.


So federal government oversight that groups everybody into one demographic and eliminates individuality and diversity through groups is a better idea? The federal government should hold back the upper classes in Massachusetts because the poor in Mississippi have more needs and that is where all of the attention is paid? Hello Communism!

The states are not the same and are not made up of the same people. To generalize that the needs of Mississippians are the same as the needs of Idahoans and to make that a government policy is ludicrous.

Inequality is fundamental. Every age of man has seen inequality. To attempt to solve inequality through government oversight by only helping the poor classes and attending to their needs is to ruin everything. Every society needs class divides and social stratification. You don't see a whole lot of thriving Communist or Fascist nations anymore, do you?

but I would simply say that the seemingly Republican economic tendency to scream "TAX CUTS!" for everything from budget surpluses to budget deficits to Social Security to the gout has got. To. Stop. We don't like taxes and we need to be judicious, but every once in awhile we DO need to pay a few more bucks for taxes.


To cut taxes is to give people more disposable income. Consumerism is, and always has been, the best way to fix an economy. Clearly nobody likes taxes. But radical income tax brackets aren't the answer to the problem. Many of these people in the high tax brackets are the philanthropists who give back to the community in which they live anyway. Punishing them for having more wealth and capital than the common man discourages growth in industry, society, and opportunity.

Paying taxes in facets other than income is the best way to go about increasing tax flow into the American economy.

As for Republicans I like ... I actually liked a lot of what I read about Huckabee until the rewrite-the-Constitution-under-God stuff came out ... we had a couple of decent ones as IL Governor in Jim Thompson and Jim Edgar ... but I have to admit, at this point I am very leery of any Republican that proudly supported Bush without atoning big-time. I would tend to lean towards the Goldwater-style of as little Government as possible (and pay for things!) than the Grover Norquist types.


For someone irritated with talking heads and others who paint all Democrats with one brush, you certainly are doing the same about Bush supporters. Many Democrats have supported Bush and his foreign policies numerous times and only changed their tune as the Congressional elections loomed closer in 2006, and now the Presidential election in 2008.

Wait. You want a Republican who believes in little government? Didn't you spend your whole post telling me how much government oversight you want from the feds? Wasn't that the gist of why you don't like states' rights? Or am I just reading what you said wrong?

And I absolutely loathe the Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter tendencies to demonize and name-call everything I as a Democrat say simply because I am a Democrat and therefore are evil/criminal/unpatriotic/ love to see the troops die/etc. If there's one strain of Republicanism I think really has to stop, that's it. That more than anything is why I am more pro-Obama (who openly asks for a turn away from that rhetoric) from Hillary (who, I think out of habit by now, dishes out as well as she gets - which I used to like but I'm just exhausted with that crap, and the prospect of eight more years of it is just spiritually deadening to me, because if she's there, the Rushes and the Malkins will not let it go. Indeed, I know more than a few Republicans who pray it is Hillary because they want to keep those wars going, on the theory that it's the only way they stay in power. God help us.)


Well, my nickname around some of my friends who are masters students in applied politics is Bill O'Reilly, so I doubt we'd get along.

Since you didn't ask, I'll offer this. I couldn't vote for or support any Democrat, save for Edwards if there was a gun to my head. Obama, as mentioned, I'm afraid of his Muslim past and his family. Not only that, he wants such radical change (which remains vague still) that it's going to shock the country so fast and so much that it probably would never work. Everything I've seen from him is pure idealism with no substance. Hillary's just a bitch. I can't stand her.

At least Edwards is a more moderate Democrat.

Good to keep all of this civil with you, sir.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby leadpipe » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:14 pm

Without getting into why there isn't a worthy candidate out there, I would just like to reiterate, the fact we are tied up in the presidential election in January is one of the countries problems as a whole. The campaign season should be no longer than 6 months. Outside of that 6 months perhaps some heads will get together and help out the American public.

6 months is a long enough time for ANYONE to make a case.

There are other huge election problems such as soft money and the electoral college nonsense. For another day.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Unread postby ProgRocker » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:32 pm

On Obama: I don't care what "respected business magazine" you read that slime in, it IS slime and it IS wrong and it IS nothing but an attempt to personally slur Obama. Complete and total lie, and it won't be the first told about Obama, especially if he's on the ticket.

On health care: sorry, but if I can't go to work and I can't afford a doctor's visit because I can't go to work, health care ceases to be a "consumer option." It is part and parcel of "protecting the general welfare," I would argue -- and when it comes to things like epidemics and disease prevention, I suspect you'd agree. I would also hope that if health care reform becomes an issue in 2009 as I think it absolutely must, I'll put my argument up against your argument and let's see who would win in the body politic.

Similarly, Katrina. I agree that the state and local governments let the levees go into disrepair for years and that both parties are guilty. However, given the importance of the port of New Orleans for everything from oil delivery to commerce, it seems to me the line between "states' responsibility" and "national interest" is blurred, if not erased. Our world is more and more interdependent, as is our state and our country, and in that circumstance you have to say that in a republic like this, there has to be a contribution by the federal government -- otherwise, why not just have 50 countries?

Now, there absolutely needs to be a check and balance whenever power has to be shared or there's a conflict. I think that's the genius of the Founding Fathers, and on that score I think this country has failed miserably in the last 15-25 years. It is, however, why I remain a Democrat, because as imperfect as they are, the fact is most Democrats see government as a check and balance. Does it get too heavy at times? Of course. But Republican theory seems to be less-is-more, and I don't think you can argue that Bush has accelerated the process of fewer checks and balances, to miserable effect, I would argue.

We do disagree on the abilities of the poor to handle health care -- Hell, I know solidly MIDDLE-CLASS individuals who can't get health care. And not always because they've been bad people or because they can't handle their finances. A 28-year-old female friend of mine can't get medical insurance because her mother -- not her, HER MOTHER -- had breast cancer, even though there was no history of breast cancer in her family (they're pretty sure it was an environmental situation in her hometown in NY that did it) (hence my continued disagreement with you about the ills of the environment). What you have to recognize is that the health insurance industry, more and more, is about NOT giving people health care. THAT is what happens without regulation, and THAT is what happens when "the market" is defined not as "how much care can you give and turn a profit," but merely "profit." If you can tell me how you remove that problem and still have privatized health insurance I'll give it a listen, but every other industrialized country on this Earth has decided private health insurance is the wrong answer. At some point you have to think maybe they have it right and we don't (but again, show me where we can get everyone coverage when they need it cost-effectively -- and don't tell me malpractice insurance because that only affects doctors and not the corporations who are making the decisions -- and I'll listen. Promise.)

On your states rights defense: great in theory, but what happens when you have a party that also believes in a more laissez-faire form of government running the states? The answer: you'd have a situation where the feds and the states keep saying it's somebody else's problem. I would argue that, again, even states' rights doesn't work without some kind of enforcement - and on that we agree, I think.

I'll have to get to the rest of it later ...
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby FUDU » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:47 pm

The campaign season should be no longer than 6 months. Outside of that 6 months perhaps some heads will get together and help out the American public.


I agree with you but from what I have learned from the History Channel we are lucky compared to the first 50-75 years of this country.

Supposedly the campaigned up to 24 months before the next election.

IMO what needs to change more so than anything else in regards to the election season is the primary BS. All the primaries should be done within 4-6 weeks, do half the states on one Tuesday and the other half a month later. Too few an amount of people have way too big an impact on the candidate list.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby skatingtripods » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:05 pm

ProgRocker wrote:On Obama: I don't care what "respected business magazine" you read that slime in, it IS slime and it IS wrong and it IS nothing but an attempt to personally slur Obama. Complete and total lie, and it won't be the first told about Obama, especially if he's on the ticket.


Right, it's slime because it's in a conservative publication. I guess the Journalistic Code of Ethics is irrelevant just because it's a business magazine. I find it amazing that Democrats can never believe anything unless it comes from one of their own mouths.

On health care: sorry, but if I can't go to work and I can't afford a doctor's visit because I can't go to work, health care ceases to be a "consumer option." It is part and parcel of "protecting the general welfare," I would argue -- and when it comes to things like epidemics and disease prevention, I suspect you'd agree. I would also hope that if health care reform becomes an issue in 2009 as I think it absolutely must, I'll put my argument up against your argument and let's see who would win in the body politic.


We aren't talking about epidemics or disease prevention. We're talking about general basic health care for all individuals.

Of course the general public wants socialized medicine. They don't know that the medical sector of the economy accounts for 1/6 of the entire U.S. economy. When that money goes, and people are abusing the system, fraud runs rampant, then, hey, at least I can pay for someone else's sex change.

The only argument about socialized medicine that holds water is people who can't afford health care. Many uninsured people can and don't. So, instead, we'll do the socialized thing and ruin everyone else's top of the line care in honor of public care. So much for having the best health care system in the world. You think illegal immigration is a problem now, wait until everyone in this country can get free health care.

Now, there absolutely needs to be a check and balance whenever power has to be shared or there's a conflict. I think that's the genius of the Founding Fathers, and on that score I think this country has failed miserably in the last 15-25 years. It is, however, why I remain a Democrat, because as imperfect as they are, the fact is most Democrats see government as a check and balance. Does it get too heavy at times? Of course. But Republican theory seems to be less-is-more, and I don't think you can argue that Bush has accelerated the process of fewer checks and balances, to miserable effect, I would argue.


Democrats don't see government. They see an unreachable utopia that is the platform they continue to run on. They seem to think that reorganization in the federal government will make everyone equal and the same. Not only is this unfair, and very Chavez-like, it's absurd. It will never happen. People are inherently different and unequal. The sooner the general public understands that, the better.

We do disagree on the abilities of the poor to handle health care -- Hell, I know solidly MIDDLE-CLASS individuals who can't get health care. And not always because they've been bad people or because they can't handle their finances. A 28-year-old female friend of mine can't get medical insurance because her mother -- not her, HER MOTHER -- had breast cancer, even though there was no history of breast cancer in her family (they're pretty sure it was an environmental situation in her hometown in NY that did it) (hence my continued disagreement with you about the ills of the environment). What you have to recognize is that the health insurance industry, more and more, is about NOT giving people health care. THAT is what happens without regulation, and THAT is what happens when "the market" is defined not as "how much care can you give and turn a profit," but merely "profit." If you can tell me how you remove that problem and still have privatized health insurance I'll give it a listen, but every other industrialized country on this Earth has decided private health insurance is the wrong answer. At some point you have to think maybe they have it right and we don't (but again, show me where we can get everyone coverage when they need it cost-effectively -- and don't tell me malpractice insurance because that only affects doctors and not the corporations who are making the decisions -- and I'll listen. Promise.)


Of course we disagree. It's pretty clear we won't agree on anything. Once again, you want to see everyone with coverage, look at Mitt Romney's former state of Massachusetts. His plan worked there. Like I said, I don't agree with how it was done, but it was done.

Remind me why we have to be like every other country. Just because we don't embrace socialism in a large component of our capitalist society?

The problem is that people aren't informed enough on private options. There's not enough competition to keep cost down. The answers to the system currently lie within the system, not socialism in the medical industry. When all of the insurance workers, and numerous other medical positions are vacated and unemployment is on the rise while illegal immigrants continue to take jobs because they're sucking from the government's tits, everyone will see what socialized medicine really does.

Socialized medicine will discourage pharmaceutical testing and advancement in medicine. Why? Because companies that are researching will NEVER receive enough profit to compensate for costs of research and development. Taking two steps backwards is not the right option.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby leadpipe » Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:44 pm

FUDU wrote:
The campaign season should be no longer than 6 months. Outside of that 6 months perhaps some heads will get together and help out the American public.


I agree with you but from what I have learned from the History Channel we are lucky compared to the first 50-75 years of this country.

Supposedly the campaigned up to 24 months before the next election.

IMO what needs to change more so than anything else in regards to the election season is the primary BS. All the primaries should be done within 4-6 weeks, do half the states on one Tuesday and the other half a month later. Too few an amount of people have way too big an impact on the candidate list.


Ahhhh, but another couple things should have been gleaned from the history channel. One of the most important being that in the first 50 to 75 years of the country our leaders made the tough choices - not the easy ones that have been made in the last 60 years. They thought long term, now we think short term. Modern politicians borrow from our childeren thinking the bills will never come due, and, as the national deficit tells us, that's a big mistake. One, interestingly enough, that nobody apprears to give a shit about this year.

The other thing to look at is how many people our great country is employing to do much less than 50 years ago. John F. Kennedy had a White House staff of 600. Bush has almost 2,000. Congress had a staff in1960 of just over 5,500. Today they are over 20,000. The additional people are employed, apparently to insulate the general citizen from official members of congress, cover asses and most importantly to the point of this thread - get them re-elected.
By the way, the staffs historically accomplish very little. The action is in the field.

But, in the end, we sit here and take it up the ass. Years ago senate apporved the largest deficit in history, and the same year awarded themselves a 23% pay increase.

Yeah, modern poilitics are just great.

Hey, at least our presidential vote won't be filtered...oh, wait, umm, well the electoral college does that. Well, at least we kind of half count.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6504
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Unread postby Orenthal » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:10 pm

I agree with you but from what I have learned from the History Channel we are lucky compared to the first 50-75 years of this country.

Supposedly the campaigned up to 24 months before the next election.


Never mind what Lead said about the topic, it probably has more to do with technology then anything. Cars, TV's, and the like reduced the time it took to get your message out effectively Don't ya think?

How deprived our country was, they missed out on seeing John Adams on Fox News every five minutes. Poor Taft, fat people cannot run for elected office today...
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor


Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests