TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why should Hillary leave the race?
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Quoted for total agreement.

note my edit above, fiscally conservative has nothing to do with tax cuts, it has everything to do with having a bottom line in black.

oddly enough, read the definition from wikipedia:

quote:

Fiscal conservatism is a political phrase term used in North America to describe advocacy of lower governmental spending practices and a lower federal debt; it may also include higher taxes in order to lower the debt. It does not necessarily denote advocacy of free market economics as a whole, and is a distinct concept from that of neo-liberalism.

i would say republicans have strayed very far away from a tenant of the republican party. it's ironic that democrats are calling for fiscal responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 note my edit above, fiscally conservative has nothing to do with tax cuts, it has everything to do with having a bottom line in black. i would say republicans have strayed very far away from a tenant of the republican party. it's ironic that democrats are calling for fiscal responsibility.

I tend to agree with this. This really is one of the things that angers me most with Bush on the Iraq war. Screw being misled about WMD and all that stuff, the place we really got misled was what the fucking war was going to cost. For the $500 billion+ we have paid to date Saddam could have kept whatever pathetic WMD he might have had. I can think of a hell of a lot of better ways we as a country could have spent that money.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I tend to agree with this. This really is one of the things that angers me most with Bush on the Iraq war. Screw being misled about WMD and all that stuff, the place we really got misled was what the fucking war was going to cost. For the $500 billion+ we have paid to date Saddam could have kept whatever pathetic WMD he might have had. I can think of a hell of a lot of better ways we as a country could have spent that money.

That could pay the college tuiton for about 10 million american students. i would like some student loan forgiveness myself.

i will vote for anyone that will trim the fat. it looks like obama is the better choice in this respect given McCain wants to 'stay the course'

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 That could pay the college tuiton for about 10 million american students. i would like some student loan forgiveness myself. i will vote for anyone that will trim the fat. it looks like obama is the better choice in this respect given McCain wants to 'stay the course'

quote:

On a serious note, I've seen various estimates of how much it would cost to prevent climate change. Decarbonising the entire US electricity system (something which would reduce global emissions by about 8%) would cost several hundred billion dollars (this site estimates total replacement with solar at $420 billion, or wind at $1 trillion). The US government has already spent that much on the war, just on operating costs. Which says something about Bush's priorities...

http://3trillion.org

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov http://3trillion.org

if it would only cost 420 billion to convert our electricity system, the president is truly a moron. if we converted our energy system we wouldn't even care about iraq. unbelievable!! *shakes head in disgust*

Double the taxes!

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Double the taxes!

not quite, but many people in the US have an effective federal tax rate of below 20%. For poorer people who individually eat up more government resources the amount of taxes they pay are pretty low. We need to increase our rates by about 5% across the board and lower corporate rates to increase our global competitiveness. the US has the second highest corporate tax rates when state taxes are factored in (only behind japan). However, our individual tax rates are far lower than european rates. Some european countries tax as much as 50% on individual income (and not exclusively the superwealthy, but the average person could pay rates this high). The only people that even possibly pay near that much are ridiculously wealthy people in NYC (because of high state and city taxes). The fact of the matter, however, is that really rich people structure their compensation packages to avoid those taxes by receiving options and equity deals (which is taxed at 15%). income partner at hedge funds and private equity firms only pay 15% on their income, which could be in excess of $5,000,000 a year.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 if it would only cost 420 billion to convert our electricity system, the president is truly a moron. if we converted our energy system we wouldn't even care about iraq. unbelievable!! *shakes head in disgust*

I think you fail to see the point of the war. It isn't to help the general American public.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think you fail to see the point of the war. It isn't to help the general American public.

that's obvious. the point is to fatten the bank accounts of texas businessmen.

/ Begin (end?) the inevitable unravel of Hillary's presidential campaign, and the beginnings of Vice President Clinton.

Will Hillary be bragging about this SNL skit like she did with the last one?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov to think that it is a racial issue and not simply voting for the better known candidate... now that is delusional.

quote:

LA Times Article[b] [b]West Virginia could spell trouble for Obama Scant support among white working-class Democrats, especially men, could dog him into November. MOOREFIELD, W.VA. � In Hardy County, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 2 to 1. But there is little enthusiasm for Barack Obama in this mountainside enclave, a portent of trouble for the Illinois senator in next week's West Virginia primary and the general election beyond. Nearly 97% white, the county is as conflicted as any rural and working-class Democratic bastion as it struggles to adjust to the likely prospect of the party nominating its first African American presidential candidate. Obama may have emerged from his double-digit victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton in North Carolina and his razor-thin loss in Indiana on Tuesday with a virtual lock on the Democratic nomination. But his performance did little to reassure political leaders here concerned by his sagging numbers among once-loyal white Democrats, who have steadily abandoned their party over the last several presidential elections. "I'm not yet convinced that Barack Obama is more substance than fluff," said Clyde M. See Jr., a former Democratic speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates and two-time gubernatorial candidate who heads a small law practice in Moorefield, the county seat. "He's a fine speaker, mind you, but I'm still not sure he's got the right stuff to win the general election." The concerns of party members who live amid this rolling landscape of soybean fields, poultry plants and retirement cabins mirror those of many white Democrats nationwide: Some fear voters will be turned off by Obama's black heritage. Others, they say, will find reason to doubt his patriotism or will perceive him to be an elitist. It remains unclear how racial unease will factor into election-day decisions come November. Those hidden impulses are elusively difficult to capture in polling. But seasoned Democratic players here reckon that some racially tinged voting will inevitably occur far beyond Hardy County's cresting hills. "There's a lot of bigotry in the country, not just West Virginia," See said. Fearful that the GOP will exploit Obama's "otherness," many still insist that Clinton's ebbing campaign offers the Democrats a better shot come November. Even those who say they would support Obama worry about his electability, convinced that many of their neighbors will defect to the presumed Republican nominee, John McCain. "My worry is there's just too many people in this country who aren't ready to elect a black president," said Charles L. Silliman, a retired Air Force officer who is Hardy County's Democratic Party co-chairman. "There's a lot to like about him. But I'm just afraid that too many people will vote against him based on their fears and prejudice." Silliman and his wife, Carmen, are Clinton supporters, drawn by her healthcare plan and her endurance on the campaign trail. Still, the couple repeatedly have found themselves defending Obama, correcting acquaintances who relay baseless rumors about his name and religion. Carmen Silliman has collected a sheaf of poisonous e-mails that have flowed into her in-box. "We do not need a Muslim to lead the good ole USA," reads one. Obama is, in fact, a Christian. Neil Gillies, an Obama supporter who runs a local environmental nonprofit group, glumly recounted the gibes that his wife, a schoolteacher, hears regularly from her students. "They're convinced [Obama] is a Muslim, a terrorist, a guy who's coming to take away their guns," Gillies said. "It's just sad." Slung along the bottom of West Virginia's eastern panhandle, Hardy County was once rock-solid Democratic. Senior citizens fondly recall the day Eleanor Roosevelt arrived to dedicate the opening of Moorefield High School in 1941. But socially conservative church groups and gun-rights supporters here have helped tilt the vote Republican in recent presidential elections. In 2004, Hardy County lined up for George W. Bush by a 3-1 ratio. "It's just not going to be easy for Obama to woo crossover Democrats back into the fold," said P. Merle Black, a professor of politics and government at Emory University and a longtime analyst of Southern voting patterns. "In addition to the race factor, you've got huge cultural differences between them and Obama on guns and religion and many of the issues that would make those voters think he doesn't represent their interests." Obama has made an effort to highlight his religious beliefs and his support for hunters' rights. But his former pastor's racially charged sermons -- and the candidate's own comments about small-town Americans who have lost their jobs and "cling to guns or religion" -- have not helped his cause. "I've got 50-some guns, and I wasn't crazy about Obama's talk about small towns," said Sam Vetter, 64, a farmer and lifelong Democrat who regrets voting for Bush in 2000. "Besides," he added, "Obama just doesn't sound right for an American president." Despite a well-financed television campaign and endorsements from Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV and Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, Obama is expected to finish well behind Clinton in West Virginia's primary, which will award 28 pledged delegates. "We've got our work cut out for us," acknowledged Tom Bowen, a spokesman for Obama's West Virginia effort. Democratic registration statewide is up by more than 16,000 voters since 2006, compared with an increase of 4,000 for the GOP. But that reflects "as much interest in the local races as there is in the national," said Greg Ely, Hardy County clerk. Hand-lettered campaign signs promoting Democrats running for family-court judge and assessor cluster along Hardy County's winding roads. There are only a few signs for either Obama or Clinton, but in one yard, a placard with a red slash on it mocks, "Osama, Obama and Chelsea's Mama." The sign belongs to Eric Hardy, 38, a former Democrat who works at a woodworking plant. Now a die-hard Republican and president of the West Virginia Coon Hunters Assn., Hardy opposes any Democrat "who wants to go after my guns." Obama "takes the cake," he said, "because of, you know, who he is." He suspects Obama for his "Muslim name," and comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., rankle him. "He's just a mistake any way you look at him," Hardy said. Obama's support among white male voters, the most tightly contested bloc over the primary season, has slipped. He did well early on in states such as Virginia, where he took 52% of the white male vote to Clinton's 47%. But this week, Obama lost, 58% to 42%, among white men in Indiana and 55% to 42% in North Carolina. He has won majorities of white male voters in 10 states since January, but Clinton bested him in 13 others, including the critical northern battlegrounds of Ohio and Pennsylvania. "This is the single biggest problem he faces," said William A. Galston, a former senior Clinton administration domestic policy advisor who considers Obama the apparent nominee after this week's results. "This is a party problem, not just his alone. But [Obama] has to be particularly sensitive to addressing these voters." Galston credits Obama with trying to win over suspicious white voters by tailoring his North Carolina victory speech to talk more about his hardscrabble upbringing and his love of country. "He needs to keep talking in comforting terms about the issues on people's minds and how his own story fits in with their concerns," Galston said. Other analysts counter that Obama needs to mirror Clinton's populist economic pitch. "The best way for Obama to make inroads with white voters in blue-collar, leaning-red states is to push economic issues to the front and continue to depict the war as a money pit," said Thomas F. Schaller, an associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. For many of Hardy County's Democrats, though, there seems to be no appeal that will overcome who Obama is and what he represents. "When we lost all those Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, I felt we just had to have a better bundle of goods to sell," See said. "Problem is, I'm not sure we have those goods this time around."

SOURCE

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov quote: On a serious note, I've seen various estimates of how much it would cost to prevent climate change. Decarbonising the entire US electricity system (something which would reduce global emissions by about 8%) would cost several hundred billion dollars (this site estimates total replacement with solar at $420 billion, or wind at $1 trillion). The US government has already spent that much on the war, just on operating costs. Which says something about Bush's priorities... http://3trillion.org

fuck fixing climate change and the electricity system, I'm sure that $500 billion could have done something towards getting gas cheaper than fucking $3.75 a gallon

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX http://3trillion.org fuck fixing climate change and the electricity system, I'm sure that $500 billion could have done something towards getting gas cheaper than fucking $3.75 a gallon

that was a joke, right?

While this rhetorical question isn't specifically Hillary related, here it goes anyways.

Does anyone think that the run-up to this election will bring about any election reform in the US?

Looking at it from an admittedly armchair quaterback, outsider perspective, these candidates are spending a fuck-ton of money and this isn't even the final round!! Add to that, the whole electoral college, delegate and super delegate system seems quite absurd since it really isn't a true democracy (1 vote = 1 vote aka - popular vote).

We live in a republic not a fucking democracy. When will anyone ever learn that?

quote:

Originally posted by Zild We live in a republic not a fucking democracy. When will anyone ever learn that?

democracy is just a buzz word that gets people excited. unfortunately people don't understand what it would take to form a true democracy. noone would even want that. could you imagine polls being open everyday so people could vote on every important issue?

Right pure democracy isn't feasible unless the population is very small.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 democracy is just a buzz word that gets people excited. unfortunately people don't understand what it would take to form a true democracy. noone would even want that. could you imagine polls being open everyday so people could vote on every important issue?

While I agree that you do need elected officials to act as the voice of the people on the minor issues, an election is a major issue where in a democracy (or democratic republic) every vote should count equally.

Wrinkle...

quote:

Clinton Deadline Looms for Recouping $11 Million Personal Loan 2008-05-12 00:01 (New York) By Jonathan D. Salant and Timothy J. Burger May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton may have a financial incentive to remain in the presidential race for a while. And she has Senator John McCain to thank for it. Clinton loaned her struggling campaign $11 million in recent months. A little-known provision of a 2002 campaign- finance law cosponsored by McCain prevents candidates who drop out of the race from raising money after the nominating conventions to repay themselves for personal loans. Should Clinton fail to come up with the funds by the Democratic convention in August, she'll be out the $11 million. If she quits the campaign before then, she may find it hard to get people to keep giving cash just so she can retire her debt. That may ratchet up pressure on Clinton to cut a deal with rival Barack Obama to help her through his supporters. Obama may oblige since he would love to get her out of the race for the nomination so he could focus on the general election. ``Helping to pay off the debt would certainly be a clear signal of Obama's desire to bring the two candidates together,'' said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. Obama, 46, is keeping the door open to the possibility of helping pay her debt, which includes more than $10 million in unpaid bills to vendors and consultants -- including strategist Mark Penn, who remains a flash point of criticism for backing a trade deal she opposed. `On the Team' In the interest of unifying the party, Obama will seek ``a broad-ranging discussion with Senator Clinton about how I could make her feel good about the process and have her on the team,'' he told reporters in Oregon on May 9. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said ``there have been no discussions along those lines'' and ``no contemplation of it.'' In the past, victorious candidates have helped their vanquished opponents pay off campaign debts. Supporters of Clinton, 60, aided former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack after he dropped out of the race last year. And McCain's backers gave to Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a failed Republican contender. There is one sleight-of-hand -- though legal -- tactic Clinton could use to pay off debts to others, though not to herself. Through March 31, she had collected $23 million in donations designated for the general election. Redirect Contributions She could ask those donors to redirect the contributions toward her 2012 Senate re-election campaign rather than the 2008 presidential race, said Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer now at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. The Senate campaign could then pay off the current debt to vendors and consultants, including Penn, to whom she owed $4.5 million through March 31. In the past, such donations could have also gone to pay back a candidate's personal loans. The 2002 law, which banned corporate, union and unlimited individual contributions to campaigns, put a stop to that. It limited such repayments to $250,000. ``She has between now and the convention to raise money to retire the loan or else she will have made an $11 million contribution to her campaign,'' former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner said. Federal election law prohibits Obama from directly aiding Clinton through his campaign war chest; nothing stops him from asking his donors to do so. Obama Donors Yet while Obama has mostly relied on smaller contributors to fuel his record-setting fundraising, he's unlikely to ask them to shell out any money for Clinton, who together with her husband earned $109 million from 2000 through 2007. And many of those donors are unlikely to be willing to help her after this hard-fought campaign. Democratic consultant Peter Fenn, who is neutral in the race, said Obama will need to call upon those donors for the general election should he decide not to take public funding for the campaign, or to give to the Democratic Party if he does. ``They're very loyal Obama people,'' Fenn said. ``You're not going to raise that much money from those people for Hillary.'' More probable sources of financial help for Clinton would be those who have given the maximum $2,300 to Obama's campaign, said Democratic consultant Erik Smith. ``Few campaigns would mobilize their grassroots supporters for something like this, and Obama certainly wouldn't,'' said Smith, an adviser to Richard Gephardt's 2004 presidential race. ``The most likely scenario would be that some of Obama's largest donors would work discreetly and independently of the campaign to raise money.''

Ok so with her superdeligate lead erased this weekend what straws will Hillary grasp at next? We didn't have to wait long to find out. From CNN:

quote:

The Democrats next face off Tuesday in West Virginia, where Clinton is expected to win by big margins. Her campaign is renewing the argument that if she leads in the popular vote, she should be the Democratic nominee. "Hillary is within striking distance of winning the popular vote nationwide -- a key part of our plan to win the nomination," campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a letter to supporters Sunday.

So basically her argument is that the Democrats should just blow off the entire delegate system that has been used to select a candidate for decades and just give her the nomination because, gosh darn it, she is Hillary Clinton and she deserves it. What an arrogant twit. I guess the Supreme Court should have just blown off the entire Electoral College and named Al Gore the president in 2000 right?

And speaking of that, quoted from the same article for stupidity:

quote:

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, an uncommitted superdelegate, said the delegate numbers are in Obama's favor, but the popular vote is important to the people of his state. "I think we see what happened in 2004, when Al Gore won the popular vote, and where the country has gone and the feelings toward government since then. I put a lot of stock in that," he said on CNN's "American Morning."

this douchebag can't even remember that it was 2000 when Gore won the popular vote.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 democracy is just a buzz word that gets people excited. unfortunately people don't understand what it would take to form a true democracy. noone would even want that. could you imagine polls being open everyday so people could vote on every important issue?

As a matter of fact, yes, I have, and I have wondered whether referendums every, let's say, 3 months, wouldn't be an interesting way of having people participate more actively of a country's political life... here in Brazil electronic voting has never been a problem, and it would certainly make it more feasible...

quote:

Originally posted by Lira As a matter of fact, yes, I have, and I have wondered whether referendums every, let's say, 3 months, wouldn't be an interesting way of having people participate more actively of a country's political life... here in Brazil electronic voting has never been a problem, and it would certainly make it more feasible...

we should have an atm style voting machine where people can vote by swiping their 'ID card' and entering a pin. Unfortunately, in the US each state has its own system. the federal government is limited on what it can do in that respect. it could give states money, but there is no guarantee that states will want, or follow through with an integrated voting system. unfortunately this country has too many varying interests to be totally integrated on certain issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild We live in a republic not a fucking democracy. When will anyone ever learn that?

We live in a democratic republic.

Though technically the adjective is glaringly apparent.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby We live in a democratic republic. Though technically the adjective is glaringly apparent.

wrong.

if you want to be technical, its actually a constitutional federal republic.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.