TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Michael Moore endorses Clark;
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

I support him. I'm not American but somebody has to remove Bush from power before he blows up the world
His tax issues don't seem to realistic but if he were in power i think he'd realize he can't do what he's proposing

Re: For Dave

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade Dave asked me to post the essay that I have recently written. So I shall:

Please change the font and the color, I'd like to read it.

Re: For Dave

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade [font=comic sans ms][color=red]Dave asked me to post the essay that I have recently written. So I shall: ]

To me, Dean is just a lot of rhetoric wrapped in a package of nothingness. :O

Re: Re: For Dave

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz To me, Dean is just a lot of rhetoric wrapped in a package of nothingness. :O

Exactly and that has created a lot of problems for him now in Iowa, its ironic to see him now realise that people want to see what he can bring to the table as opposed to simply being anti-Bush. This is one of the reasons I don't support him, put forth your ideas and let the people see them clearly, simply attacking Bush is not going to win you the election among the voting public. Its about the ISSUES, duh! demonstrate how you can create a better American future Mr. Dean.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Unfortunatly something tells me this will be a runaway re-election for Bush.

thats not possible, bush wasnt elected in the first place

quote:

thats not possible, bush wasnt elected in the first place

[Val-Gal Accent]

Dude...like, that is so totally 2000...

[/Val-Gal Accent]

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Uh-oh Clark recieves the "kiss of death."

I noticed that Clark's fundraising just soared, but Moore might scare off some more conservative voters. I know Bush has done a lot to scare off many conservatives with his immigration plan and massive spending + increase in size of government. Moore's endorsement is certainly valuable in the primaries where the hardcore activists vote.

quote:

Unfortunatly something tells me this will be a runaway re-election for Bush.

Shall we lay our bets now? From all that I've read, I'm convinced that Bush is very beatable if the Dems nominate the right man. At this time in his first and only term, George Bush Sr. had around a 70% approval rating. His son now has about 18% less than that.

quote:

a tight election can lead to many good compromises on an encumbent presidents policies.

Hmm, no I think that's crap. Bush has governed as if he had a mandate in his first term. If he didn't face the prospect of another election, we'd really be in for some extremist policies.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Personally I like the idea of a consumption tax (are they called VAT taxes?). I think that certain goods should fall under the class of luxury goods (based upon the type of item and the price). You could then have a fixed matrix for the consumption tax and therefore you don't have government directly meddling in the specfiic goods you purchase. But hey, which is worse, a government taxing your income or a government taxing your consumption?

Yes that does sound like an interesting idea. VAT taxes are used in the EU, so maybe someone who lives there can give us a better perspective on how they are used.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen thats not possible, bush wasnt elected in the first place

Are you still supporting Dean?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Yes that does sound like an interesting idea. VAT taxes are used in the EU, so maybe someone who lives there can give us a better perspective on how they are used.

Heh, we have VAT too, it's called PDV here. Basically all the products you buy have the 22% state tax on them. This, however didn't change the income tax thing, so we have both of them now.

quote:

a tight election can lead to many good compromises on an encumbent presidents policies. Hmm, no I think that's crap. Bush has governed as if he had a mandate in his first term. If he didn't face the prospect of another election, we'd really be in for some extremist policies.

Huh? I say that an election (a tight one at that) can lead to a president compromising on his tough viewpoints to a more "mainstream" approach. Then you tell me that's crap, and go on to say that the prospect of an election has kept Bush from being an exremist. Did you not just say the exact same thing as I have, but in different terms? I know we've disagreed before on issues, but are you now just disagreeing with me to disagree? Please explain.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Huh? I say that an election (a tight one at that) can lead to a president compromising on his tough viewpoints to a more "mainstream" approach. Then you tell me that's crap, and go on to say that the prospect of an election has kept Bush from being an exremist. Did you not just say the exact same thing as I have, but in different terms? I know we've disagreed before on issues, but are you now just disagreeing with me to disagree? Please explain.

You make a very interesting point.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I noticed that Clark's fundraising just soared, but Moore might scare off some more conservative voters. I know Bush has done a lot to scare off many conservatives with his immigration plan and massive spending + increase in size of government. Moore's endorsement is certainly valuable in the primaries where the hardcore activists vote.

Ah no, I was a candidate I would keep Michael Moore far away from me or at the very least not even pay attention to his "endorsment" Figured he would be rooting for Dean.

What's with the Michael Moore backlash bandwagon?

I think I'll support Clark and go against the alma mater for once(Dean, Kerry, Bush, the Clintons).

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Huh? I say that an election (a tight one at that) can lead to a president compromising on his tough viewpoints to a more "mainstream" approach. Then you tell me that's crap, and go on to say that the prospect of an election has kept Bush from being an exremist. Did you not just say the exact same thing as I have, but in different terms? I know we've disagreed before on issues, but are you now just disagreeing with me to disagree? Please explain.

We must have misunderstood each other.

I'm saying there's no way Bush would compromise on, or try to moderate his extremist viewpoints governing in his second term if he won reelection in a close race, and that's all I'm saying. Nothing more. Of course, I'm going to have a chuckle or two hearing him talk about how much he's done to bring the country together as he promised.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/o...fPaul%20Krugman

quote:

Who Gets It? By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: January 16, 2004 Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. "I think we're at risk with our democracy," he said. "I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame." In other words, the general gets it: he understands that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his remarkable new book, "American Dynasty," calls a "Machiavellian moment." Among other things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on the same side of the great Democratic divide. Most political reporting on the Democratic race, it seems to me, has gotten it wrong. Some journalists do, of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing: what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa, is the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair. But even those who refrain from turning political reporting into gossip have used the wrong categories. Again and again, one reads that it's about the left wing of the Democratic party versus the centrists; but Mr. Dean was a very centrist governor, and his policy proposals are not obviously more liberal than those of his rivals. The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't. What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren't his policy positions but his willingness � shared, we now know, by General Clark � to take a hard line against the Bush administration. This horrifies some veterans of the Clinton years, who have nostalgic memories of elections that were won by emphasizing the positive. Indeed, George Bush's handlers have already made it clear that they intend to make his "optimism" � as opposed to the negativism of his angry opponents � a campaign theme. (Money-saving suggestion: let's cut directly to the scene where Mr. Bush dresses up as an astronaut, and skip the rest of his expensive, pointless � but optimistic! � Moon-base program.) But even Bill Clinton couldn't run a successful Clinton-style campaign this year, for several reasons. One is that the Democratic candidate, no matter how business-friendly, will not be able to get lots of corporate contributions, as Clinton did. In the Clinton era, a Democrat could still raise a lot of money from business, partly because there really are liberal businessmen, partly because donors wanted to hedge their bets. But these days the Republicans control all three branches of government and exercise that control ruthlessly. Even corporate types who have grave misgivings about the Bush administration � a much larger group than you might think � are afraid to give money to Democrats. Another is that the Bush people really are Nixonian. The bogus security investigation over Ron Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty," like the outing of Valerie Plame, shows the lengths they're willing to go to in intimidating their critics. (In the case of Paul O'Neill, alas, the intimidation seems to be working.) A mild-mannered, upbeat candidate would get eaten alive. Finally, any Democrat has to expect not just severely slanted coverage from the fair and balanced Republican media, but asymmetric treatment even from the mainstream media. For example, some have said that the intense scrutiny of Mr. Dean's Vermont record is what every governor who runs for president faces. No, it isn't. I've looked at press coverage of questions surrounding Mr. Bush's tenure in Austin, like the investment of state university funds with Republican donors; he got a free pass during the 2000 campaign. So what's the answer? A Democratic candidate will have a chance of winning only if he has an energized base, willing to contribute money in many small donations, willing to contribute their own time, willing to stand up for the candidate in the face of smear tactics and unfair coverage. That doesn't mean that the Democratic candidate has to be a radical � which is a good thing for the party, since all of the candidates are actually quite moderate. In fact, what the party needs is a candidate who inspires the base enough to get out the message that he isn't a radical � and that Mr. Bush is.

Wesley Clark's real kiss of death may be George McGovern's endorsement. McGovern was the surprise Democratic nomination in '72 that everyone loved and no one had any faith in. At the beginning of his campaign the prevailing opinion was that he was the best candidate but simply could not win. He shocked many and gained credibility by holding his own in many of the early primaries and eventually slamming putative nominee Ed Muskie in many of the states and precincts he was expected to carry. McGovern was the anti-government candidate, the non-Washington man who was going to fix Washington.

Sound familiar? Clark is billing himself as the anti-politician, but people don't tend to take non-politicians all that seriously in the political arena, regardless of how much they may hate politicians. But maybe Clark can pull of the nomination the way McGovern did. If so, let's just hope he doesn't change his campaign the way McGovern did and become a "real politician," although I'm sure it's inevitable.

I don't think anyone is going to look down on McGovern's endorsement of Clark, I'm just commenting on what this endorsement says about what kind of candidate he is and what kind of campaign he is running. I just hope people will take him seriously.

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