I considered sending in a question, but it's really supposed to be a debate for Republicans, asked by Republicans. Or at least that's what it looks like. If I were to ask a question, I'd ask why Republicans aren't challenging Democrats on the environment. Why roll over and cede the entire issue of the environment and a new Green economy when you, concievably proponents of business, could easily take up the mantle of this issue and steal votes away. It's one of the things that just prove to me that Republicans are stuck in 20th Century party thinking and can't adapt to a new world.
I'm rewatching the Democratic debate right now, and I thought there were a lot of good questions, and some good answers, though I'd like it of Anderson would really hold their feet to the fire more.
Over Thanksgiving I went to dinner with my mostly Republican family and quietly brought up the question of who they would vote for. Now they are big church goers (my cousin is a minister), and by far the biggest issue for them is Abortion. That's a deal breaker for them, and as such, their guy is Mike Huckabee. I'm really not surprised, and I'm also not surprised at his big jump in the polls lately. This will be an important debate for a lot of them I think. The race between the top five candidates (Romney, Giuliani, Thomspon, Huckabee, McCain) is pretty thin. Iowa and New Hampshire, states a few months ago Giuliani had locked up, and then Romney, are pretty much up for grabs, where any of the top five could potentially have an out of nowhere victory. It's not nearly as cut and dry as the Democratic race, where Obama and Hillary are the only two really vying for a place (though that's not QUITE that simple, I know).
So who is going to watch tonight? And what are you hoping will be asked, and how do you expect it to be answered?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I may watch tonight, I have papers I need to write tonight anyway so debates are a good background noise.
If Huckabee gets the nomination I am reasonably certain the Democrats will walk away with the presidency.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think that's the case with several of the Republican candidates, Huckabee included.
But a lot of one issue voters, to be specific, abortion one issue voters, seem to be waffling back and forth between Thompson and Huckabee, and if you're a religious values voter, it's hard to beat a minister.
This is one of the most interesting Republican primaries in the last two decades. It's a diverse crowd of candidates.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Just from glancing at the Republican front runners, it looks like the only real chance they would have at winning is if they nominate Rudy "9-11" Guiliani.
That, of course, is just my uneducated opinion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
See, I think he has the most baggage, but it isn't being talked about now. That'll change in the General. Other than 9/11 he appears to be an empty shirt. Abortion is a non-starter for a lot of Americans who will just not vote, and that's lost votes primarily for Rudy. And even on 9/11, the 9/11 Commission chairman doesn't think he's the best man, and many NYPD and FDNY members have come out against him.
I'm at a loss to explain why he's even as popular as he is, except for his security and "I can beat Hillary" mantra, which rings hollow when he still polls a statistical tie with her. I would say Thompson might be a good chance to win, since he represents a more classic Republican view, but he's kind of bumbling, and rarely gives specifics on any of his plans, which again, will hurt him a lot in the General. Huckabee will scare away independent swing voters I think. Romney might have a chance, depending on whether or not the religious right will swallow him as a candidate. McCain...meh, I don't think he has it anymore. He's 8 years older than the last time he ran, he's DYING in most of the polls, his stance on the war is WILDLY unpopular, and he's prone to one liners, much like Bush, that come back to bite him in the butt.
Romney might have the best chance, out of everyone I see, but a lot also depends on whether or not the Democrats come up with a strong candidate. Hillary might energize the right, but she might have the same effect on the left. Obama I think could probably beat a lot of them. Even Edwards might have a chance at it if he keeps up his religious credentials. But we'll see how that goes.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think Edwards' "religious credentials" are his strong points. He's consistent, obviously dedicated (not that the others aren't - but he shows it well), charismatic, a family man, and he's got that sympathy for his wife thing going for him. He's still my third choice, but only by a hair, and I'm genuinely surprised he's not doing better in the polls.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My bad, I meant Obama, and religious credentials were probably the wrong words. I think of all the candidates, Obama has been the most up front and open about his religious beliefs, and while I don't think Democrats or anyone should have to pass a religion test, I do think he should get credit for being one of the few in a party that seems afraid to, to speak openly about his beliefs and how they influence his life. That's something religious voters look for, and could be a strong draw in the General.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any other candidates regularly addressing church crowds at churches.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any other candidates regularly addressing church crowds at churches.
If that's the case, I understand it. Going to one church, you end up potentially offending every church or religious organization you don't visit, not to mention us heathens.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's funny-- Romney's barred (because of Church policy) from stumping at any Mormon meetinghouse.
He also is not supposed to use ward lists (lists of members in a geographical area, with their phone number and address) for campaigning.
So in order to get a political drive going amongst the religious, he is specifically restricted from using his own religion's resources, by his own religion.
Irony!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Going to one church, you end up potentially offending every church or religious organization you don't visit, not to mention us heathens.
I don't see this as a valid concern, by the way.
EDIT: That is, I don't think most people are going to be offended.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the media coverage of this campaign has been influenced a lot by reality shows like American Idol. We are getting alot of press on the freaks at the start. But once the actual primaries start, it's going to be a different show. I'm still boosting for McCain, though if the nomination goes to anyone besides McCain or Romney, and Obama is nominated, well, anything could happen.
I just ain't voting for another Clinton, I can tell you that much.
In answer to your original question about the environment, it's like asking why Democrats don't embrace the 2nd Amendment. I mean, it's part of the Constitution, what could they possible have against it? It's just incompatible with their whole system of belief. It's odd because I actually skew left on environment and left on gun control. But oh well. Parties are dumb.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
The democrats have already won the election in my mind. Bush and congress have so disappointed the Republican base that it shrunk. Winning the nomination is not going to motivate enough people to win the election.
The only one who seems to significantly expand the base is Ron Paul. He is appealing to many people who want someone who is serious about small government and won't expand it through warfare or welfare.
If he runs as a third party there is a slim chance he could win, as he would garner support from both the republicans and democrats--tho I think more republicans then democrats will vote for him, swinging the election to the democrat candidate.
If he doesn't run as a third party, those who supported him will either write him in, vote the constitutional party or some other party, or abstain. Either way, the race between the two parties is so close that a 1%-4% swing is devastating.
Ron Paul's supporters will not back the other candidates. The candidates are all big government pro war people.
I don't blame Ron Paul, I don't blame his supporters who finally found someone with integrity with a consistent voting record based on principals. I blame Bush.
Giuliani , Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson are all supporters or members of the CFR, which has a goal of continental borders and the free flow of people and goods in a North American Community.
You couple that with emanate domain being used to take property from citizens and giving it to foreign companies for foreign toll roads, and you have a sleeper issue (fear of sovereignty lost or power gravitating to an expanding federal and international governments) that is not going to help the republicans one bit.
I am not sure about Romney. He was on their member website, but they said it was mistake and moved his name to the Candidate Page. I have not heard anything to indicate his opinion of the CFR.
We lost congress. We are going to loose the presidency, which is a shame since Hillary is very beatable. Regardless, I am going to keep supporting my man Paul. I will donate another $100 on Dec 16th,in addition to the small amounts I have been donating in between the money bombs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nationally Giuliani has it locked up...for the moment. I just looked at recent polling data for all the states and Giuliani has a commanding lead in a lot of places, enough for him to get the nomination. But Romney is winning in Iowa, trailed within the margin of error by Mike Huckabee. Giuliani hasn't campaigned nearly as hard here, so a loss for him won't be a surprise. Romney also has double digit lead in New Hampshire. He's even ahead in South Carolina. His problem is that outside of these early voting states, he's only leading in three others. Fred Thompson is leading in six states as well (states with more votes), and Giuliani commands the lead in 24 states, most of those with stunningly high leads. John McCain is a virtual non-issue, with three states. Of course, those numbers change when you only include states that have polling data taken from October.
McCain hasn't won a single state poll since before October, Mitt has won 4 (three of them early voting states), Fred Thompson 3, and Giuliani still a commanding 15 states. Republican candidates need 1,259 delegates from the states to lock in their candidacy, and if the polls since October are correct, Giuliani has 1118 Delegates.
There's a lot more nuance to those numbers than what they say on the surface. Historically, candidates who win early primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina all get huge bumps in the national polls. Romney is looking good, and if he can beat Huckabee in Iowa, he's in a strong position to take three of the five early states (Giuliani will likely take Florida and Nevada). That could give him some leverage, but at the moment this race appears to be between the two of them, and Romney is way behind.
Interestingly, if you look at straw polls taken in recent months, Ron Paul is actually way ahead, but I don't put much stock in those.
Obama is in a similar situation to Romney's, though frankly it's not quite as hopeful. He has a razor thin lead in Iowa, and though he has been cutting into Clinton's apprx 25 point lead as of a month ago, she still leads by 13 points in New Hampshire. He leads her only in Illinois and Idaho outside of Iowa. Even more than Romney he will be relying on Iowa to be a segue into a much more powerful bid to take New Hampshire and South Carolina or Nevada. He's only down 10 points in South Carolina, and almost 20 in Nevada. It's not looking good, but it's not over, for either race. Though I should add that most every other candidate is barely even on the radar. Something to look for after those first four votes? Where does everyone else fall. It's unlikely, but if everyone drops out except Obama and Clinton, where do all those other supporters go? It's quite possible they go to either of them. On the Republican side, if it drops down to Romney and Giuliani, I think Romney gets a LOT of Thompson's votes, which gives him more staying power.
Purely conjecture, but also not without basis in fact.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:In answer to your original question about the environment, it's like asking why Democrats don't embrace the 2nd Amendment. I mean, it's part of the Constitution, what could they possible have against it? It's just incompatible with their whole system of belief. It's odd because I actually skew left on environment and left on gun control. But oh well. Parties are dumb.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying the environment is antithetical to Republican beliefs? The arguments they use to oppose reform and regulation are that it will hurt business, but the businesses are the people saying they WANT those changes.
In the analogy, that's like saying gun owners are supporting gun control laws. Are they? I really wouldn't know since I don't spend much time on that issue on the other side of the fence.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
But don't Democrats never vote for the front runners when they actually get into the voting booth for the primaries? That is why I think Obama has the best shot.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Going to one church, you end up potentially offending every church or religious organization you don't visit, not to mention us heathens.
I don't see this as a valid concern, by the way.
EDIT: That is, I don't think most people are going to be offended.
I said potentially. It all depends on what churches a candidate decided to visit, and what they said when there. And what they say is directly related to the type of church.
If they visit Pat Robertson's church they're going to say some different, and potentially controversial, things than they would at a non-denominational church, for example.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: But don't Democrats never vote for the front runners when they actually get into the voting booth for the primaries? That is why I think Obama has the best shot.
I can't recall ever hearing that particular factoid. But now I'm really curious about it. If you come across any info on it, send it my way.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
If Huckabee gets the Republican nomination, I foresee the general election going one of two ways. Either he is crushed by <insert Democrat here> once Joe Public is made aware of his way-outside-the-mainstream social views, or he wins handily through a combination of personal likeableness (historical references here: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Dubya) and obfuscation about just how conservative he actually is (again, refer to our current POTUS). It won't be close, either way.
Similarly, Giuliani's success in the general election would be entirely dependent on how well he can control public perception of himself. If he can maintain the "America's Mayor" image he's constructed, by quieting criticism of his personal life and temperament while hammering 9/11 over and over again, then he will quite probably win. If he loses control of the media narrative at all, whether passively through a poorly executed campaign or actively by doing something stupid or crazy, then he's toast.
If Romney wins the nomination, the contest is more of a tossup. I honestly don't know whether his Mormonism will actually affect his performance, although it's more likely than ever that it won't, considering how well he's polling in the primary. Republicans seem willing to vote for him, and Democrats by and large won't care about the Mormon thing. He's fairly likeable and knows how to sell himself to Democrats. However, his miserable record in Massachusetts, coupled his erratically flip-flopping policy positions, are major points against him. The question is: will voters care?
Ron Paul has no chance, either in the Republican primary nor the general election. And thank god for that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If anything I think the 2004 election has proven that voters DO care about flip flopping if you make it into a serious issue. I don't even recall hearing that term until the Kerry/Bush race, and it's practically the ONLY thing I heard during that race.
I think you nailed Giuliani DEAD ON. If you check his polling numbers, voters think he is the best candidate among Republicans for the war on terror, but by and large they think he's mediocre at best on everything else, including Iraq. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that he'll be able to focus a 10 month calendar on a single subject, regardless of what it is. He's going to HAVE to speak to other issues, and when he does I think he loses points every time he has to.
I think you're right, Romney has the best chance. He has issues from his past as well, but he's much, much more of a traditional cookie cutter Republican than Giuliani. They'll get over his LDS thing, but might find him a bit of a liar when it comes to his flip flopping. In the end I seen him losing less votes to that than Giuliani will lose to a dozen other issues.
I see a very, very small chance of your second Huckabee scenario happening, and a pretty good chance of the first one happening. I think Pres. Bush sort of ruined that particular vein of obfuscation for awhile. Though he certainly is likeable.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I can't vote for Ron Paul until I'm confident none of the other Republican goons has a shot against a woman or a black man (read: ever), but I sure would like to be him when I grow up.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:In answer to your original question about the environment, it's like asking why Democrats don't embrace the 2nd Amendment. I mean, it's part of the Constitution, what could they possible have against it? It's just incompatible with their whole system of belief. It's odd because I actually skew left on environment and left on gun control. But oh well. Parties are dumb.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying the environment is antithetical to Republican beliefs? The arguments they use to oppose reform and regulation are that it will hurt business, but the businesses are the people saying they WANT those changes.
In the analogy, that's like saying gun owners are supporting gun control laws. Are they? I really wouldn't know since I don't spend much time on that issue on the other side of the fence.
Do you feel the second amendment to the Constitution is antithetical to Democrat beliefs, on the level of principle?
Look at in another why, why wouldn't Obama or Clinton court voters through some other change in policy?
I mean, trust me, I don't understand why Republicans are not environmentalists either. I mean, I do, but I can't believe it, I guess is the word I'm going for. I guess they don't see it as an area where they want big government exercised, while my view is that the government is already big, and is responsible for using the power it has for good rather than just making people rich.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
If they visit Pat Robertson's church they're going to say some different, and potentially controversial, things than they would at a non-denominational church, for example.
I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson's ministry is non-denominational.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This is the sort of thing I'll go with wiki on.
quote:He is a Southern Baptist and was active as an ordained minister with that denomination for many years, but holds to a charismatic theology not traditionally common among Southern Baptists. As a result of his seeking political office, he no longer serves in an official role for any church.
Huh. For some reason I thought he was evangelical.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
If they visit Pat Robertson's church they're going to say some different, and potentially controversial, things than they would at a non-denominational church, for example.
I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson's ministry is non-denominational.
Perhaps I should have used the term non-insane.
(My apologies to anyone who happens to like Pat Robertson.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't particularly like Pat Robertson, but what do you find insane about him?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Three particular instances jump to mind:
He prayed to god to open up spots in the Supreme Court. And since the spots on the court are life-long, he was essentially praying for some judges to die (or at least become infirm enough to step down).
He blamed Hurricane Katrina on homosexuals.
He told Dover, Pennsylvania to not pray for god if a disaster hit their town because they voted god out of their district.
Perhaps 'insane' wasn't the right word. I think part of it is that I want to believe that a fellow human being isn't responsible for thinking and saying such horrible things. Insanity would take that responsibility away from him.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Anyone else think that a Giuliani-Clinton race could be the ugliest thing we've seen, well, ever?
I mean, they both have so much baggage that you hardly even need to bring it up- but you know they will, and with hefty budgets, at that.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Three particular instances jump to mind:
...Publically calling for the assassination of elected heads of state...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I guess they don't see it as an area where they want big government exercised, while my view is that the government is already big, and is responsible for using the power it has for good rather than just making people rich.
Are you sure you're Republican?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: If he loses control of the media narrative at all, whether passively through a poorly executed campaign or actively by doing something stupid or crazy, then he's toast.
quote: One of his auditors, he wrote, had stumbled upon the unexplained travel expenses during a routine audit of the Loft Board, a tiny branch of city government that regulates certain apartments.
Broadening the inquiry, the comptroller wrote, auditors found similar expenses at a range of other unlikely agencies: $10,054 billed to the Office for People With Disabilities and $29,757 to the Procurement Policy Board.
The next year, yet another obscure department, the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, was billed around $400,000 for travel.
Increasing costs
"The Comptroller's Office made repeated requests for the information in 2001 and 2002 but was informed that, due to security concerns, the information could not be provided," said Simmons. Thompson took office in 2002.
quote: the night at the Atlantic Utopia Lifestyle Inn, according to an approval request for official out-of-city travel, billing the city $1,016.20.
Giuliani’s private schedule, available from the municipal archive, lists no events on Long Island that day.
The New York Post reported the following year that Giuliani "had long weekend visits with gal pal Judi Nathan at her Southampton, L.I., condo last summer, according to neighbors who said the mayor did little to conceal their relationship.”
Mayor Giuliani billed the city to fund his extra martial relationship. He used resources from places like the Office for People With Disabilities to fund activities to cheat on his wife.
I don't see how a fiscal or social conservative can start to look at this guy without a half raised eyebrow and a whole lot of reservation.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I guess they don't see it as an area where they want big government exercised, while my view is that the government is already big, and is responsible for using the power it has for good rather than just making people rich.
Are you sure you're Republican?
I'm not happy that the government is so big, but since it is, we as a people are accountable for the exercise of the power we have concentrated in it. For me that includes not defiling the planet for a fast buck.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Perhaps 'insane' wasn't the right word. I think part of it is that I want to believe that a fellow human being isn't responsible for thinking and saying such horrible things. Insanity would take that responsibility away from him.
I call him singularly foul.
I don't care if a sort of addled lunacy has caused him to be the most wretched popular 'voice' of god in my lifetime; he's also a fundamentally dishonest shyster and a crook.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Perhaps 'insane' wasn't the right word. I think part of it is that I want to believe that a fellow human being isn't responsible for thinking and saying such horrible things. Insanity would take that responsibility away from him.
I call him singularly foul.
I don't care if a sort of addled lunacy has caused him to be the most wretched popular 'voice' of god in my lifetime; he's also a fundamentally dishonest shyster and a crook.
I agree. Was just trying to be polite about it. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:In answer to your original question about the environment, it's like asking why Democrats don't embrace the 2nd Amendment. I mean, it's part of the Constitution, what could they possible have against it? It's just incompatible with their whole system of belief. It's odd because I actually skew left on environment and left on gun control. But oh well. Parties are dumb.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying the environment is antithetical to Republican beliefs? The arguments they use to oppose reform and regulation are that it will hurt business, but the businesses are the people saying they WANT those changes.
In the analogy, that's like saying gun owners are supporting gun control laws. Are they? I really wouldn't know since I don't spend much time on that issue on the other side of the fence.
Do you feel the second amendment to the Constitution is antithetical to Democrat beliefs, on the level of principle?
Look at in another why, why wouldn't Obama or Clinton court voters through some other change in policy?
I mean, trust me, I don't understand why Republicans are not environmentalists either. I mean, I do, but I can't believe it, I guess is the word I'm going for. I guess they don't see it as an area where they want big government exercised, while my view is that the government is already big, and is responsible for using the power it has for good rather than just making people rich.
No I don't think the Second Amendment is antithetical to Democratic beliefs. The problem I think is that many view this as an issue with no gray areas. Democrats, on the whole, do not want to take away everyone's guns, but that's how Republicans paint the issue. Democrats want a gray area solution, restricting the most dangerous guns, and licensing bullets to close a lot of the loopholes in the law, but not taking away your right to have guns at all. If you want to talk about forming citizen militias, I think that will change the debate entirely, for me personally anyway, but for personal use not in a militia, I think what they want is perfectly in keeping with the second amendment.
When you paint it as an all or nothing debate, Democrats come out looking like it's antithetical, but when you get into the nuts and bolts, you find they are in favor of gun control yes, but not unfettered access to any weapon, and I don't think that's out of bounds of the second amendment.
The problem is different with Republicans. Environmentalism, at least as it pertains to energy efficiency and efficiency regulation, and renewable energy has a special place in the Republican fold. It's pro business, it's pro money making, it's pro globalization, it's pro defense/military. It runs across a cacalcade of Republican issues, and yet they cede the issue to Democrats, and not only do they not speak positively to it, when they DO deign to speak about it, it's to shoot it down, and spread, quite frankly, lies about it to make it sound bad and to promote 20th century wasteful old technologies.
It seriously boggles the mind that they could really be so stupid. I think they'd really rather just be stubborn than admit Democrats are right on this one.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I suspect it has more to do with the amount of money they get from oil interests. "Stubbornness" at least implies a certain commitment to an ideal, something neither party is particularly good at. This, incidentally, explains 95% of Ron Paul's appeal, never mind that the ideals to which he is committed are utter pie-in-the-sky nuttery.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Man this is a pretty sorry batch of candidates.
They better pray Hil gets the nod.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:CNN was heavily criticized for giving Hillary Clinton a pass in their last televised debate by the network. Wolf Blitzer lobbed such softballs at the US Senator from New York that he was publicly praised by the campaign. Now it appears the network allowed a "Clinton plant" to ask not only a question on YouTube, but then gave him a microphone and allowed the military veteran prime airtime to push his agenda.
Keith Kerr a retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve pushed forward his issue of allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the US Military. While that is certainly a fair issue and open for debate, once again CNN looks to be in the hip pocket of the Clinton campaign.
This is the kind of thing I'd expect from Fox news. I don't know if this was planned, but I expect better regardless. I didn't see the entire debate and I'm curious to know if any other questioners appeared live for follow ups.
Edited to fix formatting.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Kerr was not the only questioner who appeared live and was given a microphone. Several people who had submitted questions were allowed to stand up and say whether they were satisfied with their answer. Kerr was obviously very dissatisfied, and I don't blame him.
For a second I thought someone at the debate had cut off his microphone, but they gave him another one so *shrug* maybe, maybe not?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Kerr was obviously very dissatisfied, and I don't blame him.
I was as dissatisfied with Romney's answer as the crowd seemed to be. I disagree with Hunter on the issue, but at least I know whether or not I disagree.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was gearing up to watch the debate but my husband had another agenda. What happened?
[ November 29, 2007, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
If Huckabee somehow wins the election I'm renouncing my citizenship.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If Huckabee somehow wins the election I'm renouncing my citizenship.
Where are you planning on becoming a citizen of, or would this renouncement just be a gesture?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Just saw McCain violate Godwin's law. (Bringing up Hitler to Paul)
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If Huckabee somehow wins the election I'm renouncing my citizenship.
Where are you planning on becoming a citizen of, or would this renouncement just be a gesture?
I'll sneak into Mexico and become and illegal immigrant.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I'll sneak into Canada, the land of tolerance, hockey and beer.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Does Paul even know we aren't fighting Vietnam again?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The United States of COOL, baby!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: Environmentalism is a scam. Particularly Global Warming. That is why republicans "cede the issue" to the democrats.
What's troubling to me is they don't fight it enough. They should be pointing out that if Global Warming is really a threat, the people crying wolf would be pushing us HARD for nuclear power. Instead, they're the ones who made us stop building plants back in the 70s. Just 400 more nuclear plants would replace the power from every coal, oil and natural gas plant in the US, thus cutting their carbon emissions to 0. If Global warming were really the end of civilization, no nuclear risk (which is minimal anyway) would stand in the way of stopping carbon emissions.
Does that help you understand a Republican voter's view of environmentalism?
--
God I wish I could vote for Ron Paul. I'd love to see him in the White House vetoing absolutely everything that came across his desk and shutting down the gov't until they passed a constitutionally sound budget. But I can't because of his stand on the WoT.
I have to vote for Giuliani because he's the most gay friendly republican candidate who also supports the WoT.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
WoT?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Environmental destruction and pollution is a serious concern outside of the possibility of human impact on what seems to be a long term warming trend anyway (we're just coming out of the ice age after all). Glacial melt (glacier bay, AK) was going really fast in the late 1700's. Environmentalism is not a scam, the decline in the world's fossil fuel supply is not a scam (as well as the increase in practices like using tons of clean-burning natural gas to extract dirty-burning oil from oil sands in Alberta). Even if human impact on the global warming trend is small/negligible, there are serious environmental issues that neither side is really addressing. This country's food supply system is essentially the process of converting oil into food (through use of fertilizers/the nitrogen cycle, and the long-distance transportation that is the norm). It is not sustainable past when the oil gets really expensive.
And do you know how much oil the War on Terror uses every day?
I thought she was talking about Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series... which Ron Paul must not be a fan of.
(War on Terror)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: God I wish I could vote for Ron Paul. I'd love to see him in the White House vetoing absolutely everything that came across his desk and shutting down the gov't until they passed a constitutionally sound budget. But I can't because of his stand on the WoT.
I have to vote for Giuliani because he's the most gay friendly republican candidate who also supports the WoT.
Look, I know it's usually not considered polite to speak ill of the dead, but seriously, Jordan had run that series into the ground before he died. When taken as a whole it just isn't that good. And besides, letting a candidate's choice in fiction dictate your vote is just a little nuts.
[Edit--too slow! But my phrasing was funnier.]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Katarain -
WoT is War on Terror, I'm guessing.
Pix -
quote:Does that help you understand a Republican voter's view of environmentalism?
See what I got out of that was "Republicans are stupid, that's why." You are all seriously stupid if that's all you get out of the environmental issue. Polluted water means you DIE EARLIER. Polluted air means you DIE EARLIER. It's not fear mongering, it's facts. You see, what happens is, scientists go out and test air and water and find the polluted chemicals in them, then they find out what effects those chemicals have on the body, and doctors tell us what that means. And surprise surprise, pollution is BAD. Pollution is a major environmental issue, so is energy and water conservation, and protecting wildlife, and reducing waste. And all of that stuff cleans up the environment, but also saves us money, makes is healthier, and I think helps us lead better lives.
To say nothing of the fact that the Green movement is making big business tons of money and creating tons of new jobs.
How is that a scam? Seriously, I want to know.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: Perhaps you would find it of interest that the Green Party developed as an offshoot of the Democratic party lead by the exodus of Ralph Nader. During the Clinton administration a panel was created to find a way to trim some of the federally employed jobs as a way to halt our deficit spending. This in part is what created the surplus that the Clinton administration left the nation with. MANY of the jobs that were cut during the Clinton years were just the sorts of scientists and lab folks you describe. Men and women who checked food products to make sure they contained the ingredients they said they did. Scientists who checked industrial paints on toys for lead, workers who made sure products were safe for the general population. Along with the departure of these scientists came an increased risk of environmental hazards. Guess who chaired this panel that put all these scientists out of work; Al Gore.
The other thing that happened during the Clinton years was that the Democratic party started cozying up to big industry so that they could get the funds to be competative with the Republican party in elections, (Republicans have for a long time been in bed with big business.) Nader saw it as selling out and pitched a fit about it and was ushered out the doors of the Democratic Party, the environmentally minded wing of the Democratic party followed. The Democrats reaped the results, and Nader took environmental votes away from Gore in Florida during the 2000 election. So now the Democrats are trying to regain their street credentials with environmentalists, and the Republicans have continued to tow the line they have for decades; abject apathy for the environment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Perhaps you would find it of interest that the Green Party developed as an offshoot of the Democratic party lead by the exodus of Ralph Nader.
That's not remotely true. Where did you get this information? The Green party (which exists and has existed outside the United States) was founded in 1984 and Ralph Nader had nothing to do with it. When they decided to run a candidate in the 96 elections, they approached Nader, not the other way around.
edit: Also, as far as I know, Ralph Nader was never really a mover in the Democratic party. He ran in '92 as an alternative to writing in "None of the above" in Republican and Democratic primaries.
edit 2: Because my friend who is on the board for the PA greens would beat me if I left this out, the Green Party has a focus on environmental issues, sure, but that's only one of their platform issues. They are not a single issue party by any means.
[ November 29, 2007, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
The scientific funding issue is a bit more complex then is presented. It isn't like you just put in x amount of money to "science." The budget can be very specific, so x amount for grad students, y amount for post docs,etc. And so from my understanding things went crazy because of increases in funding in some areas, but not others.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BlackBlade: I would be interested in seeing a source on the sorts of positions eliminated during the Clinton administration.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: WoT?
Wheel of Time? War on Terrorism? Waste of Time? Probably the first one.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It's already been confirmed that it's the last one. Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Didn't realize there was second page. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
(I was making a joke... ya know, "Waste of Time"?)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: *sigh* Just because people disagree with you don't mean they're stupid. And Big Environmentalism these days is all about Global Climate Change. You rarely hear them harp on anything else.
BTW, Nuclear plants would stop the other pollution from coal/oil/NG plants as well. Not to mention charging cars powered by EEStor supercapacitors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eestor thus preventing the multitude of pollutants in auto exhaust such as MTBE. (Gasoline companies were induced to add MTBE by environmental law.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE
That's not a fair argument. I never said just because they disagree with me they are stupid, numerous times I've listed the reasons why, substantive reasons. You ignored all of them and pinned that label on me, and I think it's unfair, and I think you're dodging the real question.
I harp on tons of other stuff all the time, and I consider myself an environmentalist. I think the environmental movement spends too much time on the the scary parts of global climate change, and I think culture is supersaturated with references to it, but that doesn't make the facts any less true, as some pople would like.
Nuclear comes with a ton of its own issues, and those plants take a hell of a long time to build. You're talking a 20 year solution, and I think in the same time frame, renewables will make a huge dent in fossil fuels, which is where the focus should be. I don't mind limited nuclear power, if we can find something to do with the waste. I hear technology is catching up with that, and I hope it does, but it hasn't yet.
Eestor is an unknown quantity. The company refuses to give any details on the project, and many insiders are quietly starting to second guess whether or not they can even come close to what they are claiming. They've pushed back the dates on when they say they'll be able to produce a finished product several times now.
TDP has a lot of promise, but as of now only works with hefty federal subsidies (hey, so does a lot of renewables, so I don't shoot it down for that). It looks good as a possible future way to deal with sewage and our burdgeoning waste disposal problems, but there's only been the one plant build I think, somewhere in the midwest, and they kept getting slammed with complaints from the locals. Hopefully in time they can make it cost effective and get it to work better.
And I still think you're dodging a bit. If Republicans don't like that the debate is always on Climate Change, why don't they change the debate and make it a business issue? It's an excuse.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Because it's not a business issue, it's a scam. I don't hear ANYONE pushing anything that works. They've even turned on Wind power (bird killers)and just the other day I heard a hit piece from a VERY liberal bay area news station on solar.
What they want is the FEAR. They don't want it solved. If they solve it, grants go away, votes go away, political pull goes away.
The business you're pushing is busy work. You try to solve something that's easily solvable another way. A million Sisyphi do not produce ONE thing.
BTW, that TDP plant you're thinking of is in Carthage Mo. The complaints from locals stem from the fact it's right by Historic Downtown rather than out in the boonies as it should be. (plus there are a gazillion other assorted processing plants in the area. Much of the smell could come from them.)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Actually, there was kind of an interesting documentary on here a while ago in which one scientist commented that, yes, nuclear plants will mean local pollution and increased cancer rates and the occasional meltdown that will probably kill thousands of people... And, taking all that as a given, the consequences are still preferable to the likely results of ignoring global warming, which could result in the deaths of a billion people or more.
Wish I knew the name of the documentary. Or the scientist, for that matter; I realize that without it this is kind of hearsay.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Lyrhawn - I take it what you mean by calling environmentalism a business issue is that businesses can save money through conservation and microgeneration, and potentially get more business from the "green" PR. Correct?
The republican take on that aspect that I've seen is basically "Fine, let the market work it out." They don't want to regulate it so business HAS to go green, they want to let businesses decide to do it on their own accord at such time it becomes beneficial to do so. Bearing in mind that I'm an outside observer here too, does that make a little more sense?
--Enigmatic
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Perhaps you would find it of interest that the Green Party developed as an offshoot of the Democratic party lead by the exodus of Ralph Nader.
That's not remotely true. Where did you get this information?
We covered it in Environmental History of the US in class today. My wording is alittle confusing. I did not mean to say Nadar CREATED the Green Party, but that after his departure from the Democratic Party he became it's figure head. His departure from the Democratic Party came in the early 90s'.
quote:When they decided to run a candidate in the 96 elections, they approached Nader, not the other way around.
They might have asked him to run on their ticket, but to say Nader did NO work in tandem with many men would would later create The Green party would not be accurate. Nader was intimately involved in the most important environmental legislation that passed in 70s as an attorney, political activist, and a prominent Democrat.
quote:edit: Also, as far as I know, Ralph Nader was never really a mover in the Democratic party. He ran in '92 as an alternative to writing in "None of the above" in Republican and Democratic primaries.
He created one very powerful lobbying group, Public Citizen He was not a senior senator or a governor but he certainly had more clout then your average politician.
quote: edit 2: Because my friend who is on the board for the PA greens would beat me if I left this out, the Green Party has a focus on environmental issues, sure, but that's only one of their platform issues. They are not a single issue party by any means.
Oh I understand that completely, the point of the lecture today was, why was environmentalism such a major concern a few decades ago but today we are making alot of the same mistakes we supposedly fixed back then. We learned all about lead poisoning, SO EXCITING!
----
Fugu:
quote:BlackBlade: I would be interested in seeing a source on the sorts of positions eliminated during the Clinton administration.
Here is a National Review article about Gore's proposal that ultimately made it through congress.
edit: Interestingly enough in the Republican debates of last night Giuliani proposed the EXACT same strategy in cutting government spending. Allow the bureaucrats to retire and do not rehire for those positions. Consolidate job positions, and use computers to replace alot of the jobs people do now.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Actually, there was kind of an interesting documentary on here a while ago in which one scientist commented that, yes, nuclear plants will mean local pollution and increased cancer rates and the occasional meltdown that will probably kill thousands of people...
But we've had plants for decades and they don't do any of those things. The warm water run-off can kill fish so they have to grow their own and put them back. They used to wear paper suits in the reactors which were stored entirely onsite and so were only polluting the storage room. Now they wear cloth suits and don't even make that much garbage.
As for cancer, my dad always said nuke plant workers had less cancer than the general population. Columbia agrees but the Denton-Record Chronicle thinks it's dangerous for others nearby. Google seems to skew more towards the cancer side, but my dad's never been to a funeral of a coworker who had cancer. Anecdotal, true, but at least I trust the source.
As for the occasional meltdown, we've had what? Two? For all the years and all the plants we've got, that's got to work out to one tiny percentage. And in neither case did the material leave the containment building. No one outside the reactor was effected.
So yes, I completely agree that nuclear power is safer than buring coal and aggravating global warming. I think it's safer than this guy realizes, but I'm biased.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That definitely touches on the general tenor of the cuts. I was hoping for something more specific, perhaps mentioning at least a couple of these categories:
quote:Men and women who checked food products to make sure they contained the ingredients they said they did. Scientists who checked industrial paints on toys for lead, workers who made sure products were safe for the general population.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Enigmatic -
quote:I take it what you mean by calling environmentalism a business issue is that businesses can save money through conservation and microgeneration, and potentially get more business from the "green" PR. Correct?
The republican take on that aspect that I've seen is basically "Fine, let the market work it out." They don't want to regulate it so business HAS to go green, they want to let businesses decide to do it on their own accord at such time it becomes beneficial to do so. Bearing in mind that I'm an outside observer here too, does that make a little more sense?
More the first two points than the third, though that'll probably help too. I don't really have a problem with letting the market work it out, because the market is investing billions in the growing Green sector. The problem is that government hands out billions every year to fossil fuel companies, who are recording ridiculous windfall profits, and they don't give that same money to an industry that could use a little helping hand to speed up development. They provide a lot of helpful services to fossil fuel companies and renewables aren't getting their fair share in a lot of ways, and it's stupid because investing in fossil fuels at a national level will help us all. If we're not going to do it for them, at the very least we shouldn't be doing it for fossil fuel companies, which devastate natural landscapes and poison the environment around us.
That point of view makes more sense to me, but it still doesn't jive with the facts at hand. State governments are picking up the slack in funding, regulatory benefits, and other ways, while the federal government continues to cry foul and say that they can't help because renewables are just money wasters. It's crap.
Pix -
quote:Because it's not a business issue, it's a scam. I don't hear ANYONE pushing anything that works. They've even turned on Wind power (bird killers)and just the other day I heard a hit piece from a VERY liberal bay area news station on solar.
What they want is the FEAR. They don't want it solved. If they solve it, grants go away, votes go away, political pull goes away.
The business you're pushing is busy work. You try to solve something that's easily solvable another way. A million Sisyphi do not produce ONE thing.
I don't know how to talk to you. You're apparently unwilling to change your mind when presented with facts, so I don't see a point in trying at the moment. But I WILL say, that newer wind turbines have fewer revolutions per minute, and pose little or no risk to birds around them, and many wind farms are changing them. Solar is only becoming cheaper and more efficient as time goes on, and most experts think that in a few years they will even reach parity with coal power without federal subsidies, which is a major achievement.
I can certainly see how you'd see the fear thing, and I've discussed this elsewhere on Hatrack. Many of the global climate change crowd spend too much time talking about the negatives and not enough time talking about the solutions, but I'm not one of those people. But I still don't think that excuses being underinformed (in my opinion) enough to make baseless accusations against the cause itself. And I don't think they don't want the problem solved. I see way too many good ideas being bandied about, and way too much time spent coming up with great solutions that don't get adopted because of opponents like you who constantly shoot them down. The solutions are there, they just need to be adopted.
You'll have to explain that part in the bold, because I don't know what you mean. If you're just talking about nuclear power, I don't think that's the answer, not when there are much safer ways of doing it with far more benefits.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That definitely touches on the general tenor of the cuts. I was hoping for something more specific, perhaps mentioning at least a couple of these categories:
quote:Men and women who checked food products to make sure they contained the ingredients they said they did. Scientists who checked industrial paints on toys for lead, workers who made sure products were safe for the general population.
I'll see what I can do, I'm pretty exhausted, I've done nothing but homework all evening and I've hardly put a dent in my load. I sure do love end of the semester finals.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: But we've had plants for decades and they don't do any of those things. The warm water run-off can kill fish so they have to grow their own and put them back. They used to wear paper suits in the reactors which were stored entirely onsite and so were only polluting the storage room. Now they wear cloth suits and don't even make that much garbage.
As for cancer, my dad always said nuke plant workers had less cancer than the general population. Columbia agrees but the Denton-Record Chronicle thinks it's dangerous for others nearby. Google seems to skew more towards the cancer side, but my dad's never been to a funeral of a coworker who had cancer. Anecdotal, true, but at least I trust the source.
As for the occasional meltdown, we've had what? Two? For all the years and all the plants we've got, that's got to work out to one tiny percentage. And in neither case did the material leave the containment building. No one outside the reactor was effected.
So yes, I completely agree that nuclear power is safer than buring coal and aggravating global warming. I think it's safer than this guy realizes, but I'm biased.
You may well be right about that. Though it would make sense that if nuclear power became the pivotal replacement for, say, coal, the number of meltdowns and contaminations would increase significantly. And I don't think anyone's come up with a really good answer for disposal of spent fuel rods.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:And I don't think anyone's come up with a really good answer for disposal of spent fuel rods.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)