posted
From an actual female voter in New Hampshire.
"I know Obama is going to win and that's what I want, but after seeing Hillary cry I just felt she could use my support."
As for McCain, he took New Hampshire back in 2000 and jumped ahead of the national polls. It looked like he was going to be in it for the long haul against Bush but after that he just lost momentum and Bush steamed into the nomination.
I have come to the conclusion that Huckabee takes votes away from only Romney, if Romney drops out I think Huckabee is the one to thank for it. I know Giuliani and McCain both giggle with joy when Romney and Huckabee trade blows.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney could never be out of money--his personal wealth is in the hundreds of millions. There will be a point, though, when he will realize he cannot win, no matter how much money he puts in, and that point will be if he loses in Michigan this Tuesday. If Romney cannot win in Michigan, then he cannot win anywhere.
Only a liberal would think Ron Paul acquited himself well in the recent debate on Fox News. What I saw in the news media was some claims that Thompson seemed to be the most effective debater, according to pundits and polls both. He may have done the best job, but he did not score any points at the expense of anyone else. That is to say, no one hurt their chances with voters in general, except maybe Ron Paul, who basically exposed the absurdities in his thinking, despite whatever good points he might have made.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such labels are all a bit fuzzy at the edges. A libertarian could be construed as a fiscal conservative, but most conservatives would not invite them to lunch. Gov. Mike Huckabee, with his call for a "Fair" tax based on spending instead of income, along with doing away with the IRS, should be received very favorably by libertarians. But libertarians tend to react against any kind of authoritarianism, and belief in God implies a divine authoritarianism that scares most libertarians. Or are we talking now about libertines? It's hard to keep them all straight! Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the Straight Talk Express today on my way home from work. McCain was having a rally in Clawson, Michigan, which is between where I live in Royal Oak and where I work, in Troy. Lots of signs are starting to pop up around here. I see Ron Paul's name everywhere, but now we're seeing McCain and Romney signs popping up.
quote:Only a liberal would think Ron Paul acquited himself well in the recent debate on Fox News.
Well like Stephen Colbert says, "reality has a well known liberal bias."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, Ron Paul is outspoken about his religious beliefs. He's doing fairly well among Libertarians.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: ...Ron Paul is outspoken about his religious beliefs. He's doing fairly well among Libertarians.
I have not heard the Congressman speaking out about any religious beliefs. It seems that all the religious questions are addressed to Gov. Mike Huckabee by the media.
Libertarians may have a lot of good sense going for them on many issues, but they are a relatively small portion of the electorate.
In the case of Rep. Paul, he combines his libertarian views with some extremely naive and near-isolationist views that would greatly endanger our country and the world. I would refuse to vote for him simply because of his failure to see the importance of America keeping its commitment to Israel--the only true democracy in the Middle East, and the only truly pro-Western nation in the Middle East. And that is only the beginnings of the problems I have with his foreign policy views.
Lyrhawn, if "reality has a liberal bias," then why do liberal ideas always fail, and wind up making matters worse? Why has "liberal" become a pejorative term, so that all politicians instinctively object to having the label applied to them? No one minds being called "conservative," because conservative ideas have been seen to work more often than not.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyrhawn, if "reality has a liberal bias," then why do liberal ideas always fail, and wind up making matters worse? Why has "liberal" become a pejorative term, so that all politicians instinctively object to having the label applied to them? No one minds being called "conservative," because conservative ideas have been seen to work more often than not.
Wow, you really want to go into that? First off, liberal ideas don't always fail, and you can ask women and minorities, who liberals got the vote for, and for that matter, freedom from slavery (which your conservatives touted). It was a liberal who busted the trusts, made child labor laws, and worker protections so people didn't literally work themselves to death. Liberals created food inspectors to make sure the food you eat is safe. A liberal president created Social Security, which, though it's gone awry NOW because subsequent governments have messed it up, lifted thousands of people out of abject poverty and literally saved thousands of the elderly from starving or freezing to death. Liberal ideas always fail? Sheesh, you have selective memory.
Liberal has become a pejorative term because smug conservatives and their smear machine have used the word that way so much that liberal has become an ugly attack word. There's nothing to be ashamed of from being called a liberal, and I've heard several major politicians come out in defense of the word. Conservatives, until very, very recently, wanted us attached to oil forever, and wrung their hands at renewable energy as liberal treehugger dogooder gibberish. Conservatives got us into Iraq. Conservatives have DOUBLED the national debt in the last eight years.
Yeah, you're really spot on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Liberal became a pejorative the same way that "estate tax" transmogrified into "death tax": because of a relentless PR campaign over many years supported and paid for by (you guessed it!) conservatives.
On the other hand, neo-con became the touch of death, the bête noire of all right-thinking people, solely based on it's followers' own views and actions. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... Why has "liberal" become a pejorative term, so that all politicians instinctively object to having the label applied to them?
I think someone missed the memo that went out. You might want to inform the *Liberal* Party of Ontario that is currently in charge or well the federal one that they should proceed onto instinctive objections
quote: The Liberal Party of Canada is a Canadian federal political party. The organization is located in the centre of the Canadian political spectrum, combining a liberal social policy with moderate economic policies. The party has been frequently dubbed "Canada's natural governing party", [1] since it has been in power most of the time since the Great Depression ...
The Liberal Party held power for more years of the 20th century than did any other party in any developed western country.
Also,
quote: No one minds being called "conservative," because conservative ideas have been seen to work more often than not.
Actually, there is a even more strange inversion of politics in foreign locales that you might want to think about. "Conservatives" are right-wing and "Liberals" are left-wing in the United States.
However, in China, "Conservatives" are either hardline Communists (i.e. left-wing) or more rarely, people that are pro-older ideas such as Confucianism. "Liberals" tend to be the ones pushing for political reform and democracy.
posted
On the channel 4 news at 11pm tonight, they aired a poll by the Detroit News that shows Mitt ahead in the state. McCain trails him by about 7 points, with Huckabee in 3rd. The polling started on Weds with McCain out front, but Mitt has gained every day since then. He's been hammering economic issues, which will do him well in this state with the economy the way it is. I really like Mitt and I plan to vote for him on Tuesday.
The real concern is whether or not the democrats will vote in the Republican Primary and throw off the results. The Dem party has disqualified the primary and all but Hillary have backed out of the primary. So they have the choice of being uncommitted or Hillary, no write ins. If the Dems cross over chances are they will vote for McCain or Ron Paul. I just hope they don't screw up Mitt's chances.
posted
You kidding? Democrats should cross over in droves to vote for Romney. The most recent polling I've seen shows that if he's the Republican candidate in the general, the Democrats will walk away with the General, regardless of who their nominee is. His has the lowest "will vote for for sure" numbers and the highest "will not for vote under any circumstances" numbers.
Numbers for Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney against Hillary or Obama are BAD. Either Democrat beats any of the three of them by double digits. With McCain? Statistical tie. I was going to vote uncommitted, now I'm thinking about voting for Romney just to screw with the results. It feels a bit dishonest, but I look at it like a vote for Romney is really a vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really blame you Lyrhawn, as that is one of the only ways to have your vote mean something in Michigan right now. Kind of an "ends justify the means" deal....Still, I'm upset that things are so screwy that it comes to crossing parties to vote, certain states having excessive influence, states moving their primaries earlier and getting punished for it, etc. Everything's become a big twisted game. Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'm a Communist, where do I fit in?
That's a lie Blayne. Good communists don't have time to play video games, they spend all their time reading the works of Marx, Lenin, Mao; inviting people to rallies and political gatherings.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Couldn't find the Little Red book, already read the Manifesto once, I generally don't reread books for at least a year has gone by.
IP: Logged |
posted
Discussing liberalism in history is tricky, because many positions once described as liberal are actually conservative now. Liberal used to mean virtually the opposite of what it does now. Liberalism used to be a good thing. Now it is a bad thing.
Blayne, communism is neither conservative nor liberal, left wing or right, because it has been globally discredited, and its only position now is on the ash-heap of history. It is yesterday's political heresy. The world has gone beyond that debate now. Except maybe in mainland China, and even there it is a grotesque hybridization with capitalism, since only capitalism really works, and the communist bosses know it. They just use communism as an excuse to continue their tyrannical rule.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
To you maybe, to you. To me, liberals and their ideas are the only hope this country has to save us from the slide conservatives have sent us on.
Ya'll were in complete control of the country for six years. And look what you've done with the nation in that time. Are you really proud of yourselves? You guys had your chance, you messed up. Time to let someone else take a turn at the helm.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, for six years REPUBLICANS were in control of Congress and the White House. That does not mean conservatives were in control. Most conservatives felt they were largely betrayed by the Republicans.
Tom--I would say not. Liberalism has not even been globally defined. It's a moving target.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either most Conservatives voted them all BACK INTO POWER in 2004, or there was a massive voter fraud that led to Bush getting back into office. I know it wasn't the liberals. So near as I can tell, "they aren't really Conservatives" rings hollow in my ears. Ron Paul is arguably the most conservative of the Republicans running, and he only polls at 8% nationally? What you think Conservative means and what the nation seems to think it is don't appear to match up. If your party was hijacked, then don't the people who vote for the hijackers share some of the blame?
Ya'll bought the party line and drank the kool-aid.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over the weekend, I was dragged into political discussion again. It wasn't pretty, and I don't intend to repeat it.
It began because of e-mail. What is going on with all these anti-Obama e-mails? It seems like every couple of weeks I wind up defending him against some vile Internet rumor about his religion, his church, or his patriotism. It's not my place to defend him, and I use his campaign web site, snopes, and a quick Google search to find all the correct answers.
It's not like Kansas is a tremendously valuable well to poison, given the political makeup of the state. Perhaps I shouldn't waste time clearing up these rumors. The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that I'm just witnessing another bad symptom of living in Kansas. After all, I'm mostly dealing with right-wing syncophants, not intellectual individuals. It's thoroughly disgusting, however I handle it. <sigh>
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You kidding? Democrats should cross over in droves to vote for Romney. The most recent polling I've seen shows that if he's the Republican candidate in the general, the Democrats will walk away with the General, regardless of who their nominee is. His has the lowest "will vote for for sure" numbers and the highest "will not for vote under any circumstances" numbers.
Numbers for Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney against Hillary or Obama are BAD. Either Democrat beats any of the three of them by double digits. With McCain? Statistical tie. I was going to vote uncommitted, now I'm thinking about voting for Romney just to screw with the results. It feels a bit dishonest, but I look at it like a vote for Romney is really a vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.
Actually, everything I've heard is the opposite of that. That McCain against Obama would not be good because Obama would pull the independent votes, while McCain couldn't satisfy the core of the Republican party.
And as we've learned, it's not about the popular vote, it's who wins the most electoral votes. That means key states. That breakdown is the most important.
posted
Out of all the fairly successful nations on earth, not a single one that I can think of has economic institutions that could overall be described as socialist, despite the rhetoric of many. While many have specific institutions and programs some would, sometimes accurately, describe as socialist, those tend to be in the manner of social safety net programs, which are not generally characteristic of an economy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You kidding? Democrats should cross over in droves to vote for Romney. The most recent polling I've seen shows that if he's the Republican candidate in the general, the Democrats will walk away with the General, regardless of who their nominee is. His has the lowest "will vote for for sure" numbers and the highest "will not for vote under any circumstances" numbers.
Numbers for Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney against Hillary or Obama are BAD. Either Democrat beats any of the three of them by double digits. With McCain? Statistical tie. I was going to vote uncommitted, now I'm thinking about voting for Romney just to screw with the results. It feels a bit dishonest, but I look at it like a vote for Romney is really a vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.
Actually, everything I've heard is the opposite of that. That McCain against Obama would not be good because Obama would pull the independent votes, while McCain couldn't satisfy the core of the Republican party.
And as we've learned, it's not about the popular vote, it's who wins the most electoral votes. That means key states. That breakdown is the most important.
Please do vote for Mitt on Tuesday.
The most recent national hypothetical polling shows McCain has the best chance. The others turn off way too many voters, regardless of whether or not Hillary is the run they are running against. McCain has the best chance of attracting independents and not being wholly unlikeable to the base. He nails down most of the present Republican platform, he's a war vet, etc. He'll do just fine with the base. Huckabee does the best with the base, but everyone left of the far right won't vote for him. Giuliani takes most of the center, but the far right won't touch him with a ten foot pole, regardless of who he SAYS he'll appoint to the Supreme Court. And no one trusts Romney.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, wouldn't you say that the control of inflation through monetary policy is a socialist policy?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not particularly. It isn't really one or the other, as it is not a particular impediment to free exchange (and does not clearly fall under any of the many things commonly called socialism).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So? Taxes are un-hidden taxation, and I don't think it is particularly socialist, either (in and of itself).
edit: also, I don't entirely agree with the premise, but I was taking it as a given for the purposes of what I said. There is definitely a redistributory effect when the central bank expands or contracts the money supply, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tstorm, I suspect some Clintonistas are behind the anti-Obama emails claiming things like he is Muslim, had his swearing in on a Koran, etc. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn, is a Muslim, and did pose with a Koran when he took his oath of office as a Congressman. According to Politifact.com:
quote:Two press reports from Obama's swearing-in ceremony in January 2005 mention specifically that Obama took the oath of office by placing his hand on his own copy of the Bible. The Barack Obama campaign also confirmed that it was a Bible and that the book belonged to Obama. Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as president of the Senate, administered the oath.
After being raised outside of any particular faith tradition, Obama became a Christian in his mid 20s and is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. (Obama gave what are arguably his most extended remarks on his faith at the "Call to Renewal" religious conference in 2006; read the speech here http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ )
quote:as it is not a particular impediment to free exchange
I'm not sure I like a definition of socialism that requires "a particular impediment to free exchange."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm construing capitalism as, generally speaking, a system where the laws are constructed to enable and support free exchange. Socialism I haven't specifically defined, it being more a case of "I know it when I see it", though I could probably write a few paragraphs that cover all the major cases.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the definition is a little lacking (although it seems like a reasonable shorthand for the actual outcomes a country gets via socialism-as-practiced). The first paragraph of the wikipedia article on socialism defines it as follows:
quote:Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.
The control of the money supply by a semi-public or public entity doesn't seem to be to the same in nature as the control of the means of production. Rather, I'd put money supply control on the same level as the use of the government to maintain rule of law - facilitators of production, rather than production itself.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: So? Taxes are un-hidden taxation, and I don't think it is particularly socialist, either (in and of itself).
edit: also, I don't entirely agree with the premise, but I was taking it as a given for the purposes of what I said. There is definitely a redistributory effect when the central bank expands or contracts the money supply, though.
I wasn't saying it was socialist. Just evil. Not all evil is socialist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of all the fairly successful nations on earth, not a single one that I can think of has economic institutions that could overall be described as socialist, despite the rhetoric of many.
I'm curious as to where you feel the Scandinavian countries fit with this statement. Are they not fairly sucessful or are they not socialist?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't looked at their economies closely, but I'd say that the they're not socialist - they just have socialist elements. The basic economy is still about capitalistic principles. I'd also say that they're not as highly successful as they like to claim. For instance, most economists would probably put real unemployment levels in Sweden anywhere between 10-20%. To me, that's a large economic & social failure. I've seen similar unemployment statistics for other Scandinavian countries.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are not socialist. They have certain specific institutions that could be termed socialist, but the overall economy is obviously capitalist.
Of course, I think the terms can overlap, so I suppose one could say some country or another was socialist and capitalist. I don't think that's accurate even in the cases of the Scandinavian countries. Those countries have liberalized capital, trade, contract enforcement, and corporate policy, among other things. Most (All?) of them have strong entrepreneurial traditions and low barriers to market entry. That they have several strong social safety net programs is paltry in comparison.
Lisa: I never said anything about being or not being evil. And since you are willing to accommodate at least minimal taxes in order to guarantee certain particular freedoms you deem most important, I'm not sure what your point is even if one accepts that central banking is evil.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best "short" definition of socialism (apologies to Sinclar Lewis) is "Government control of the means of producing and distributing the necessities of life." By that definition, central banks, energy initiatives and pure food and drug laws are all socialistic.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure where I'd rank their specific level of success, but I think they're handily within "fairly successful".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
And I agree that the get lumped in the successful pile, rather than the unsuccessful one. I just don't think they've got the perfect economic & social system going on, as some people seem to think (not that any country does).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While central banks have some minor influence on money, they do not control money, much less any means of producing or distributing the necessities of life, for which money is merely a value carrier.
And what energy initiatives are you looking at that give the enacting government control of the means of producing or distributing energy, beyond token amounts like the strategic oil reserves?
Furthermore, last I checked, nothing prevented someone from selling 'impure' food and drugs (except that they could not be labeled as such). Stick an industrial waste (or whatever, but that's definitely inclusive) label on there and sell away. Is capitalism the right to put whatever labels we wish on consumer products? If so, where does deceptive advertising fall?
Not to mention that defining what food and medicine are is hardly controlling either their production or distribution, just as contract law is not controlling freely entered agreements.
Capitalism != absent regulation.
edit: and, of course, even were these particular institutions socialist, they would be the mildest forms of socialism. Calling the overall economies using them socialist would be silly and wrong. There has never been an economy purely operating in one way, and, as I've said, I can think of not a single fairly successful country which economy could be termed anything other than capitalist, on the whole.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I'd expect more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents to boycott the presidential vote or vote Republican to protest Clinton than Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to boycott or vote Democrat to protest Romney. Never underestimate the capability of Democrats to sabotage their chances of winning. Due to the Clinton's injection of race (and to a lesser extent, gender) into the campaign, Hillary is unlikely to win the GeneralElection. They've alienated many independents and Democrats supporting Barack who aren't purely "yellow*dog" partisan. A significant minority of them will sit out the GeneralElection should Clinton win the nomination, which will also decrease the chances of other Democratic candidates seeking national and statewide offices. Another portion will vote for a protest candidate or leave the presidential selection unmarked. And of those, some will refuse to vote for Democratic candidates seen as supporting and/or being supported by the Clintons.
A Democrat or a Democratic-leaning independent voting for a Republican in the Michigan and Florida primaries is voting for Clinton. Every vote for Hillary which isn't cancelled by a vote for another Democratic candidate increases her percentage of total votes in those primaries. And an increased percentage of the total vote means an increased portion of the delegate votes.
Odds are that to court voters in the GeneralElection, the DemocraticConvention will give those states' delegate votes the same half-weight as the Republican have. The RepublicanConvention follows the DemocraticConvention. So if the Democrats do so, there is a somewhat less than even chance that the RepublicanConvention will choose to give those states' delegate votes full**weight to say "We love you more." And a yet smaller chance that the Democrats will give full**weight in anticipation of such a Republican response.
* The portion of core voters who can be relied upon to vote against the other party's candidate in GeneralElections.
** With odds in favor of such a move if a single candidate wins enough of the the delegate votes before the convention such that addition of the Florida and Michigan votes won't change the outcome.
And profits are mostly hidden taxation: "collected at the point of a gun"* in the same manner as other taxes&fees. Admittedly when the government is neither totalitarian nor totally corrupt, there are harsher penalties for depriving individuals and corporations of their profits than for depriving government of its taxes.
* ie Made possible through the government's ability to make&enforce laws.
quote: A Democrat or a Democratic-leaning independent voting for a Republican in the Michigan and Florida primaries is voting for Clinton. Every vote for Hillary which isn't cancelled by a vote for another Democratic candidate increases her percentage of total votes in those primaries. And an increased percentage of the total vote means an increased portion of the delegate votes.
But the other candidates' names won't be on those ballots, and they've said that write-ins won't be counted. Michigan Dems will only have the options of voting for Clinton or "uncommitted." If they turn around and count the delegates when the state's voters were only given one choice, I think you can count me among the Democrat-leaning Independants who'll vote 3rd party just to not vote for Clinton.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
