US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Who would you vote for?

Barack Obama
94
54%
Hillary Clinton
3
2%
John Edwards
7
4%
Mike Huckabee
3
2%
Rudy Guiliani
2
1%
Mitt Romney
5
3%
the Ronpaul
14
8%
John McCain
8
5%
I am a whiny person and vote for Bill Richardson
4
2%
Thompson, Fred Thompson
1
1%
other
7
4%
otter
25
14%
 
Total votes: 173

User avatar
athelas
A Sophisticated Plagiarism Engine
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 am UTC

US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby athelas » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:08 am UTC

It's a bit early, but we might as well start discussing the US presidential primary results, what with the Iowa caucii underway. So far, with about a sixth of the votes counted (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... /state/#IA), it looks like the Dems are very closely tied, while on the Republican side Huckabee seems to have a commanding lead over Romney. Since I think Huckabee has very little chance of winning the general election - he's way too overt about his Christianity - this seems to presage a prolonged primary battle for both parties. Thoughts?

I like where this poll is going, heh, heh, aaaalright

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby TheStranger » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:06 am UTC

Well the Iowa caucuses do not mean as much as the media makes it out to be. If you look over the past few elections then you'll see that who wins in Iowa reveals little about who will win the primaries or the general election.

It's still early to say who will win for each party... though Hillary at 3rd is a currious turn.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
Dostoevsky
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:09 pm UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Dostoevsky » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:07 am UTC

I just voted in the Ames, Iowa Caucus. Obama got 203 out of 481 votes, Hillary got 83, Edwards got 111 or 112, i forget. Most of the rest went to Bill Richardson, and the rest of the democrats.

Obama definitely won Iowa btw.

Aria
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:15 am UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Aria » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:57 am UTC

I was just at one of the Coralville caucuses, Obama was at 250ish of 585, then Hillary at 130ish and Edwards around 100, then the rest didnt have much

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Akula » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:01 am UTC

I have to say I'm unenthused by the GOP results. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney??? Chriiiist. Here's hoping Obama wins the nomination, because it'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for Huckabee or Romney... or Hillary or Edwards. I'd really like to see McCain and Obama get the nominations... that way I wont be too upset whatever way the general election goes.

Fortunately, I won't be paying much attention the next few weeks NFL Playoffs bitches!
"I never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Kizyr » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:08 am UTC

I've been making a prediction of Edwards vs Huckabee at the end.

I mean, I'm not voting for Edwards in the primary, but I just get the feeling that as more of the primaries get underway, folks are going to start gravitating towards a more centrist-looking, "safe" candidate (emphasis on the quotation marks, since it's about perception). Though, it might be nice if I were wrong, as it'd probably be a more interesting campaign. KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
clockworkmonk
I'm on a horse!
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:53 am UTC
Location: Austin

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby clockworkmonk » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:18 am UTC

I think Edwards might do what he did last time, essentially run for vice-president.

I mean, He just doesn't have the charisma to pull off running for president.
418 I'm a teapot

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Akula » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:20 am UTC

Since when is John "everything is the fault of 'the corporations'" Edwards a centrist candidate?

I agree with the dynamic your predicting, but Obama is way more centrist then Edwards is. Edwards is left of just about everyone but Kucinich.

Either way... here's hoping that doesn't happen. Edwards is a grade A scumbag behind his populist facade, and Huckabee is a holier-than-thou dipshit.
"I never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain

User avatar
Moo
Oh man! I'm going to be so rebellious! I'm gonna...
Posts: 6438
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:15 pm UTC
Location: Beyond the goblin city
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Moo » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:28 am UTC

I'm going to make a game out of guessing which mod is going to move this out of General and how quickly.
Proverbs 9:7-8 wrote:Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
Hawknc wrote:FFT: I didn't realise Proverbs 9:7-8 was the first recorded instance of "haters gonna hate"

masher
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:07 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby masher » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:42 am UTC

Tell you what.. the way a President is actually put into office is quite convoluted. I've just spent that last hour on Wikipedia, and I still don't quite get it... :|

User avatar
Berengal
Superabacus Mystic of the First Rank
Posts: 2707
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:51 am UTC
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Berengal » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:31 am UTC

Moo wrote:I'm going to make a game

I just lost it.

I'm looking forward to the election. It's just as entertaining as any soap (not that it's hard to be so), except with more 'augh, the stupidity!'s.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students who are motivated by money: As potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Kizyr » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:22 pm UTC

Akula wrote:Since when is John "everything is the fault of 'the corporations'" Edwards a centrist candidate?


Since he's a white male. Really, that's what I think the main reason is. Like I said, it's all about perceptions.

I don't want to get deep into politics right now, but my main concern is that Hillary not get the nomination; if Obama does get the ticket then that's just a (huge) bonus. McCain vs Obama would be a nice election, true. I'd back Obama, but I wouldn't be that upset if McCain got it. I don't see it as very likely, though--but more from McCain's angle. KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
b.i.o
Green is the loneliest number
Posts: 2519
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Hong Kong

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby b.i.o » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:44 pm UTC

Obama was my second choice (after Kucinich) and so I'm glad he won in Iowa. However, I don't think the fight is even close to over. On the GOP side, the results were pretty easy to predict--however, it's going to be interesting to see who comes out on top in New Hampshire since McCain has spent so much time there.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Endless Mike » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:52 pm UTC

masher wrote:Tell you what.. the way a President is actually put into office is quite convoluted. I've just spent that last hour on Wikipedia, and I still don't quite get it... :|

Someone correct me if I'm wrong since it's been years since I've taken any civics classes:

Constitutionally, there's n candidates. The populace votes for electors who then vote on the candidates after the fact. Whoever has the most electoral votes gets the job. Each state determines how their electors are allowed to vote (some are winner takes all, others are split based on how their district votes). This can, and has, allow for someone to win with a lower popular vote than their opponant(s).

Due to the current two-party system, the parties don't want their own candidates running against each other since it's a winner takes all contest (e.g. if Hillary and Obama are both on the ticket against a single Republican, Hillary and Obama are competing for the same votes, while the Rep wins with a minority vote since the party is unified), so there's a series of primary elections or caucuses (each state sets its own rules) that determines the candidate to be fielded by that party. They can choose their VP running mate at any time, but usually wait till after they're chosen since you'll occasionally see them pick an early opponant as a running mate. Technically, the VP is elected on a separate ballot, but that's become mostly a formality.

The initial reasons for the Electoral College are twofold: 1) When developed, communications were slow, so there had to be a way to communicate the results to the government. The best way was to have the people vote for electors who then meet up and vote for the next President. Obviously, this is no longer the case. 2) To ensure that there's a fair distribution of votes. Going by a pure popular vote, New York, California, Texas, and Florida would essentially determine the President leaving 46 other states mostly irrelevant, so I do tend to agree with this need. CA's 55 is a lot compared to, say, North Dakota's 3, but if it was purely representational, it would be 53 to 1 (two electors correspond to the two Senators each state has in Congress, the rest correspond to their Representatives, which are numbered based on state population, minimum of 1 per state with a total of 435), which moves it even more in CA's favor.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby fjafjan » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:59 pm UTC

I have only one thing to say

Can't stop Barack

And while Iowa is not the end all be all, it does matter quite alot, if Obama takes home NH and SC aswell then it's more or less over. Ofcourse, it's quite possible that he won't, but if he does... Also if Hillary had taken Iowa it would have been a major blow to Obama aswell, but yeah. Anyhow, it was a good thing.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby segmentation fault » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:04 pm UTC

Huckabee and Obama, jesus we are screwed.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
MuseSik
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:53 pm UTC
Location: Las Vegas

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby MuseSik » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:28 pm UTC

My roommate and I watched the caucus coverage for about 5 hours last night, and thouroughly enjoyed it. CSPAN actulally had coverage inside two of the caucii locations. After seeing that, I can't wait to go to the Nevada one in a few weeks.

Overall, I'm glad Obama won. He really brought out the youth, and surprisingly the women vote. Edwards beating out Clinton was also a welcome surprise. I only wish Dodd would have done a little better. I know he has no chance, but the more I hear about him, the more respect I have for the guy.

As for the republicans, I really thought McCain would have done better, I mean he didn't even beat Thompson, who is the biggest joke candidate ever (he was once quoted saying about global warming, "...This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.").

All in all, I think that Obama stands to do quite well from here on in and eventually winning the nomination with Edwards as a running mate. If McCain can win in New Hampshire, and build momentum from there, he will end up with the nomination.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Endless Mike » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:42 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:Huckabee and Obama, jesus we are screwed.

Could have been waaaaaaaaay worse, like Hillary and Rudy.

User avatar
Twasbrillig
Tawsbirlig
Posts: 1942
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:50 am UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Twasbrillig » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

I can't believe anyone could even consider having a president with the last name Huckabee. Seriously.

Anyway, my (non-existant) vote is for Barack. His policies are close enough (read: closer than anybody else, except maybe Clinton) to Canadian NDP policies for me to agree with him.
I want to have Bakemaster's babies. It's possible, with science.

I wonder if you can see...
...what is wrong with my signature?

wing wrote:I'm sorry... But that was THE funniest thing I've ever read on the interbutts.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby fjafjan » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:49 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:Huckabee and Obama, jesus we are screwed.

And the better winners would have been what? Ron Retarded Paul?

(he was once quoted saying about global warming, "...This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.").

He must have hired some writers from The Daily Show or something because that is pretty funny, even if it's retarded.

also, I feel I have to post this.
Image
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Shro » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

I just keep thinking of the slogan campaigns that have potential awesome.

I <3 Huckabee - Too bad no one who would want to vote for him would have liked that movie.
Can't Stop Barak- That ytmnd link was just too entertaining.
Boobies are great in 2008!- Hehehehe. I said Boobies.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby segmentation fault » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:01 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:And the better winners would have been what? Ron Retarded Paul?

YES

p.s. why do people think hes retarded?
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby fjafjan » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:04 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:
fjafjan wrote:And the better winners would have been what? Ron Retarded Paul?

YES

p.s. why do people think hes retarded?

Because his policies would do incredible harm?
From having no real exit strategy from Iraq, to leaving the UN, to re instituting letters of Marque, to abolishing the IRS and a heap of other agencies all the way to tearing up Roe v Wade and appointing religious wacky judges in the Supreme court.

He's pretty retarded. I mean it should tell you something that his supporters will use "but he won't get many of his polcies through" as an argument FOR him.

EDIT: Oh man I had forgotten about the Gold standard. Seriously, with the Ronpaul if you think he's crazy just dig a bit more and you'll find a new vein of Gold crusted crazyness, but beware, if you dig too deep and too greedily the Rondroids might come out and kill us all.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Twasbrillig
Tawsbirlig
Posts: 1942
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:50 am UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Twasbrillig » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:05 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
segmentation fault wrote:Huckabee and Obama, jesus we are screwed.

And the better winners would have been what? Ron Retarded Paul?

(he was once quoted saying about global warming, "...This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.").

He must have hired some writers from The Daily Show or something because that is pretty funny, even if it's retarded.



George Bush was once quoted as saying that "Saddam Hussein killed Nelson Mandela."

This sounds like a retarded comment, right? Well, this was taken completely out of context. He said that Saddam Hussein, as a political leader, has inspired people to distrust other political leaders because of the scandals and offenses he has committed. Because of his actions, no political leader can have any trust from the people any more, he has 'killed' them. Saddam Hussein 'killed' Nelson Mandela. In its entirety, this is quite a profound statement, but when taken out of context, it can be shown to make Bush look like a babbling idiot.

Not to say George Bush hasn't said to honest-to-goodness stupid things and done even stupider actions, but still, my point stands. That quote was probably taken out of context, and actually had some deeper meaning. Insult politicians based on their beliefs, not their quotes - I support Barack even though he was talking in a speech yesterday about talking to Canada's 'president' about NAFTA.
I want to have Bakemaster's babies. It's possible, with science.

I wonder if you can see...
...what is wrong with my signature?

wing wrote:I'm sorry... But that was THE funniest thing I've ever read on the interbutts.

User avatar
MuseSik
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:53 pm UTC
Location: Las Vegas

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby MuseSik » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:08 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:
fjafjan wrote:And the better winners would have been what? Ron Retarded Paul?

YES

p.s. why do people think hes retarded?


umm....

Pulling out of the UN & NATO
The Gold Standard
Getting rid of the Department of Education
Against any form of amnesty for immigrants

Honestly, I do like some of what he says. Some of his ideas are really good, but as a whole, I can't back him.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby fjafjan » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Twasbrillig wrote:George Bush was once quoted as saying that "Saddam Hussein killed Nelson Mandela."

This sounds like a retarded comment, right? Well, this was taken completely out of context. He said that Saddam Hussein, as a political leader, has inspired people to distrust other political leaders because of the scandals and offenses he has committed. Because of his actions, no political leader can have any trust from the people any more, he has 'killed' them. Saddam Hussein 'killed' Nelson Mandela. In its entirety, this is quite a profound statement, but when taken out of context, it can be shown to make Bush look like a babbling idiot.

Right, it might very well be out of context, it's still pretty funny. Basically there are tons of other reasons why Thompsons would be a terrible president so quotes that may or may not be very stupid don't really matter. I just thought it was funny, but didn't want to have people quoting me thinking I actually thought global warming is 'natural'.

Not to say George Bush hasn't said to honest-to-goodness stupid things and done even stupider actions, but still, my point stands. That quote was probably taken out of context, and actually had some deeper meaning.

It's sad that some of his most stupid remarks that were not bloopers, or out of context are quite liked by his supporters.
like
"you're either with us or against us".
For the bloopers one I quite like
George W Bush on education wrote:The childrens do learn

There is no beating that.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Belial » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:12 pm UTC

MuseSik wrote:
segmentation fault wrote:
fjafjan wrote:And the better winners would have been what? Ron Retarded Paul?

YES

p.s. why do people think hes retarded?


umm....

Pulling out of the UN & NATO
The Gold Standard
Getting rid of the Department of Education
Against any form of amnesty for immigrants


....Wow, I'm glad I've never paid attention to his platform ever.

I would have choked significantly more people.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Jesse » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:23 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
....Wow, I'm glad I've never paid attention to his platform ever.

I would have choked significantly more bitches.


Fix'd

User avatar
thefiddler
The Fora's Prophetess
Posts: 4041
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:07 am UTC
Location: The-middle-of-bumfuck-nowhere

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby thefiddler » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:25 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
MuseSik wrote:
segmentation fault wrote:
fjafjan wrote:And the better winners would have been what? Ron Retarded Paul?

YES

p.s. why do people think hes retarded?

umm....

Pulling out of the UN & NATO
The Gold Standard
Getting rid of the Department of Education
Against any form of amnesty for immigrants

....Wow, I'm glad I've never paid attention to his platform ever.

I would have choked significantly more people.

Holy shit, Jordan, get out of my head. That's ridiculous. O.O

Anyway, I'm a strange lass, I guess. I support Obama for many reasons, which I won't go in to, but something I noticed about his policies and charisma is that he reminds me of Bobby Kennedy. Not that I'm old enough to remember Kennedy (dear god, no), but I do know a fair bit of US history and I've seen and heard speeches and such. I always wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been assassinated. :/

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby fjafjan » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:31 pm UTC

thefiddler wrote: I always wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been assassinated. :/

YOU'LL JINX IT
YOU'LL FUCKING JINX IT! D:
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
d3adf001
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:27 pm UTC
Location: State College, PA
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby d3adf001 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:44 pm UTC

anyone that has a shot at actually winning is a really horrible choice imo and ill leave it at that.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Kizyr » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:09 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
Not to say George Bush hasn't said to honest-to-goodness stupid things and done even stupider actions, but still, my point stands. That quote was probably taken out of context, and actually had some deeper meaning.

It's sad that some of his most stupid remarks that were not bloopers, or out of context are quite liked by his supporters.
like
"you're either with us or against us".

I recall Hillary saying a lot of that in 2001-2002, as well.
Reason number two why I would never vote for her. KF
~Kizyr
Image

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby ZeroSum » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:21 pm UTC

MuseSik wrote:Pulling out of the UN & NATO
The UN and NATO retain a certain power over the US that he opposes. He believes the US should be the ultimate judge of itself. This one I don't necessarily agree with, but I understand and respect the logic behind it.

The Gold Standard
He's not trying to reimplement the gold standard, just to make gold considered legal tender and exempt from sales tax. That way citizens can decide for themselves if they want gold-backed currency or fiat currency.

Getting rid of the Department of Education
Along with enough other federal departments so that the states can do it on their own however they please. This comes from the idea that the federal government isn't here to dictate education standards but that it's the state's right and responsibility to do that for itself.

Against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants
Fixed to add an important point. There's a system in place for legal immigration. My family used it over the last fifty years (my mother is 1.5G) and I work with no fewer than five legal immigrants out of fewer than twelve in my department. I don't see the current legal immigration system as a failure because unlike when the mantra of "give me your poor" was spoken we don't need them anymore; we have enough already.

So though his ideas may be extreme they are not as unfounded or crackpot-esque as people would like to believe. He believes that humans, not government, should be looking out for each other and themselves, which is an admirable belief.

User avatar
MuseSik
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:53 pm UTC
Location: Las Vegas

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby MuseSik » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:39 pm UTC

In response to ZeroSum.

First off, thanks for calling me out on not saying illegal.

You say that we don't need them anymore is completely wrong. We don't have the people to replace the generation of baby boomers who began to retire last year. I mean, we cannot afford to get rid of anyone who is here. I've never understood the logic behind the idea that if we send away any consumers/producers who are already here, that would in anyway be good for the economy.

I mean 12 million less consumers, that's would definitely give the economy the shot in the arm it needs to pick back up...

In response to the comment about Department of Education. Why would it be a good thing to have different education standards in each state? All this would do it drive a wedge into an already divided class system. I've always believed that education is key to solving just about all problems in this country, and not having a national standard would be a huge step back.

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby ZeroSum » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:51 pm UTC

We don't need poor immigrants is what I meant. We need immigrants who can contribute to our society more than they take from it. 12 million lawn caretakers who ship half their pay out of the country is useless to us as a society.

As for the Department of Education bit, since the Ronpaul isn't unreasonable and has repeatedly stated he would get rid of things slowly over time, perhaps step one would be at the minimum slimming it down from being the primary caretaker of the education system to more of an advisory and standards role. Then from there just keeping it as a facilitator for standards rather than the creator of standards. Then once every state is all set and happy we don't need it anymore. Or maybe a private schools conglomerate and other forms of free enterprise can become the de facto standard and fill the role.

As for the assumption about education that the poor will get better education because they can spend more per child that's actually patently false. It's widely reported that the inner city school districts spend the most per child yet have the worst results whereas, for example, in my state one of the richest school districts is pretty much at the bottom of the list for cost per child. It's not about throwing money at the problem, it's about solving it efficiently and a federal Department of Education is not needed for that.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby fjafjan » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:09 pm UTC

ZeroSum wrote:
MuseSik wrote:Pulling out of the UN & NATO
The UN and NATO retain a certain power over the US that he opposes. He believes the US should be the ultimate judge of itself. This one I don't necessarily agree with, but I understand and respect the logic behind it.

Oh, so while it's completely retarded and would be disasterous it's okey because one can "get the reasons" for it?
The Gold Standard
He's not trying to reimplement the gold standard, just to make gold considered legal tender and exempt from sales tax. That way citizens can decide for themselves if they want gold-backed currency or fiat currency.
Which is about as terrible an idea. Having two or more currencies within one nation is just not very bright.

Getting rid of the Department of Education
Along with enough other federal departments so that the states can do it on their own however they please. This comes from the idea that the federal government isn't here to dictate education standards but that it's the state's right and responsibility to do that for itself.

Which comes from a strange philosophy that the federal goverment shouldn't decide how people should live their lives, but it's fine if states do it to an even greater extent than

Against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants
Fixed to add an important point. There's a system in place for legal immigration. My family used it over the last fifty years (my mother is 1.5G) and I work with no fewer than five legal immigrants out of fewer than twelve in my department. I don't see the current legal immigration system as a failure because unlike when the mantra of "give me your poor" was spoken we don't need them anymore; we have enough already.

So ignoring that there are a few million people that have illegally imigrated because there are so few ways to legally imigrated is okey?

So though his ideas may be extreme they are not as unfounded or crackpot-esque as people would like to believe. He believes that humans, not government, should be looking out for each other and themselves, which is an admirable belief.

Not really, he'd be okey with State goverments could be looking out of humans.

As for the assumption about education that the poor will get better education because they can spend more per child that's actually patently false. It's widely reported that the inner city school districts spend the most per child yet have the worst results whereas, for example, in my state one of the richest school districts is pretty much at the bottom of the list for cost per child. It's not about throwing money at the problem, it's about solving it efficiently and a federal Department of Education is not needed for that.

Except inner city schools will generally get children who have much rougher backgrounds that Suburbia high. So if you get far more children who require more resources since they do not get the same level of help and support from at home well you'll get worse results.

We don't need poor immigrants is what I meant. We need immigrants who can contribute to our society more than they take from it. 12 million lawn caretakers who ship half their pay out of the country is useless to us as a society.

It's not like all the previous waves of immigrations were poor in the first generation but then integrated into society, oh no, not at all. Secondly the implication that poor people are "not needed in an economy" is absurd.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby Endless Mike » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:25 pm UTC

Don't forget that for all his talks of civil liberties, he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and put the decision in the hands of the states, which will just create further class differentiation (those who live in abortion-illegal states who can travel vs. those who can't). And yeah, putting education in the hands of the states is a fairly poor idea, also, when you have states like South Carolina that already have one of the worst education systems in the nation. An educated populace is a better populace from any point of view, and standardizing it as much as possible can help move things in the right direction if done properly.

Also, don't forget that illegal immigrants often pay higher taxes than working poor citizens.

@trophy
Posts: 1684
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:32 pm UTC
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby @trophy » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

ZeroSum wrote:We don't need poor immigrants is what I meant. We need immigrants who can contribute to our society more than they take from it. 12 million lawn caretakers who ship half their pay out of the country is useless to us as a society.

As for the Department of Education bit, since the Ronpaul isn't unreasonable and has repeatedly stated he would get rid of things slowly over time, perhaps step one would be at the minimum slimming it down from being the primary caretaker of the education system to more of an advisory and standards role. Then from there just keeping it as a facilitator for standards rather than the creator of standards. Then once every state is all set and happy we don't need it anymore. Or maybe a private schools conglomerate and other forms of free enterprise can become the de facto standard and fill the role.

As for the assumption about education that the poor will get better education because they can spend more per child that's actually patently false. It's widely reported that the inner city school districts spend the most per child yet have the worst results whereas, for example, in my state one of the richest school districts is pretty much at the bottom of the list for cost per child. It's not about throwing money at the problem, it's about solving it efficiently and a federal Department of Education is not needed for that.


Oh Jebus... our economy is built on the backs of those lawn caretakers (or more visibly, the fruit pickers that I grew up with). The minute we have to start hiring Americans to pick fruit (at American wages) is the minute growers can't afford to grow and stop growing, or apples cost $10 a pop. It's kind of funny that our economy still depends on slave labor, but that's basically where we're at.

Anyways there's some stuff the Ronpaul says that really irks me (the immigrants thing being one of them) but I really don't understand the hating on the gold standard in here. Look at what happened to Mexico following NAFTA if you want to know why the gold standard is a good idea. Every time fiat money has been tried in the history of the planet, it has failed... spectacularly. Looking at it, anybody can see why. You're essentially pretending that more money exists. Well, at some point, that's not going to work anymore. Our country will be no exception. It's just a matter of how long it'll take for it to finally hit the fan.

As for candidates... I'm hoping for Obama vs McCain, because I find them the least distasteful of the bunch. I would actually like for the Ronpaul to get in because his more crazy stuff wouldn't get done, but his less crazy stuff would, which is good because it needs to be done. But fear not, Ron haters... there is a precisely 0% chance that he will get the nomination, let alone the win.
Insignificant Deification wrote:Because, sometimes, you've gotta have a taste of vulva

User avatar
bbctol
Super Deluxe Forum Title of DESTINYâ„¢
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby bbctol » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:41 pm UTC

Obama is probably my favorite out of the Democrats, although this is practically by default, as the Democrats kind of suck this year. Moving on to Huckabee.

I am absolutely infuriated that someone like Huckabee can win a caucus. The man has no policies, and what opinions he has are dumb. He is surviving on charisma on appeals to religion and "family values" or some shit. This is the biggest problem with democracy, quite frankly. Charisma has no real effect on how well one leads, but it does mean that Huckabee can win the Iowa caucus. Grr.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: US Presidential Primaries - discussion

Postby fjafjan » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:48 pm UTC

@trophy wrote: Every time fiat money has been tried in the history of the planet, it has failed... spectacularly. Looking at it, anybody can see why. You're essentially pretending that more money exists. Well, at some point, that's not going to work anymore. Our country will be no exception. It's just a matter of how long it'll take for it to finally hit the fan.



Errr, what the heck are you talking about?
I'd say Western economies have done pretty damn well for the past decades, whereas on the gold standard you had serious depressions every now and then which does not occur with fiat currency.
Secondly the notion that it's not "real money" is just a misconception of what money is, new wealth is created all the time and it's created through debt and "trust", so if you can go to a grocer and buy planks and oranges and my credit because the grocer trusts me and then sell orange juice, pay me the money that never existed before and after I pay the grocer I have some over, hey you just made money out of nothing.
Which if only part of the reason the gold standard is a bad idea since you can't make gold out of anything, so you're quite likely to create deflation which is disastrous to an economy.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests