Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Myroria on January 21, 2008, 12:36:35 AM
-
Candidate - Votes - % - Delegates
Mitt Romney - 22,649 - 51.10% - 18
Ron Paul - 6,087 - 13.73% - 4
John McCain - 5,651 - 12.75% - 4
Mike Huckabee - 3,616 - 8.16% - 2
Fred Thompson - 3,521 - 7.94% - 2
Rudy Giuliani - 1,910 - 4.31% - 1
Duncan Hunter - 890 - 2.01% - 0
Total - 44,324 - 100% - 31
What's more, Paul is the only Republican nominee besides Romney who won a Nevada presinct.
This better a sign, or at least an omen he'll end up another Perot.
And Giuliani, give it up. When Thompson and Paul both beat you nine-hundred eleven times, the game is up. Drop out.
-
I saw Mitt Romney on Jay Leno last night. If America picks another Republican, Mitt Romney is the one we need. I like him. If Clinton is the Democratic nomination for president, I'm voting for Mitt Romney.
-
It'll be a Democrat president. Bush really screwed things up for the Republicans for a couple of years now.
-
I've read an interesting article, "Americans are tired of political dynasties". I think it's filled with crap, I don't think you're tired at all, but who knows, you tell me.
-
The Bush-Clinton-Bush-(Clinton?) thing is just a funny coincidence. Pundits overevaluated it. I'd be more upset on how Hillary is a tree-hugging commie liar hypocrite than how she's the fourth in a pattern.
Clinton recently said her favorite president was Ronald Reagan. Yeah. Reagan. Right, Hillary.
-
She's pretty far from "tree-hugging commie", no so much from "liar hypocrite". So are most of any other candidates, but I just think it's weird republicans still associate religion to their campaigns, sent by god to rule America.
-
I just think it's weird republicans still associate religion to their campaigns, sent by god to rule America.
You're kind of right on that. It depends on how "right-wing" the person is. The more conservative a person seems to be the more they associate God with politics.
-
We all know that it will be Obama that will win the elections and be the next president of the United States. No one is going to vote for Hillary becuase she is too inhuman. She has no personality.
-
I would hope so, anything but Bush, but I fear it's not going to go that way Canada...
-
Bender, you're getting conservatism wrong. Bush is NOT conservative. Reagan was conservative. Conservatism is about small government with maximum freedom, that's guided by morality - not even neccessarily religious "morality". Today's "conservatives" are about large government and least freedom, and they tend to call classical liberals, neo-liberals, libertarians, paleo (real) conservatives, etc. etc. "hippies". I'm as sensitive about people calling Bush conservative as communists are about being called communists.
-
I've read an interesting article, "Americans are tired of political dynasties". I think it's filled with crap, I don't think you're tired at all, but who knows, you tell me.
I'm personally tired of political dynasties, but I can't speak for a large number of Democrats in this country (not to mention Republicans, because you know they're grooming Jeb Bush's son for the White House.) Well, if they like. I recall an old quote about nations getting the rulers they deserve, and this rule never holds true so much as it does in a democracy.
Bender, you're getting conservatism wrong. Bush is NOT conservative. Reagan was conservative. Conservatism is about small government with maximum freedom, that's guided by morality - not even neccessarily religious "morality". Today's "conservatives" are about large government and least freedom, and they tend to call classical liberals, neo-liberals, libertarians, paleo (real) conservatives, etc. etc. "hippies". I'm as sensitive about people calling Bush conservative as communists are about being called communists.
I imagine we wouldn't agree on a lot in terms of public policy, but I do agree that the neo-conservatives are a nest of poisonous snakes. The people in Washington who played the greatest part in putting the US in its current position should be charged with treason.
-
You aren't funny anymore when you use 'communist' as a curse for any political right-winger who leans a bit to the political centre Myro...
-
Clinton is not a "centre-leaning right winger". Have you SEEN her economic policies? They are literally, totally, European-Scandanavia socialist. I'm not joking around here. And this is a fact, so don't give me the "Well, what's so bad about socialism" because I'm not trying to say it's bad here. I'm telling you that Clinton's economic policies are completely socialist.
-
Bender, you're getting conservatism wrong. Bush is NOT conservative. Reagan was conservative. Conservatism is about small government with maximum freedom, that's guided by morality - not even neccessarily religious "morality". Today's "conservatives" are about large government and least freedom, and they tend to call classical liberals, neo-liberals, libertarians, paleo (real) conservatives, etc. etc. "hippies". I'm as sensitive about people calling Bush conservative as communists are about being called communists.
So what do you call the bible-belt? I call them right-wing Christian Conservatives.
I never said I thought Bush was conservative. For someone who is supposed to be a republican, he's done 180 for what they were supposed to stand for.
-
I call the Bible Belt the Stupidity Belt, or the Brainless Belt.
-
Has anyone noticed a general trend with American politics that political party shifts swing like a pendulum, taking 20-25 years to change.
1890-~1905 Progressive
1905-1925 Republican
1925-1945 Democrat
1945-1965 Republican
1965-1980 Democrat
1980-Present Republican (Clinton, though nominally democratic, advocated deregulation of banking and business, argueably a very right-winged stance on economics)
The dates above are rough, I'm not going to say what president came when because I don't really care about precise dates. Looking at the shifts it appears as though a change from Republican to Democrat now would not be a surprising change of events. Indeed, I have seen members of this forum attack single party-states, yet should the republican party lose it's mantle they would cry. Democracy is about variety and compromise, not manhandling people to submit to your POV. Granted, I like none of the candidates, but that's not a concern. As far as I can tell no candidate stresses America enough, I'm not electing the President of Iraq I'm electing the President of America, and he should be concerned with JUST America.
Also, Guiliani was under massive investigation for extreme corruption of office prior to 9/11, but no one dares point this out now because of the efforts he took to make NYC a better place after 9/11. I wouldn't want a man who's been corrupt in the past to ever be elected president. Also, I'd much rather vote for Barack Obama than Clinton, I have seen Clinton flip flop on the Iraq war issue, and I'm tired of the same old stuff. Her experience is the same old stuff. I want new stuff, so I want Barack.
-
thanks for the stats garth. i know i'm pulling for ron paul and spreading the word here in RI. its amazing how many new englanders consider themselves libertarians..... maybe it is we who should succeed instead of the southerners eh?
-
European-Scandanavia socialist.
it's center sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right, Hilary's and many other running are all right. Are you against it just because you believe it's socialist/left wing?
-
Conservative today = Whatever the press wants it to be
-
And Hillary would be decidely-right wing on the European/Scandinavina political scale. Our politicial parties with seats in the general assembly range from mid-left through centre to mid-right. The Swedish communist party has never reached above the 4% floor and never will. Usually, they get around 0-1% of the popular vote while the national democrats (as close to a neo-nazi party it could be and still get votes) was up there sniffing the floor in the most recent election.
Don't pull the communist card anymore myro, it just makes you look stupid and ignorant even when that isn't the case.
-
I like how that implies communism isn't stupid and ignorant.
-
I have donated 500 hard earned dollars to Congressman Paul's campaign. While he probably won't win, I am sure he will make a big enough splash to allow for another true conservative/libertarian to be elected. Hell, he'd probably win if the press wasn't out to get him.
-
Clinton is not a "centre-leaning right winger". Have you SEEN her economic policies? They are literally, totally, European-Scandanavia socialist. I'm not joking around here. And this is a fact, so don't give me the "Well, what's so bad about socialism" because I'm not trying to say it's bad here. I'm telling you that Clinton's economic policies are completely socialist.
If memory serves, Hillary's health care proposals are not for the sort of single payer system you'll find in Scandinavia.
As our resident communist G-C so kindly pointed out in the past, if memory once again serves, Clinton is far from communist. And I'd trust him on that; whether or not you like communism G-C has a very firm grasp on what it is.
-
Indeed. Clinton's Health Care policy is more similar to Romney's health care system for Massachusetts (requiring insurance, then making insurance available at a "reasonable" cost), than it is any single payer system.
However, Clinton's general economic policy does involve quite a bit of government control over the economy. I'm not sure if I would call it "socialist", but it's fairly to the left in the American political spectrum. Her health care plan is a bit more centrist than her economic policy.
(NYTimes Article on the subject (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?ex=1358658000&en=fa560ccb2aef5065&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss))
-
wouldn't hurt you, everyone else due south is socialist :]
-
I fail to see how that's an argument for socialism at all; indeed, considering the numerous problems of some parts of Latin America, one might interpret it as an argument against socialism if said southern neighbors truly are such. Prevalence of a policy does not in anyway automatically make it a good one.
-
problems? sorry but I think they have less problems than US.
-
3rd world countries have a lot more problems than 1st world.
-
Hmm, here's some problems with the "socialist, great countries" in South/Latin America:
Highest murder rates in the world (Columbia)
Dictators-in-disguise (Chavez)
Worst GINI Coeffecients (Mexico and Brazil are the top two; AFRICA has better GINI Coeffecients than the Socialist Paradise that is South America. Do you have any idea how hard you have to work to be that sucky? In a good socialist nation, the GINI coeffecient would be slightly above zero)
Corrupt governments (i.e., like The Jungle or political machine-esque corrupt)
Every nation having lower HDI than the United States
Well, to look at it now...I think I'd rather be an American. I got all of these from HDI-esque statistics, most of which, by the way, are European.
-
You do know that the US is the nation with the most murders annually right? (though not in murders per capita)
-
That's not as much of a good statistic as murders per 100,000 people. America is the third most populous country in the world; of course we'll have more murders annually, especially when our competition is a nation that rules its people with an iron fist and a nation who's dominant religion teaches murder is always wrong (As opposed to Christianity, which teaches that murder is by and large acceptable for immoral people). When you shorten every nation's population to 100,000, the amount murdered gives a good idea. I would still rather live in America than El Salvador or Colombia, but to be honest I would much rather live in The Netherlands or Austria.
-
Hilary Clinton, socialist? HAH. I bet she'll flip flop on her economic policy like she did with her original Iraqi war policy. I'd rather vote Bill into office again, and he deregulated business far more than Bush ever did. If Hilary was smart, she'd follow her husbands policies, which are far from leftist. Communism involves direct state ownership, Myroria, anything less does not count as communistic. Furthermore, socialism usually requires heavy government control, with a large public sector in heavy industry. Although, so does Corporatism, which often includes state management of investment. America includes heavy subsidies, without which American farmers would lose large amounts of profit. The American car industry is failing, and is pleading the government for subsidies, and many republicans are like "omg i don't want to buy rice rockets". Seems like a double standard, we want the free market to take control, but god forbid should our businesses fail in the process.
And I'm not speaking to our libertarian forum-goers, you don't count as average republicans.
The ideas being tossed around talking about sales taxes replacing income taxes are fine at face value, but what exactly are they taxing for sales tax? Would there be a sales tax for services, would sales tax be flat or increase with interest, would sales tax discourage buyers from making new purchases? Would not sales tax increase the influence of the black market (which might seem like oh my god illegal activities, but nearly everyone in america has been involved with a 'black market' of some sort. The word black market is an ignorant word for an economic system, much like terra incognita is an ignorant word for everything unexplored and dark matter is an ignorant word for unidentified space junk) by making the average person, who wants to avoid larger prices, purchase goods from people directly via yard sales etc? Last I remember I never reported selling my iPod or reported my purchase of a computer from my friend to the government (aka black market) so sales tax would not be applied to those goods... Sales tax is a good idea, but people need to think about it more before jumping the gun and instituting premature ideas.
The democratic party is being idiotic in it's bid to win republican votes. A white woman married to a man who got caught with a woman under his desk and a black man whose name sounds islamic to half the ignorant people of the south is NOT a way to win republican votes, and if people think the republican party is somehow weakened by Bushes failings they are idiotic, most republicans are All But Bush, meaning theyll still vote republican and aren't dissuaded from the republican party. Personally I would not be shocked if the Democrats lost this election because theyre playing their cards poorly, they need to win republicans over, not play to the same people guaranteed to vote for them anyways.
-
Xyrael: And I'm not speaking to our libertarian forum-goers, you don't count as average republicans.
"Libertarianesque" Republicans IOW. Old school types who have long lost their influence in the Republican party to the NeoCons. In most countries in the world, Libertarians are closer to Anarchists. For some reason in the U.S. Anarchists get lumped in with Democrats, and Libertarians are seen as whacko religious rightwingers, also a complete misinterpretation. Doublespeak anyone?
-
Libertarians are a minority in America, NeoCons have usurped them as average republicans.
The American political spectrum is center-right as a standard, with greens barely reaching center-left. The last time the American political spectrum was balanced towards the center was the 1920's election, when the socialist candidate (from his jail cell) campaigned and won 20% of the votes. After than America began to shift right, with a brief relapse during world war 2, then a complete turn to the right under truman. Democrats in the 1960's and 70's can't be considered leftist because they resisted the hippies, which are much more left-leaning. They were more centrist, promoting social reforms but little in the way of economic reform. The democratic party has continued this same path. Contemporary democratic and republican party stances of economic policy is almost indiscernible. Their social policies, however, are quite a bit different. This is be due to the fact that the republicans have a larger base of support from the rural religious while the democrats have support from urban non-religious. For the republicans to keep the support of their base, they play towards god (no abortion, altho pro-life pro-death pro-war penalty remains paradoxical imo) and they play towards less taxes (the rural and suburban family live within houses and can afford their homes and like less taxes) the democrats play towards the urban and 'intellectual', social support because often cost of living within urban centers is far higher and the majority of jobs less stable, higher competition for work, etc. I've lived in both suburban Houston and urban Los Angeles, the differences in thought between the residents of each are vast.
The economic policies... well I don't see hilary advocating for a ministry of trade to direct your investment and i don't see her lobbying to nationalize Ford to keep the japanese from buying it. They differ on minute issues like a slight tax increase or where to draw the taxes from. When was the last time they seriously debated nationalizing insurance companies. I remember they brought up the idea about national healthcare once upon a time, and that was on the news in the LA Times for maybe a day.
-
(As opposed to Christianity, which teaches that murder is by and large acceptable for immoral people).
I do hope you realise that the above statement is very far from true Christian teachings and could actually be considdered heretic. The source of the above misconception has the roots in the corrupt and not-christian-in-anything-but-name Roman papacies of the 11th through 14th centuries and is a natural deviation from the concepts of the crusade that is just as heretic per definition. Islam today is suffering from the same type of heretical demagouges claiming to speak for everyone and 'knowing' god's will.
/Off topic
-
twisted mind, Christianity claims all killing is a sin, all creatures are made by god, all creatures are equal. Yes we're all sinners, that's the big deal of Christianity.
-
Well, the sin concept is also a latter remake by the power-hungry roman papacies... even though it's not an outright heresy as it doesn't go against the teachings of the new testament, which in all contradictive texts supercedes the old one. It's as if the US would take on a complete revision of their constitution effectively nullifying and replacing most of the old one and clarifying other parts.
-
This is about the time where someone quotes the Bible out of context. I feel like doing so:
39 "See now that I myself am He!
There is no god besides me.
I put to death and I bring to life,
I have wounded and I will heal,
and no one can deliver out of my hand.
40 I lift my hand to heaven and declare:
As surely as I live forever,
41 when I sharpen my flashing sword
and my hand grasps it in judgment,
I will take vengeance on my adversaries
and repay those who hate me.
42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
while my sword devours flesh:
the blood of the slain and the captives,
the heads of the enemy leaders."
[...]
46 [...][Moses] said to them, "Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law."
Not that I have anything to say about the debate. I just like quoting the Bible.
-
And that's the old testament, and thus Jewish rules, outdated by the new testament.
-
LOL
-
This is about the time where someone quotes the Bible out of context. I feel like doing so:
39 "See now that I myself am He!
There is no god besides me.
I put to death and I bring to life,
I have wounded and I will heal,
and no one can deliver out of my hand.
40 I lift my hand to heaven and declare:
As surely as I live forever,
41 when I sharpen my flashing sword
and my hand grasps it in judgment,
I will take vengeance on my adversaries
and repay those who hate me.
42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
while my sword devours flesh:
the blood of the slain and the captives,
the heads of the enemy leaders."
[...]
46 [...][Moses] said to them, "Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law."
Not that I have anything to say about the debate. I just like quoting the Bible.
Does that say that god or jesus told them to kill stuff?
-
No, that specific text says that God has those rights in the old testament, not that humans had them.
-
"We had the Old Testament, and that book wasn't good enough...for you Christians. So you made a sequel, and said you're was Neeeew and ours was Oooold. 'We gotta better story, with a better character, you're GONNA LOVE IT!'"
-
Pretty much, yeah. Then a countless number of people did what power-hungry people always do with religions, no exceptions: They perverted it to suit their own agendas and got part of their perversions permanented for future hawks to use at their lesiure.