Super Tuesday

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

They really toned down in the debate last night.  I was prepared to change the channel, but they were actually civil and talked about issues.  It was almost a snoozer.  

Unfortunately, they did not talk about how they would do anything.  I heard a lot of proposals, but no methodology.  It made me feel like they were just casting in the direction that the Wolf pointed, with no clear plans.  This is what irritates me most.

I don't want to hear about what they want to do.  I want to understand how you are going to accomplish it.  Then I will assign my Bull $hit factor to it.  The person with the lowest Bull $hit factor will win my vote.  Obama and both Clintons are wonderful speakers.  I respect Hillary's ability to react to questions too, but she has said nothing meaningful.  

Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear without any understanding of what he's saying.  He lost all of my respect last night.  He has no understanding of what he wants to do. . .But the people will love him!  That's just sad.

When the real debate with the Republican candidate comes around, Hillary or Obama will be forced to develop some clear methodology that they can defend.  That's going to be tough for them.  Both of their platforms require significant increases in government revenue and/or efficiency, and they are only proposing tax increases as funding sources.

On the Rebub side, Romney has done it a million times in both business and government.  McCain has done it in government for something like 100 years, against amazing odds, and even across party lines.  While I don't agree with everything in their platforms, they have been very clear about how they intend to accomplish their goals for the country.  They provide clear economic explanations that make sense.  This is going pose a big problem for the Dem in the debate.  All that hope & promise with no idea how to accomplish it.  

I may be wrong.  Perhaps I'm the only person that seeks this kind of information?

If only their was a libertarian candidate that wasn't a NUTBAG!

Not to pick on you Gaspar, but what level of detail can we actually get into at this point? We're a year away from a new inauguration, and more than that in terms of what can be reasonably accomplished.  A boatload of things can and will be different at that point, including the makeup of congress, how bad or good the economy is, what Iraq has turned into, etc.  

What we've got at this point is broad policy prescriptions, upon which most Democrats -- including the front runners -- agree: some sort of universal healthcare, a beginning to the end of the Iraq war, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, etc.  So I think whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, at this point you're deciding on flavors rather than ingredients.  I'm pretty sure that the actual paths to each of those policies will be radically different than what the candidates promise today, anyway.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

They really toned down in the debate last night.  I was prepared to change the channel, but they were actually civil and talked about issues.  It was almost a snoozer.  

Unfortunately, they did not talk about how they would do anything.  I heard a lot of proposals, but no methodology.  It made me feel like they were just casting in the direction that the Wolf pointed, with no clear plans.  This is what irritates me most.

I don't want to hear about what they want to do.  I want to understand how you are going to accomplish it.  Then I will assign my Bull $hit factor to it.  The person with the lowest Bull $hit factor will win my vote.  Obama and both Clintons are wonderful speakers.  I respect Hillary's ability to react to questions too, but she has said nothing meaningful.  

Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear without any understanding of what he's saying.  He lost all of my respect last night.  He has no understanding of what he wants to do. . .But the people will love him!  That's just sad.

When the real debate with the Republican candidate comes around, Hillary or Obama will be forced to develop some clear methodology that they can defend.  That's going to be tough for them.  Both of their platforms require significant increases in government revenue and/or efficiency, and they are only proposing tax increases as funding sources.

On the Rebub side, Romney has done it a million times in both business and government.  McCain has done it in government for something like 100 years, against amazing odds, and even across party lines.  While I don't agree with everything in their platforms, they have been very clear about how they intend to accomplish their goals for the country.  They provide clear economic explanations that make sense.  This is going pose a big problem for the Dem in the debate.  All that hope & promise with no idea how to accomplish it.  

I may be wrong.  Perhaps I'm the only person that seeks this kind of information?

If only their was a libertarian candidate that wasn't a NUTBAG!

Not to pick on you Gaspar, but what level of detail can we actually get into at this point? We're a year away from a new inauguration, and more than that in terms of what can be reasonably accomplished.  A boatload of things can and will be different at that point, including the makeup of congress, how bad or good the economy is, what Iraq has turned into, etc.  

What we've got at this point is broad policy prescriptions, upon which most Democrats -- including the front runners -- agree: some sort of universal healthcare, a beginning to the end of the Iraq war, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, etc.  So I think whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, at this point you're deciding on flavors rather than ingredients.  I'm pretty sure that the actual paths to each of those policies will be radically different than what the candidates promise today, anyway.

Hey, thank you, that was very well put. I was impressed with both of them but I am leaning towards Obama. Quick wit, represents the future and his wife is awesome. Switched over to c-span to watch her talking about the same time of the debates. An asset to her husband. Bill on the other hand will give conservatives a hammer to use against the Clintons personally and the country be damned. Obviously, Hillary steps into an office she is familiar with and the transition would be quick and effective because of that but the following 3 1/2 years would be hell as conservatives will never let up.

Important at this point to realize that the Republican party is the circus right now. Conservatives are working hard to identify themselves as separate from the party and willing to jump to libertarian or not vote at all and destroy the host if necessary to accomplish their goals. I listened all day this week to Beck, O'reilly, Ingraham & co. and was frankly surprised at the hatred of McCain they espouse. Yet they don't trust Mit either. Huck is their guy but they know he's angling for VP. They actually hinted at moving towards becoming Obama republicans like the Reagan Democrats.

Honestly, this forum and this city are so deep into the conservative republican forest I don't think they will ever understand what is happening in the rest of the country. The turnouts for democratic primaries are setting records. Republican support is fractured among the candidates and turnout weak. libertarians will elect not to vote rather than support McCain. Change isn't just a slogan this year, it is imminent.

My favorite this week is the Senator Denem(sp?) being interviewed on NPR by a BBC reporter about his new book that shows how he has spent his career stopping wasteful Democratic spending. Yeh, I know, from a republican dominated Congress with a 15 year span of deficits. A caller from OKlahoma called and asked him to please use the correct word usage when referring to the "Democrat Party" which should be noted as the Democratic Party. He said he wouldn't until someone could prove to him that it was wrong and that everyone refers to them that way. He then suggested that such negative, republican bashing people should make their remarks on his website rather than calling in (so that they could more effectively be ignored one surmises). Sounds like a Coburn clone. They only listen to themselves then wonder why they are accused of being out of touch.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

They really toned down in the debate last night.  I was prepared to change the channel, but they were actually civil and talked about issues.  It was almost a snoozer.  

Unfortunately, they did not talk about how they would do anything.  I heard a lot of proposals, but no methodology.  It made me feel like they were just casting in the direction that the Wolf pointed, with no clear plans.  This is what irritates me most.

I don't want to hear about what they want to do.  I want to understand how you are going to accomplish it.  Then I will assign my Bull $hit factor to it.  The person with the lowest Bull $hit factor will win my vote.  Obama and both Clintons are wonderful speakers.  I respect Hillary's ability to react to questions too, but she has said nothing meaningful.  

Obama is simply telling people what they want to hear without any understanding of what he's saying.  He lost all of my respect last night.  He has no understanding of what he wants to do. . .But the people will love him!  That's just sad.

When the real debate with the Republican candidate comes around, Hillary or Obama will be forced to develop some clear methodology that they can defend.  That's going to be tough for them.  Both of their platforms require significant increases in government revenue and/or efficiency, and they are only proposing tax increases as funding sources.

On the Rebub side, Romney has done it a million times in both business and government.  McCain has done it in government for something like 100 years, against amazing odds, and even across party lines.  While I don't agree with everything in their platforms, they have been very clear about how they intend to accomplish their goals for the country.  They provide clear economic explanations that make sense.  This is going pose a big problem for the Dem in the debate.  All that hope & promise with no idea how to accomplish it.  

I may be wrong.  Perhaps I'm the only person that seeks this kind of information?

If only their was a libertarian candidate that wasn't a NUTBAG!

Not to pick on you Gaspar, but what level of detail can we actually get into at this point? We're a year away from a new inauguration, and more than that in terms of what can be reasonably accomplished.  A boatload of things can and will be different at that point, including the makeup of congress, how bad or good the economy is, what Iraq has turned into, etc.  

What we've got at this point is broad policy prescriptions, upon which most Democrats -- including the front runners -- agree: some sort of universal healthcare, a beginning to the end of the Iraq war, repeal of the Bush tax cuts, etc.  So I think whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, at this point you're deciding on flavors rather than ingredients.  I'm pretty sure that the actual paths to each of those policies will be radically different than what the candidates promise today, anyway.

So, you are actually agreeing with me, that they are just saying what people want to hear.  

Well, I'm sorry, that just won't cut it for me.  I'll have to keep listening until I hear a plan that doesn't just appeal to my emotional side.  So far, I will have to lean Republican until someone can change my mind with reasonable solutions, not emotional ones.

I can be influenced, but only my wife can influence me with emotion! [^]

[tim huntzinger]

What is McCain's 'transcendent threat is radical Islamic radicalism' but fear? What is Romney's 'close the borders' but fear and indignation? When pusch comes to shove the candidates will always extort support by drawing on fear.  Fear of want, fear of tyranny, fear of exploitation. Wrap it in the flag, have it whistle Yankee Doodle, but it is all about scaring your base into action.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
So, you are actually agreeing with me, that they are just saying what people want to hear.  

Well, I'm sorry, that just won't cut it for me.  I'll have to keep listening until I hear a plan that doesn't just appeal to my emotional side.  So far, I will have to lean Republican until someone can change my mind with reasonable solutions, not emotional ones.

I can be influenced, but only my wife can influence me with emotion! [^]

Well, no I'm not agreeing with you. It's not pandering, it's campaigning.  A fine but crucial difference.

My point was really that each party internally seems overall to agree on a set of ideas to advance in the general.  Again, for the Democrats it's universal healthcare, ending the Iraq war, etc.  Both Hillary and Obama agree on these things by and large, and the differences are really pretty minor.  So knowing that the planks don't necessarily depend on the person behind them, what we're voting on is on how the personality will advance the ideas.  

I think important information is being communicated right now, but it's not policy driven, it's tonal.  It's not particularly "emotional" either, though it is thematic and built around broad ideas rather than minutiae.  

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

What is McCain's 'transcendent threat is radical Islamic radicalism' but fear?

Umm...common sense?  Unless you feel that fundamental islamic behavior isn't a threat to civilized nations.

quote:
What is Romney's 'close the borders' but fear and indignation?

What's wrong with indignation?  Seems the American people are significantly indignant about illegal immigration as well.

quote:
When pusch comes to shove the candidates will always extort support by drawing on fear.  Fear of want, fear of tyranny, fear of exploitation. Wrap it in the flag, have it whistle Yankee Doodle, but it is all about scaring your base into action.

Sounds like your pushing the fear of fear yourself.  At least these two guys have actual reasons to show concern for issues that matter to the American people.

[tim huntzinger]

Islamic threat: not as much as an aggressive China arming it.  Why does McCain never ever ever mention the Yellow Peril?

Indignation: an emotion, apparently off-limits. A stretch I know, but still.

No fear pusching here: can you restate the final point, that did not register very clearly through the haze.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar
So, you are actually agreeing with me, that they are just saying what people want to hear.  

Well, I'm sorry, that just won't cut it for me.  I'll have to keep listening until I hear a plan that doesn't just appeal to my emotional side.  So far, I will have to lean Republican until someone can change my mind with reasonable solutions, not emotional ones.

I can be influenced, but only my wife can influence me with emotion! [^]

Well, no I'm not agreeing with you. It's not pandering, it's campaigning.  A fine but crucial difference.

My point was really that each party internally seems overall to agree on a set of ideas to advance in the general.  Again, for the Democrats it's universal healthcare, ending the Iraq war, etc.  Both Hillary and Obama agree on these things by and large, and the differences are really pretty minor.  So knowing that the planks don't necessarily depend on the person behind them, what we're voting on is on how the personality will advance the ideas.  

I think important information is being communicated right now, but it's not policy driven, it's tonal.  It's not particularly "emotional" either, though it is thematic and built around broad ideas rather than minutiae.  

Understood.  Unfortunately changing the definitions doesn't change the facts or lack there of.  It may be enough for some, but not for me.

I just watched the debate again (it was on at the Chineese Buffet on 71st. Mmm Foo Young and Politics).

Both candidates keep referring to "My Plan" this, and "My Plan" that.  That tends to make me think that they have a plan.  

All I'm asking is to see it. Is that too much for a constituent to ask?  

Both Mitt and McCain outline their plans in excruciating detail, wether you agree with it all or not.  You can go to their websites and view exactly how they will accomplish each goal.  They show where the money comes from, where it goes.  

When you go to either Hillary or Obama's sites you can review all of their issues.  They have done a very good job of spelling everything out, but they both left out one detail, the economics.  The "issues" link on Hillary's site is a wonderland of new programs and policies with out a single word about how WE are going to pay for it.  The "issues" link on Obama's site uses the word "Plan" exactly 30 times without detailing any plan!  His site also offers Billions of dollars in new programs without a single word about where the money will come from.  I started to count the number of new programs on Obama's site but I kept getting distracted and finally gave up.  It's a bunch!

I'm not against being bribed for my vote, but don't offer to bribe me unless you have the money!

[tim huntzinger]

McCain on health system reform, for instance, does not have a single figure in it. Not one. NOT ONE.  Veteran's issues? No figgers. Nada. All conjecture.

Shall I do Mitt or has anyone even looked at the site?

[RecycleMichael]

I voted today.

I made up my mind driving to work and instead drove straight over to the election board and cast my ballot before I changed it again.

I voted for Hillary. I did it for my daughter.

My kids are the same age as Obama's kids and I really liked both candidates, but knew I had to choose one. I will vote for whichever is on the ballot in Novemeber and try to use this forum to persuade others to join me.

I watched the debate last night and have watched about ten of the debates so far this year. I was pleased that both democrats assured me that they believed in my similar values and also spoke well of my top choice John Edwards.

But I voted for Hillary for my daughter. My daughter turns six next week and I want her to have every opportunity that my son has in life. Face it, women are not treated equal in America and having a woman president will change the dynamic in almost every workplace in this great country. When we break this glass ceiling, we will finally have put a person's sex as a condition of leadership behind us.

I know I could say the same thing about Obama and race, but more than half of the people in this country are women and I think it is time we gave them the respect they deserve.

Once we elect the first woman president, we can elect the next woman president. I want my daughter to know that she has a chance to get in that line, should she choose.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

McCain on health system reform, for instance, does not have a single figure in it. Not one. NOT ONE.  Veteran's issues? No figgers. Nada. All conjecture.

Shall I do Mitt or has anyone even looked at the site?

Tim, these aren't new programs he's proposing.  These are existing programs that are already funded.  But you are correct, he could do a better job of explaining that.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Tim, these aren't new programs he's proposing.  These are existing programs that are already funded.  But you are correct, he could do a better job of explaining that.

I am not going to spend the next year or so beating up on whoever is nominated, but McCain does not even mention Social Security as one of his issues.  That is a live issue. So what direct correlations are you referring to that he and Mitt are supposed to be better at than the Dems?  SHENANIGANS!

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I voted today.

I made up my mind driving to work and instead drove straight over to the election board and cast my ballot before I changed it again.

I voted for Hillary. I did it for my daughter.

My kids are the same age as Obama's kids and I really liked both candidates, but knew I had to choose one. I will vote for whichever is on the ballot in Novemeber and try to use this forum to persuade others to join me.

I watched the debate last night and have watched about ten of the debates so far this year. I was pleased that both democrats assured me that they believed in my similar values and also spoke well of my top choice John Edwards.

But I voted for Hillary for my daughter. My daughter turns six next week and I want her to have every opportunity that my son has in life. Face it, women are not treated equal in America and having a woman president will change the dynamic in almost every workplace in this great country. When we break this glass ceiling, we will finally have put a person's sex as a condition of leadership behind us.

I know I could say the same thing about Obama and race, but more than half of the people in this country are women and I think it is time we gave them the respect they deserve.

Once we elect the first woman president, we can elect the next woman president. I want my daughter to know that she has a chance to get in that line, should she choose.

Thanks RM.  That's the first logical reason I've heard.  Not that I agree with your choice, but it was made for the right reason.  

I have a two year old little girl.  If she was elected president, Elmo would be her vice president.  She would run on a straight platform of candy and princesses, and the White House would be moved to Nana's house!

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I voted today.

I made up my mind driving to work and instead drove straight over to the election board and cast my ballot before I changed it again.

I voted for Hillary. I did it for my daughter.

My kids are the same age as Obama's kids and I really liked both candidates, but knew I had to choose one. I will vote for whichever is on the ballot in Novemeber and try to use this forum to persuade others to join me.

I watched the debate last night and have watched about ten of the debates so far this year. I was pleased that both democrats assured me that they believed in my similar values and also spoke well of my top choice John Edwards.

But I voted for Hillary for my daughter. My daughter turns six next week and I want her to have every opportunity that my son has in life. Face it, women are not treated equal in America and having a woman president will change the dynamic in almost every workplace in this great country. When we break this glass ceiling, we will finally have put a person's sex as a condition of leadership behind us.

I know I could say the same thing about Obama and race, but more than half of the people in this country are women and I think it is time we gave them the respect they deserve.

Once we elect the first woman president, we can elect the next woman president. I want my daughter to know that she has a chance to get in that line, should she choose.

Well played, RM.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm voting for my son. White kids are the only ones of the group that won't have a leg up on admission requirements and additional scholarship options when they apply for college.  They have no "it's not a quota" quotas in government office, large corporations, or bid proposals to pass business their way.  I think women and minorities are given advantages my son will not have - which in a competitive world means they are to his detriment.  

So because of that, I will not vote for a woman.  I will not vote for a black man for president.  I will not cast a vote for anyone but a white male to hold that office.  For my son.
- - -

Same logic, but funny how it sounds horrible when I use it to rationalize a vote for a white male.  

Insert "Mormon" and make the same argument.  Or "Prisoner of War."  Along with woman and black neither have ever held the post.  I also disagree with the notion that the man is keeping women down, but that's another thread.

(in case someone is daft, the above is a point - not a statement of belief or intention)