Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new Primary Thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 34
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 34 template Next
  • #166
    Originally posted by Bosh


    Indeed, it is possible that Hillary and Edwards had an inkling of how stupid the Iraq war was but were too spineless to vote against it because doing so would be "politically shaky." Such gutless (and couter-productive) opportunism is, if anything, worse than stupidity.

    As far as Obama being a State Senator that doesn't change his being right at all and he had as much of a reason to care about what was "politically shaky" since he was clearly planning a run for higher office at that point.
    Being right in 2002 is not worth anything. being right about not starting something is not the same as having a coherent plan about what to do about the world that is (not that any candidate has really been able to put a plan about Iraq worth a damn).

    Kucinich was right about the war too, and that would not make me vote for him.

    I wish just pointing to past judgement was enough to show you can lead (Heck, i have had a pretty good track record in tersm of past judgement ), but it isn't.
    If you don't like reality, change it! me
    "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
    "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
    "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

    Comment

    • #167
      Originally posted by Ramo


      Part of that's because there's basically no difference between Clinton and Obama on domestic policy. I think there's a bigger difference on foreign policy, but both candidates are pretty opaque here and so it's hard to make a convincing argument to that effect. The biggest issue for me is how many Senators a candidate can bring along.
      I would like to be able to judge Obama's policies, if he ever gets around to speaking about them.
      If you don't like reality, change it! me
      "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
      "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
      "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

      Comment

      • #168
        What, specifically?
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment

        • #169
          Originally posted by GePap
          I would like to be able to judge Obama's policies, if he ever gets around to speaking about them.
          QFT!
          I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
          For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

          Comment

          • #170
            Originally posted by Ramo


            The principle of federalism is an entirely separate concept from giving some people a larger vote than other people.
            Perhaps you are confused by the meaning of federalism?
            [q="American Heritage Dictionary"]A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.[/q]

            In this case (The US), it refers to the system where the US Federal Government (there's that word again!) shares power with and amongst the various States. In addition to referring to the rules that define what the federal government and state governments can do, it also refers to the system whereby the states agree to share power - ie, how the federal government is selected.

            This differs from a system that is not 'federal' in nature, by giving power to states to choose the government in a manner that is equitable to the various states. A nation that does not use the federal system would allow the parliament/congress and the president/prime minister to be selected by a general vote. A federal system allocates the power to the states by some system that may not necessarily reflect the popular vote; this is designed to protect the rights of the various states, particularly including smaller states who otherwise would have relatively little say in the federal government.

            If you object to Iowa getting farm subsidies from California, then perhaps you should consider backing the strengthening of state's rights?
            <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
            I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

            Comment

            • #171
              A federal system allocates the power to the states by some system that may not necessarily reflect the popular vote; this is designed to protect the rights of the various states, particularly including smaller states who otherwise would have relatively little say in the federal government.
              Federalism is about limiting the jurisdiction of the national government. It has absolutely nothing to do with giving one geographic area a disproportionate say in the national government. Not one thing.
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment

              • #172
                Originally posted by Ramo
                What, specifically?
                ANYTHING!

                I have not heard a single snipet of any of his speeches, not even the ones he shows on the TV ads I am now seeing in which he talks about anything but "change", "hope", whatever. Inspiration is wonderful, but it doesnt mean anything. When people compare anyone to JFK I cringe, because as inspirational as he was, his precidency was mediocre at best. I don't want another JKF. Hell, both LBJ and Nixon, two men of the "past", two unlikebale sons of *****es, created far more wide ranging and important things than JFK, like Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the list goes on.
                If you don't like reality, change it! me
                "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                Comment

                • #173
                  Originally posted by Ramo


                  The principle of federalism is an entirely separate concept from giving some people a larger vote than other people.
                  The electoral college is, of course, based on the tally of a state's Reps & Senators. The only reason there is this unbalance that people are complaining about is instead of fixing a house district to a certain number of people (like it used to be) we wisely put a cap on it. Otherwise we'd have 4,000 members in Congress which would be unmanageable.

                  If you want to keep a reasonable number of people in congress but have them all represent the same number of people then you are gonna have some bizarre districts. Districts that cut across state lines or include states or parts of states that don't even border each other. Gerrymandering is bad enough on the state level, make it national and there are gonna be problems. I seriously doubt Congress will be any more impartial or balanced about drawing multi-state districts than state legislatures.

                  There may be several arguments for electing the president purely by popular vote, but unequal weight to people's votes isn't it imho.
                  Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

                  When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

                  Comment

                  • #174
                    If you object to Iowa getting farm subsidies from California, then perhaps you should consider backing the strengthening of state's rights?
                    A much easier solution would be to not give an Iowan a 1200% greater vote in the Senate and a 50% greater vote in the Presidential race than a Californian (and then there's the IA Caucus)....
                    "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                    -Bokonon

                    Comment

                    • #175


                      The reason it is imbalanced is because states all get 2 senators and at least one representative, or 3+ representatives, while states like Wyoming would have a hard time earning one representative as a district in California...
                      <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                      I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                      Comment

                      • #176
                        Originally posted by GePap


                        ANYTHING!

                        I have not heard a single snipet of any of his speeches, not even the ones he shows on the TV ads I am now seeing in which he talks about anything but "change", "hope", whatever. Inspiration is wonderful, but it doesnt mean anything. When people compare anyone to JFK I cringe, because as inspirational as he was, his precidency was mediocre at best. I don't want another JKF. Hell, both LBJ and Nixon, two men of the "past", two unlikebale sons of *****es, created far more wide ranging and important things than JFK, like Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, the list goes on.
                        And Bush has done some wide ranging important things as well.

                        Is it better to do wide ranging things that people despise you for decades later or perhaps not accomplish as much but make the nation as a whole feel inspired and optimistic about the country and their lives?

                        Reagan had both. Roosevelt had both. Johnson/Nixon/Bush have one and Kennedy has the other. I think most people will prefer Kennedy.
                        Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

                        When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

                        Comment

                        • #177
                          Electoral College is fine per se, the problem is that it is tied to the states. If you tied it to Congressional districts, which are by and large of equal size, you would lose the disproportionality of the system, while preserving the anti-democratic basis of the system.
                          "Remember, there's good stuff in American culture, too. It's just that by "good stuff" we mean "attacking the French," and Germany's been doing that for ages now, so, well, where does that leave us?" - Elok

                          Comment

                          • #178
                            The electoral college is, of course, based on the tally of a state's Reps & Senators. The only reason there is this unbalance that people are complaining about is instead of fixing a house district to a certain number of people (like it used to be) we wisely put a cap on it. Otherwise we'd have 4,000 members in Congress which would be unmanageable.

                            If you want to keep a reasonable number of people in congress but have them all represent the same number of people then you are gonna have some bizarre districts. Districts that cut across state lines or include states or parts of states that don't even border each other. Gerrymandering is bad enough on the state level, make it national and there are gonna be problems. I seriously doubt Congress will be any more impartial or balanced about drawing multi-state districts than state legislatures.

                            There may be several arguments for electing the president purely by popular vote, but unequal weight to people's votes isn't it imho.
                            What the hell are you writing about?
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment

                            • #179
                              Originally posted by Ramo


                              A much easier solution would be to not give an Iowan a 1200% greater vote in the Senate and a 50% greater vote in the Presidential race than a Californian (and then there's the IA Caucus)....
                              Move to France if you want to live in a country where you elect a president by popular vote... we have the principle of state's rights here in the United States, and it's not going away, thank god...
                              <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                              I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                              Comment

                              • #180

                                Move to France? You are a sad, sad advocate of your ideas...
                                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                                -Bokonon

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 34 template Next
                                Working...
                                X