You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 12:35:48 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline VandalSavage

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #275 on: February 21, 2008, 01:14:31 PM »
My point was that the US is not a bully nation on a permanent war economy, but instead usually responds to wars started by other countries to protect the victims both for its own interest and on moral grounds.  In recent decades the US has abandoned a lot of people to their fates at the hands of dictators that it should have done something to stop.  There is no moral obligation to intervene, but it is in fact moral to intervene to stop such acts.

I would disagree with your central point, then.  Though the United States justifies its interventions on the basis of some moral grounds, it is largely acting to secure its own interests.  This has been less and less the case over the 20th century, but the USA's activities, especially during the Cold War and prior to World War II, suggest that we often intervened primarily because our business or political interests were threatened - not to liberate oppressed people.

That having been said, I do not want to cast the United States in a solely villainous, or even aggressive, light.  In most cases during the Cold War, the Soviets would have employed their influence widely had the USA not countered them.  Vietnam was such an example - though ultimately, Vietnam allowed ties with other Communist regimes to sour for self-serving reasons.  Korea is an instance of unadulterated Soviet aggression - a "test case" of sorts by Stalin to measure the mettle of the international community, perhaps in prelude to a land war in Europe.  But even the lesser known conflicts in Greece, the Congo (which I mentioned), Angola, Rhodesia, Nicaragua and Iran were chess games played against the Soviet.  The U.S.S.R. might not have been invading in these countries necessarily, but lack of action on our part would have led to regimes dramatically inclined to our chief rival's ideology and interests.

The US demobilized from 3.2 million troops in 1918 down to 250,000 9 months later.  The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was passed in response to Japanese aggression since 1931 and German aggression a few years later.  That's 22 years of forthright demobilization before the US government took decisive action to prepare for a new war with aggressors that were directly threatening US allies.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/amh/amh-19.htm

The US had 1.2 million troops in 1941.  Today it has slightly more than 1 million.  While 20% larger, it didn't dwarf the US military of today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army
 (the first section).

It is precisely by the benchmark of that post-World War I demobilization that I would hesitate to apply the term to any post-World War II strategic disposition of the US military.  The demobilization following the Great War showed how extensively the United States could pare down its military power, and I believe that it should, consequently, be used as the standard by which future reductions of the military are measured.

That period, with its international efforts for arms reduction - many championed by the United States - demonstrated the degree to which our nation could commit to reducing its armed forces and those abroad.  It also showed, tellingly, the tragic consequences of that degree of reduction relative to a world that was gearing up for war.  After that era, the United States - and rightly so, in my opinion - has committed itself to be ever ready to dominate the military will of any other nation, and it has done this by fostering a war economy.  I will discuss this point more extensively below.

By 1945 the US Army had 8 million troops.  4 million were demobilized by the end of 1945 and a further 2 million were demobilized by 1946, a very large demobilization.  By 1947 the US Army had 1 million troops.  The National Security Act of 1947 was not a mobilization or even an expansion.  It was a reorganization, that's all.  By 1950, the US Army was down to 600,000 troops.

The US did in fact largely demobilize after WW2. 

The chart you linked to clearly shows American demobilization and reduction in GDP spent on the military after each war.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/amh/AMH-24.htm

The great majority of those WW2 units had been demobilized and the disciplined experience of the units were lost with them.  Many senior sergeants and officers were WW2 veterans, but many of the new soldiers were hastily trained and undisciplined.  It was to the point where US soldiers abandoned their heavy weapons and told their officers to go to hell in the face of the North Korean advance.  The US forces didn't get pushed back to Pusan because they were ready for a war.  They were defeated and in retreat because they weren't ready.

The reduction is apparent, yes, but note that it does not drop to the post-World War I levels.  Furthermore, the chart notes that while military expenditure in actual cost does not reduce dramatically post-World War II, the level of which military spending constitutes our GDP has reduced.  In essence, the United States economy has become accustomed to growing far beyond the proportional level of its military spending, allowing us to expend vast amounts of capital on maintaining global military dominance while not draining our GDP, as in World War II.

The reorganization in 1947 was not, we noted, an expansion - it was a means of organizing the United States military so that it could maintain a competitive posture against the Soviets.  In essence, our strategic aim was to not drop back to a "demobilization" posture, but to remain capable of thwarting the military of our rival superpower.  If, in Korea and Vietnam, we had a tough time of it, it would be because we underestimated the resources required for the task - though, in Korea, that is debatable considering we did restore South Korea.  It is not because we did not allocate resources at all, or that our strategic attitude was one of disarmament.

Put bluntly, we were not innocents caught unaware by some oncoming evil in Korea and Vietnam, but simply being hazardously frugal in our allocation of resources in a deliberate effort to block a threat.

Perhaps Ho Chi Min was one of those lesser of two evils that the US supported.  The fall of China to an aggressive uncompromising brand of communism probably had a lot to do with the US' change of policy towards Ho Chi Min and his communists.  The causes of the Vietnam war are very complicated to attribute only to communist aggression, however the Vietnamese communists were determined to take over all of Vietnam and they fought a war to do it.
Most definitely.  The Vietnamese had had enough of colonialism, Western or Asian.

I don't believe the rubber barons part but yes, the US supported the French because the French were nominally US allies.


Your post states that the paragraph I posted has very little truth:

I stated Pol Pot killed a million people and US left them to their fate.  You didn't say this was false but instead stated that Pol Pot killed 1.7 million.  I stated that the US left them to their fate.  You assigned blame for the genocide to the US, but didn't say that the US did NOT leave them to their fate.  Your post didn't address my statement. 

I stated that the world from East Germany to Vietnam was under communist control.  You stated that it wasn't, possibly because I was vague.  From the GDR east to the Vladivostok, from Siberia south to China then to Vietnam was under communist control.  Despite being a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement, India enjoyed a warm relationship with the USSR.  I didn't include Africa, but I was vague.
 
Next you stated you didn't know where I got the idea that tens of millions died under communism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union

Your responses didn't show that there is very little truth in that part of my post.

Your original post mentioned, "Tens of millions of people died while communist aligned terrorist organizations destroyed things and killed people in Europe."  I mistook this statement to suggest causal relationship.  I now take your meaning to be that tens of millions died under Communist regimes, while Communist-aligned terrorists destroyed things and killed people in Europe.

All the same, I hold by my initial reaction to the claim of tens of millions dying under Communist regimes - namely, that such claims need to be moderated.  In all fairness, I am only saying this because I was not taking into account the pre-Cold War Stalinist purges and Stalin's extensive crimes during World War II.  I assure you that I consistently and vehemently argue that Stalin's toll on humanity is understated.

Yet the claims made by R. J. Rummel and the Black Book of Communism, I have to take with a significant grain of salt.  These are estimates, and while we do not therefore say we can never know the truth, I would not argue we should apply a loose method of judging the number of deaths one can blame on Communist regimes.  It is by the same token that I take the conclusions of works like the Black Book of Capitalism with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, as I said, even conservatively one can attribute over 14 million dead directly to the Chinese Great Leap Forward.  Even in the Black Book of Communism, it is to the Chinese that the greatest amount of regime-related deaths can be attributed.

Lastly, my position on the Cambodian genocide is actually not different from yours on the point of whether we "left them to their fate."  As I hope is becoming evident throughout this post, I do not disagree with you on the substance on a number of points.  What I was pointing out was a historical factor that I thought was underserved by the data presented.

In fact, that factor reinforces your point about the United States abandoning the region - for I would argue that the moral obligation of Colin Powell's proverbial statement, "You break it, you buy it," is far more clear than that of "stopping aggression."  We did indeed abandon that country, even the entire region, to the extent that troubles in the surrounding sectors of Laos, Burma and Indonesia went unchecked by the USA's will.

They jumped to conclusions.  They thought that Bush telling them they should rebel meant the US was going to help.  Though with US forces poised a few miles away after crushing Saddam's army, it was a pretty reasonable conclusion.  The US still left them to their fate.  The link I posted about the Human Rights Watch article addresses this.

The Taliban was entwined with Al Qaeda.  The Taliban statements in your link state the following:

Taliban's  Ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abul Salam Zaeef, said "It is premature to level allegations against a person who is not in a position to carry out such attacks, it was a well-organized plan and Osama has no such facilities."

Taliban official Mutawakel tells journalists in Pakistan "where is the evidence" against Osama bin Laden.

Neither of these statements convey sympathy or condemn the attacks.

They'd been making excuses about evidence for years.  They were never going to hand over bin Laden.

Well, I did post the wrong link.  That was definitely my bad.

Here's the article, and the pertinent passage:

Quote
In Kabul, Afghanistan, Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakel, the foreign minister of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban government, told the Arab television network Al Jazeera, "We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it."

It is safe to argue that the tenor of their statement already suggests a strategy of CYA on the Taliban's behalf.  And I am not arguing that the Taliban would have handed over bin Ladin - I am simply saying they were talking about it, while we rushed to war.  I make a note of this for the sake of posterity.

Furthermore, I make note of it in order to cast doubt on the pure, moral clarity of the military enterprise against the Taliban.  In my opinion, though the Taliban harbored and aided al-Qaeda, it was simply a target of opportunity that was chosen because it was uniquely suited to further the strategic interests of the United States.  The Taliban's connections with al-Qaeda were - and, possibly, are - less than those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but we could not very well attack them.  Al-Qaeda also is rotten in Somalia, the Maldives and Chechnya, but there was no strategic gain for getting into those muddles. 

Even if one says flatly, "Well, Afghanistan is where Osama actually was, so into Afghanistan we had to go," and dismisses the other options as merely tangential to the central mission of nailing al-Qaeda's top brass, why, then, are we not in Pakistan, save that it would not be in our interests to invade a nuclear power with a notoriously volatile population?

Leaving the victims to their fate.  If something is done about it, it stops.  If the attempt to do something about it fails, it's a disaster but at least people tried rather than just looking the other way or saying 'sucks to be them'.  That is truly heartless.

Considering how WW2 turned out in Germany and Japan, intentions of removing a dictator redeemed the war effort despite the killing, chaos and impoverishment.  There is a special hatred by victims for those who knew and did nothing, as the link you posted about Shi'ite resentment of the US shows.

The definition of a war economy is very vague.  I'm interested to hear your take on it.

My take on your statement about heartlessness is that one cannot afford to fail if one is to use violence for moral ends.  I wrote a post on that earlier on this thread.  For the sake of strategic power, for the sake of moral appearances, even for the sake of moral integrity, one must have the means to succeed before one undertakes the task. 

It is a popular trope to say that America's military adventures only fail when its political will fails.  I would disagree.  America's military adventures fail when its political leadership fails to allocate the necessary resources to achieve its strategic aims.

In that regard, I am not arguing against moral intervention.  Truth be told, I commonly advocate it.  But I also advocate just as strongly that we maintain a vast military aligned to the task of destroying, occupying and rebuilding several other nations concurrently.

And now, The War Economy:

In the years immediately prior to World War II, numerous industries associated with the armed forces - aeronautics and heavy industry in particular - began to develop at a faster pace than years prior.  This slight increase in development and productivity became a surge during the war, as American channeled vast resources into its military-related technologies and industries.

Since then, this facet of the economy has become hugely significant, leading to advances that flourish further in the civilian markets.  Industrial advancements like synthetics, aerospace and computers helped cultivate America's unparalleled economic expansion.  And while I do not want to undercut the other booming American industries - namely automotive, pharmaceuticals and other health-related industries, and our now-gigantic service industry - I want to give due credit to the economic elements that, by flourishing, helped the others to flourish.

So much of the American industrial landscape either directly serves or derives from those military-related industries.  Much of what our economy is famous for booms because of the spark set by the government pouring money into defense industries, and those industries in turn giving products to the civilian markets.

That is what I mean by America being a "war economy."  And yet, as the century turned, we find that the military dominance that fostered economic dominance has had its economic effects too diluted into the global market for it to be the keystone to our economic success in the future.  No longer are our developments of new war systems going to create civilian applications that will set us as the vanguard of industry - we find ourselves challenged in areas like technology and the hard sciences that we had been the undisputed leader in previously.

Consequently - and in light of the shifting challenges facing our global strategy for dominance - I feel we need to shift from a hard science based, defense-technology assisted economy to one that focuses on energy and resource management.  For just as the challenges of the 20th century demanded we create a vast, technological arsenal to check our chief rivals, the Communist regimes, the challenges of the 21st century are more often found in impoverished countries with poor resource management.  Furthermore, even our rival superpowers - Russia and China - find themselves dependent, either as a supplier or a consumer, on resource and energy reserves that are rapidly exhausting themselves. 

Therefore, to retain our position as the chief economic and military power in the globe, the United States should invest as definitively and as dramatically in the resource and energy management technologies that our rivals - from the third world to the first - all will soon crave.  Otherwise, we are threatened with being overmatched by the industrial and resource-fueled might of rivals, and exhausted by bushwars with desperate, oppressed populations.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 01:19:03 PM by VandalSavage »

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #276 on: March 01, 2008, 06:16:32 AM »
Math is sexy.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4184

OK, based on my previous comments about the way the Democratic party allots its delegates, it seems pretty reasonable to me that the way the numbers break in the remaining contests means that, even if Senator Clinton wins the Texas and Ohio primaries (and oh-so-exciting Vermont and Rhode Island), she'll still be approaching the convention with fewer delegates than Senator Obama.

I wonder if she'd carry the fight all the way to the convention, having lost the majority of state primaries and lost the popular vote, and try to make the win based on the superdelegates.

On the other hand, if she loses either Texas or Ohio or both (likely to happen in Texas, not so much in Ohio), it becomes very hard to imagine continued support for her candidacy.  I mean, if Obama had lost between 11 and 12 consecutive contests to Clinton, every pundit and every headline would be announcing it was over.

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #277 on: March 02, 2008, 01:42:14 AM »
There should be some concern from the Democratic side if this becomes a judicial battle between candidates. I honestly think Clinton will step down before it gets to that, but if she decides to fight, there could be concern that the Democrats might lose voters thinking that it just feels like more of the same. I'm not saying that these people would vote Republican, but rather that they'd simply stay home, because these are the same people who are coming to vote believing in this "change" being touted. I don't know if there's any meat behind that theory, but it's one I've heard tossed around of late.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #278 on: March 03, 2008, 12:11:32 PM »
Math is sexy.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4184

OK, based on my previous comments about the way the Democratic party allots its delegates, it seems pretty reasonable to me that the way the numbers break in the remaining contests means that, even if Senator Clinton wins the Texas and Ohio primaries (and oh-so-exciting Vermont and Rhode Island), she'll still be approaching the convention with fewer delegates than Senator Obama.

I wonder if she'd carry the fight all the way to the convention, having lost the majority of state primaries and lost the popular vote, and try to make the win based on the superdelegates.

On the other hand, if she loses either Texas or Ohio or both (likely to happen in Texas, not so much in Ohio), it becomes very hard to imagine continued support for her candidacy.  I mean, if Obama had lost between 11 and 12 consecutive contests to Clinton, every pundit and every headline would be announcing it was over.

If the balance is less than 100 or 150 delegates, why wouldn't she? It's her right to continue to campaign. I mean, who are we to tell her that she has to get out, and for that matter, who are we to tell anyone they can't run for President?

As it stands now, the Democrats have themselves to blame for this stupid Super Delegate crap that still gives Hillary hope. I saw Jesse Jackson on television this weekend saying how super delegates should vote for the front runner, but you know what? Jesse is one of the people who complained about how delegates were handed out back before super delegates, and he and Michael Dukakis actually pushed through the changes in the DNC back in the 80s so Jesse felt he was getting a fair share of the votes. So guess what? Doesn't feel good to have what helped you, working against you, does it?

Howard Dean said this weekend that he doesn't expect the nomination to be settled this week unless Hillary loses both states, and he wasn't even sure she'd quit then. He also mentioned that they weren't going to amend the Delegate Awarding rules until after the election, because of course that would be unfair. He also advised Jesse Jackson to be careful what he wishes for, because if he keeps stirring the pot about super delegates, there is a good chance things will just go back to the way they were, which could cause even more problems.

It's a real mess, but Hillary has the right, just like Huckabee, to keep plugging away.

Superdelegates have the right to vote however they want because those are the rules.

You know Massachusetts voted for Hillary, should Ted Kennedy have to change his support as a super delegate to represent the will of the people of his state?

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #279 on: March 03, 2008, 02:16:29 PM »
Superdelegates have the right to vote however they want because those are the rules.


That's true as far as that goes.  The important thing to remember, however, is that the superdelegates are political animals every bit as much as the two candidates for the nomination are.  I predict that having to go back to the electorate to explain your vote, especially if it went contrary to the way that particular precinct or state voted in the primary, will be a hard sell indeed. 

We're already seeing superdelegates begin to peel away from Senator Clinton, and I predict that will only continue, especially if she loses the two primaries held tomorrow, March 4th.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #280 on: March 03, 2008, 02:26:41 PM »

That's true as far as that goes.  The important thing to remember, however, is that the superdelegates are political animals every bit as much as the two candidates for the nomination are.  I predict that having to go back to the electorate to explain your vote, especially if it went contrary to the way that particular precinct or state voted in the primary, will be a hard sell indeed. 

We're already seeing superdelegates begin to peel away from Senator Clinton, and I predict that will only continue, especially if she loses the two primaries held tomorrow, March 4th.

Which begs the question for Massachusetts, which voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. Why aren't Ted Kennedy and the other senator switching to Hillary since their electorate voted for her?

It's that sort of talking out both sides of their mouth that some of these folks are doing so openly that is frustrating. You can't have it both ways. I am fairly certain that the national party will change the apportioning rules after this election process, which will have someone else crying foul in a few years.

At any rate, I think if Hillary loses badly tomorrow in all four contests, she'll pull out. However, if she does well, and actually wins the majority of the popular vote in say Ohio and Texas, and can keep the delegate count close or even gain ground, then she isn't going anywhere.

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #281 on: March 05, 2008, 02:57:36 AM »
Thankfully  Hillary did not lose 2 of the states.  As she won 3 out of the four and the big two of Ohio and Texas.  Hopefully the rest of the states and voters will follow this beginning of reversal. 

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #282 on: March 05, 2008, 08:38:29 AM »
Thankfully  Hillary did not lose 2 of the states.  As she won 3 out of the four and the big two of Ohio and Texas.  Hopefully the rest of the states and voters will follow this beginning of reversal. 

 Woot! And the circus goes on!

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #283 on: March 05, 2008, 09:02:02 AM »
A healthy primary is good for democracy.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #284 on: March 05, 2008, 08:43:54 PM »
I'll say it again, I favor Hillary, so I'm happy she won two of three, and I'm happy that by the time my state votes, my vote may actually count for something in a primary (finally!).

Honestly though, whether Hillary or Obama wins the nomination in the end, I think the Democratic party will have a strong candidate that I will be happy to support. I never understand those peopl ethat say "Oh my candidate didn't make it, so I'll vote for (insert candidate with a majority of views contrary to those you hold)!" That just seems stupid to me. Like that nut Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh who hate McCain because he's not 'right-wing' enough so they want Hillary to win. That makes no friggin sense.

Offline Celestial Goblin

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #285 on: March 06, 2008, 12:37:22 PM »
For all it's worth, I think that anyone who gets too seriously into the whole Obama vs Hillary fight is not doing their side any favors. It's 'divide and conquer' for the Republican candidate.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #286 on: March 06, 2008, 01:05:57 PM »
The Democrats are going to lose this the two candidates are fighting each other while the Republican winner can attack both and build his position up.

Add to this they are fucking over Florida and Michigan and will be using superdelegates to do the smokey cloud filled rooms thing to get their nominee its going to be a mess.

If they cared about this one should back down and leave one to take the nomination, its frankly there only chance.

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #287 on: March 06, 2008, 01:33:33 PM »
I have a couple of things.   First would Barack Obama an supporters.  That want the Florida and Michigan primaries not to count.  An if they are going to be allowed by the DNC.   Then they should be redone.   However, my question is if Barack had won both those states.   Would his position be the same.    And what would be the delegate count with the totals if those states are counted as in now.  As it seems smacked of the very same politics of old.   He lost those states, fair and square.   An now wants a re do when their is talk about allowing the votes to count.   I think they should, I also think that the ruling of discounting a populations vote was undemocratic to begin with.  An the parties do not run the country.   As such it is actually unconstitutional so the vote should count in each of those states.
 
Finally the other thing.  It is a couple of items actually.   I got while watching the O'Reilly show on FoX news.    One I totally agree with his assessment on the bias in the media.   The day before on Tuesday there. I turned on msnbc and Chris Matthews is going on about how the party is imploding itself.   How, if Barack did not win, it be the end of the democratic party.   This was with still at least over two hours of voiting left.  It seemed a clear cut non bipartisan pitch.   An the point Bill makes is that the exit polls showed that a majority of the undecideds broke towards Hillary.

The other point a fact.  That no democratic nominee has won the general election.  With out carrying the state of Ohio during the primaries. 

An with that, the majority of the 9% of vote that was republican in Texas.  Obama had the majority.   A definite sign, the republican machine  feels and is confident that they will beat Barack in the fall.  Because if you really look at it.  The majority of his states won are clearly in the republican side in the fall. 

Online Vekseid

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #288 on: March 06, 2008, 09:10:11 PM »
I have a couple of things.   First would Barack Obama an supporters.  That want the Florida and Michigan primaries not to count.  An if they are going to be allowed by the DNC.   Then they should be redone.   However, my question is if Barack had won both those states.   Would his position be the same.

Barack was not on the ballot on those states, so this question is a bit moot.

Edit again, Barack was on the ballot in Florida, but not Michigan, sorry

Quote
An with that, the majority of the 9% of vote that was republican in Texas.  Obama had the majority.   A definite sign, the republican machine  feels and is confident that they will beat Barack in the fall.  Because if you really look at it.  The majority of his states won are clearly in the republican side in the fall. 

No, they are confident that McCain will beat Hillary, and polls support that notion, if slightly, but Obama leads against him. Rush didn't want Obama to win, even.

Obama certainly trounces them both in funding. Most democrats don't really care who wins, but it does matter to the independent vote, where Obama is getting more support from.

Edit for better link
« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 09:17:12 PM by Vekseid »

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #289 on: March 06, 2008, 10:44:37 PM »
Assuming Obama winds up the Democratic nomination, it'll be interesting to see him actually be forced to discuss issues in the presidential debates. He has some momentum, but the big mo could come grinding to a halt.

At the same time, while a prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination will certainly help the Republicans, I'm not sure it matters though. Even if Obama doesn't actually win the debates, I'm not sure how much the debates will actually affect the election.

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #290 on: March 07, 2008, 01:11:51 AM »
I can see why Michigan should be redone.  However, Florida should stand.  Both were on the ballot, both as per the DNC did not campaign in Florida.  Though Obama did pump the national ads at the time of the Florida primary which was a source of contention. 

An polls this far out, tell us nothing.  Look at the polls leading into Gore with Bush, or Kerry with Bush in 04.  An then finally with Hillary leading up to the primaries.  So that is not really a factor that can be held up and propped as part of any argument. 


Online Vekseid

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #291 on: March 07, 2008, 04:37:49 AM »
I can see why Michigan should be redone.  However, Florida should stand.  Both were on the ballot, both as per the DNC did not campaign in Florida.  Though Obama did pump the national ads at the time of the Florida primary which was a source of contention. 

An polls this far out, tell us nothing.  Look at the polls leading into Gore with Bush, or Kerry with Bush in 04.  An then finally with Hillary leading up to the primaries.  So that is not really a factor that can be held up and propped as part of any argument.

Why should a state get to arbitrarily break established rules and not suffer the consequences?

Polls this far out may mean nothing, but there is something to be said for Obama's financing - he's pulling in more donations than Hillary and McCain combined (February: Hillary - 35 million, McCain 12 million, Obama - 55 million).

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #292 on: March 07, 2008, 06:10:14 AM »
Assuming Obama winds up the Democratic nomination, it'll be interesting to see him actually be forced to discuss issues in the presidential debates. He has some momentum, but the big mo could come grinding to a halt.

At the same time, while a prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination will certainly help the Republicans, I'm not sure it matters though. Even if Obama doesn't actually win the debates, I'm not sure how much the debates will actually affect the election.

Well Obama is not a political novice he held state elected office and other positions of respectable service that people seem to not be recognizing and is younger the Hillary so would have less experience. In my mind the Democrats will either vote for Hillary the fucking YESOCRAT to Bush who rubber stamped going into Iraq and like the rest of them let him get away with everything he wants as far as I can tell and lose or nominate Obama and at least have a fighting chance.

They were elected in including by most of my family to counter Bush and stalemate him and so they think little of Hillary she is as bad as the rest, Obama did try to stop the carnage but after they went in supports our troops as he should with needed funding while trying to get us out. YOu can guess who they like more and that person doesn't were a skirt but did wear a rather nice native outfit in Africa. Most won't vote for her or any other party just stay home if the Democrats select her. Its not of course true all will but they did vote in every election large or small Democratic. In Florida it may not matter we tended to the Republican Party for several elections but in swing states even 5% not voting for her could be devestating.

My two areas of interest in Obama is he opposed that cursed Iraq invasion and he is not as seasoned that gives him one advantage he also has little dirt to use to hurt him. Look at the campaigns targets so far did they once attack his character or his ethics seriously- no. He is a stateman and someone that stands for what he believes in even if unpopular sounds like a good candidate to me just on those grounds. To me the character of the man or woman is more important do they stick by their guns and change their views only if they think its the best course of action, that matters. Experience is considered to Obama has government service both in his own state in elected office and in Congress enough for the man to get seasoned he can delegate authority and get advisors on matters as well. His cabinet will be key and who advises him and he seems sensible to pick the best people to do that.


Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #293 on: March 07, 2008, 12:59:47 PM »
At the same time, while a prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination will certainly help the Republicans, I'm not sure it matters though...

See, I could dispute that by suggesting another way to look at it.  Now that the Republicans have settled, for better or for worse, on Senator McCain, there's no story there any more.  John McCain essentially disappears from the national radar for the next five or six months while we watch the continuing struggle between Senators Obama and Clinton.

Any media attention that does come McCain's way is likely to be a mixed blessing, at best.

Even earlier this week, when he appeared at the Rose Garden with the President., McCain went out of his way to keep the event quiet. As of this writing, there's no mention of it on the home page of McCain's Web site. There's no mention of it all on the Republican National Committee's home page. In fact, I can't find any mention whatsoever of the event on either Web site at all. (It's like: Bush Who?)

But on the Democratic National Committee Web site, the lead headline blares: "Bush Endorses John McCain as His Successor."

« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 01:01:13 PM by Rydia »

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #294 on: March 07, 2008, 03:12:50 PM »
The way I see it, the best years in the last 20 were the years from 1992 to 2000.   You can argue anyway you want.  Bring up little things and major and say this and that.  The fact is this, it took both a republican congress and Democrat president to create a balanced budget and surplus.   Which shows a Clinton can get things done with republicans.  Sure not with nicety.  But they get the job done.   As for the vote on the war.  It is easy to say I would not support it or would not have.  Since when the vote was taken he was not yet a Senator.  For that matter some of his biggest supporters voted yes. 

Yes no doubt he draws in the support of campaign contributions.  A good thing, if he gets elected.  Perhaps he can take it and pay for what he has suggested in his plans.  He is not middle ground folks.  All we be doing is going from the extreme right to the far left.   He gives no detail how he will pay for his plans.   I may have come on and seem to be democratic.  But I am more independent.  I fall in many issues to either side.  I think both sides have stuff that is right. So take from both and weed out the over zealous.   An right now Obama has pretty much been given a free pass by the mainstream media.  No one takes him to task on the issues.   Instead, lets see the interview in where Hillary is asked if she thinks Barack was ever Muslim.  God how that has been replayed out and talked about over and over.  Especially on msnbc.   It is not like she did not answer for an eternity.  Yes it was a pause, but the whole point is.  It is not an issue.  It is only an issue because they keep bringing it up.  O'Reilly is right about that and the media



Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #295 on: March 07, 2008, 03:33:57 PM »
It could also depends on how ugly it gets between the Democratic contenders.

Still, there's certainly some truth to what you say, but I also think it kinda works in both ways. There are different demographics across the nation, obviously. In some places it will probably swing votes in one direction, and in others it'll swing votes elsewhere. Remember, this is a very big country, and ideas will hit different areas differently. That's really the main reason why I think what looks to be a Republican advantage won't matter in the end.

Quote
Any media attention that does come McCain's way is likely to be a mixed blessing, at best.
There is certainly a lot of truth to this, but it will be far overshadowed by the head-butting between the O/C (heh... I like. I might call it that from now on... ;)). This is also why the Republicans are hoping for it to be a "bloody" rampage between the two. At this stage, I don't think McCain wants too much of the spotlight at all. He's hoping for mistakes to be made... and such a struggle within the Democratic ranks might well be that mistake he's looking for. But, like I said, I doubt it really matters one way or the other. The Democrats just have too much going for them even at this stage.

Quote
Well Obama is not a political novice he held state elected office and other positions of respectable service that people seem to not be recognizing and is younger the Hillary so would have less experience. In my mind the Democrats will either vote for Hillary the fucking YESOCRAT to Bush who rubber stamped going into Iraq and like the rest of them let him get away with everything he wants as far as I can tell and lose or nominate Obama and at least have a fighting chance.
Ruby, I'm not disputing that he has political experience. You pretty much have to if you want to go as far as he has. At the same time, there comes a point where you have to actually discuss issues and stop pointing fingers. He's played the Bush card to get as far as he has. I have no doubt he can win the debates, but he's going to have to actually discuss issues to do so.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #296 on: March 08, 2008, 01:04:22 AM »
I saw this interesting article from a link on MSN about gore being the nominee. They suggest that if Hillary and Obama come to a standstill in the convention, Gore might be suggested as an alternate. While I would dearly love to see a female president, or even a black president, I have always been a huge Gore supporter. If he would have shown the same passion he did during his environmental campaigns as he did during the 2000 election, I think he would have crushed Bush handily. Most people seemed to think he was just too wooden and off putting. I think if they saw that drive and fire he has when disussing that issue, translated across the board, the last eight years would only have been a realized in our nightmares instead of our reality.

I mean yeah what they discuss in the article is a huge long shotand very unlikely, but that would be a pretty interesting turn...

Oh and while on many issues I'm way far to the left, farther than obama or hillary in fact, for president I believe we need someone closer to center. Congress is going to be pretty divided after the election, I doubt either party will sweep in there with an overwhelming mandate, so we need someone who can work both sides of the aisle to get things done. Hillary has shown she can do that for several years now. I just don't think Obama will be able too. I mean he has the same 'change' platform as the gentleman who he shared those speeches with, and that guy (sorry, the name totally escapes me right now, and I'm too tired to look) hasn't been able to do anything really. Hillary is right, speeches and talking pretty do not equate to actual change.


Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #297 on: March 08, 2008, 02:10:57 AM »
Not to put a spike in this discussion and I know $$$ runs politics here in the good old USA. But I went both the candidates official sites to check out what they were pledging to do. But you are not getting in without donating. Really now!

Offline rainshadow

  • Resident Knucklehead.
  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2008
  • Location: Southwest Kansas
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet Chuck Norris. Meet Chuck's foot. Now die.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #298 on: March 08, 2008, 03:29:11 AM »
Now Gore would be an interesting wrench to throw into the gears here. I think he has been next to brilliant in slipping quietly into the night after 2000. Other than his outspoken view on global warming (though I lean conservative I agree GW is indeed a serious issue), he really hasn't been seen much in the public eye, and that's a tactic that would have won him a nomination this year had he wanted it, IMO.

I admit that after the 2000 election, I've always liked Gore, for whatever reason. I think that it had to do with the fact that, after all the recounts and bullshit down in Florida, he came out and did what no other loser in a presidential election had ever done...

He used the word "concede."

Most conservatives wouldn't agree with me that this was a gracious move on his part because he didn't bow out immediately, but as bogus as the situation down in Florida happened to be, it wasn't his fault that things got fucked up. I would expect someone running for an office as important as the President to fight for it. I'm not going to go into the incompetence of the people in Florida (confusing ballot my ass... grade school students in Ohio seemed to do just fine with the exact same ballot later on that year), but I have a lot of respect for a man who fights for something he believes in, especially if I think that man indeed has the good of his country in mind.

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #299 on: March 08, 2008, 12:12:57 PM »
It can only be hypothesized on Gore being the one the DNC turns to.   In the end it would not be feasible.   Not without having been in the race.  Not to have drawn a single vote, or gathered a single primary victory or delegate.   My guess is this.  It comes down to Pennsylvania.   For only truly there will Hillary garner enough popular vote.  An that is the key to the super delegates.  For if she goes to the convention losing both popular and behind in delegates.  The super delegates, the majority will throw behind Barack.    However, if she can gain an edge in overall popular vote.  Even if it is by a few hundred only.  It matters not he has the lead in delegates.   As she can claim the popular and the major states that matter for democrats in how the electrol map looks with the states.   So she will retain and gain more into her lead in super delegates. 

Now as far as  what effect this will have.  It is a mixed bag.   One they both are in the spot light.  An in truth McCain who?  As he has not the funds to maintain such visibility.  But in the same token, both sides will ravage each other.  Laying the ground work for the fall face off for the republicans.