-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Democratic Nomination 2008: Who you got?
- Thread starter Mandark
- Start date
- Status
Mercury Fred
Banned
A few items to consider:JayFro said:
1. I'd wager that there are more independents than Democrats here. Just because someone is anti-Bush administration doesn't necessarily make that person a Democrat.
2. These "pile on" threads you're referring to tend to happen when one poster takes an issue that can't be supported and runs with it. The "demos" as you refer to them are actually posters who trade in logic and can't resist dismantling empty rhetoric that's posing as sound reasoning.
3. Re: "People like those who post on message boards do more harm than good while they think they are actually helping the party they choose to support." I think you've got it wrong. Again, the posters here tend to be much less about supporting a party than dealing with logic, reason and a general (if sometimes cynical) humanistic impulse.
4. Politics aren't us vs. them, black vs. white, binary of your choice here.
Incognito said:
Did you ever see the MTV special where old dirty bastard (famous rapper/now deceased) went down to collect his foodstamps in a limo? Tell me once again the system isn't being consistantly abused.
Tell me why we should pay for overweight Americans to have gastric bypass surgery when they don't work and fill up on McDonalds every chance they get. Let's just help those who don't want to help themselves.
People have to have a desire to improve themselves, why do so many asians do well and start businesses when they come to America? They have a strong desire to do well and create things for themselves. I have multiple foreign clients who own businesses but didn't have english as a first language. The one thing they have that many lazy Americans don't is a desire to work hard and earn what they get. Not to have it handed to them on a silver platter.
JayFro said:
Ok. If it is legal/illegal defined by the terms you just laid out, let me ask you a question.
When a mother gets an abortion that doesn't fall into medical harm, rape, or incest categories, who do you send to jail? The mother? The doctor? The person who paid for the procedure? What should the sentence be? What if a woman's doctor claims she will be harmed by the pregnancy, but other doctors disagree? What if a woman is raped by her husband? What if a woman's husband kicks her out of his house and divorces her because she is pregnant and he does not want the baby? What if a fifteen year old girl, pregnant and afraid, has her boyfriend hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat to terminate the pregnancy? Should they both go to jail?
You cannot legislate this issue because to do so with exceptions bankrupts your own morality. You cannot make a law based on morality with exceptions. Either it is murder or it isn't.
Also, it is hypocritical for an administration supporting Republican to call anyone morally bankrupt.
Do you think it is moral to STOP PAYING THE SALARY of a serviceman injured in Iraq? Unrelated, I know, but you need to be real with yourself.
I'd like to see Clark in 08, and to see Obama and Spitzer get the chance eventually.
Biden can go to hell. Along with Kerry, Bayh, and maybe Edwards too....
Clinton I would not like to see running for president, not only because it's painfully stupid for last names to be this important, but also because we'd never hear the end of "I KNEW IT THEY WANTED KERRY TO LOSE SO BILLARY COULD RUN!!!"
She could definitely win though - the extent to which she's hated by right wingers would be irrelevant (in some ways strangely satisfying). After all, look at how hated GW was, and still is.
Biden can go to hell. Along with Kerry, Bayh, and maybe Edwards too....
Clinton I would not like to see running for president, not only because it's painfully stupid for last names to be this important, but also because we'd never hear the end of "I KNEW IT THEY WANTED KERRY TO LOSE SO BILLARY COULD RUN!!!"
She could definitely win though - the extent to which she's hated by right wingers would be irrelevant (in some ways strangely satisfying). After all, look at how hated GW was, and still is.
Umpteen said:
That's my own personal view on abortion, I didn't say it was something you could make law but that's IMO what would be justified. To take the time to say this would be the law and lay it all out would more of a waste of my life than the last hour responding to all this has already been. I've got a bathtub to clean before my girlfriend gets here. Later.
Well, I was going to make a new thread for this since I got off on an abortion tangent, but I can't make new threads. So!
In response to Jayfro claiming that Democrats are scaring people. . . ahem. I present to you this. No clips repeated. :lol
Click here to watch GOP2004
In response to Jayfro claiming that Democrats are scaring people. . . ahem. I present to you this. No clips repeated. :lol
Click here to watch GOP2004
Incognito said:
I've got a cousin with 3 kids by 3 different fathers who is quite obese. She collects foodstamps and just had her gastric bypass surgery covered for free because she doesn't work. She is more than content to not work, get free food and be as lazy as can be. The biggest problem I have with demos is that they think everyone is entitled to a handout and that people should just be given things. What ever happened to a little hard work? Cry me a river people, time for America to wake up and realize they aren't to be rewarded for working the system.
I don't believe everyone is entitled to handouts. I believe in personal responsibility.
OMG. I think that's very Republican of me! I do believe, however, that those in need of help should be given proper notice and not looked down at by people like you because you have a cousin who is far too lazy to help themselves.
OMG. I think that's very Republican of me! I do believe, however, that those in need of help should be given proper notice and not looked down at by people like you because you have a cousin who is far too lazy to help themselves.
Incognito said:
I'm not looking down upon anyone, I come from a poor family and from a father who was forced to pick in the fields and robbed of an education at an early age. He was forced along with the rest of the family to pick in the fields at age 7 and all the money he earned went to the family and he never saw a dime of it. My father was a migrant worker who had a good work ethic and makes a great living now (with a 5th grade education) because he's such a hard worker, but don't be fooled to thinking that many unfortunate poor people want to work hard. Many of them would rather take advantage of the system rather than lift a finger and do some hard work.
The perfect ideal of save everyone is a joke, in the history of civilization it's never worked. To truly be helped you have to want to help yourself. I'm out.
At the same time, IME most people--or at least a clear plurality of people--who claim to be independents aren't that way because they're moderates or inherently less extreme, ideologically. Most so-called independents I've met tend to be far left and out of any sort of mainstream (at least for America), and really obnoxious/proud about it. Thinking both parties are corporate goons doesn't at all make you a fair arbiter, and thinking John McCain will only be damned to the third rung of hell--since he's a complete traitor to himself for aligning with the devil Republicans--does not make you a moderate.Mercury Fred said:
JayFro: No need to apologize via PM, I'm just trying to make myself clear.
"Demos" like me huh? I'd love to be more of a centrist so I can agree with you "Repubs" when it comes to certain things, but realize your party has been hijacked by a bunch of neo-cons that I could never, ever agree with on just about anything. The only thing that keeps me coming closer to the center is the current administration and the brainwashed sheep that follow them. I'd like to think of myself as more of an independent thinker. I registered as a democrat, but I'd probably be better off changing it to independent.
I realize that not every democrat is a gift to mankind. None are. NO politican is perfect. It's just that Bush's comments and actions are so outlandish that I can't help but debate anyone that subscribes to the idea that what he actually says makes sense.
I'm willing to admit Kerry's faults; is a Rebublican willing to admit Bush's? No. And that's the difference. Independent people realize everyone has a mind of their own, makes mistakes, and oh, by the way changes their mind. I'll never forget the chain letters going around saying how people shouldn't vote for Kerry because he voted to have certain warheads banned in the early 90's. That was a COMPLETELY different time, you can't hold that against someone over 10 years later! Republicans have created this new standard of having a lifelong track record that must be 100% consistant. It's not right. The world does not work like that. Times change, people change. But Republicans want to discard that way of reasoning and would much rather accept someone that got "saved" again. After all, Bush was an alcoholic and, it's been rumored but never confirmed, a crackhead. He's said a lot of really immature disrespectful things earlier in his life. But that's ok! He got SAVED!
"Demos" like me huh? I'd love to be more of a centrist so I can agree with you "Repubs" when it comes to certain things, but realize your party has been hijacked by a bunch of neo-cons that I could never, ever agree with on just about anything. The only thing that keeps me coming closer to the center is the current administration and the brainwashed sheep that follow them. I'd like to think of myself as more of an independent thinker. I registered as a democrat, but I'd probably be better off changing it to independent.
I realize that not every democrat is a gift to mankind. None are. NO politican is perfect. It's just that Bush's comments and actions are so outlandish that I can't help but debate anyone that subscribes to the idea that what he actually says makes sense.
I'm willing to admit Kerry's faults; is a Rebublican willing to admit Bush's? No. And that's the difference. Independent people realize everyone has a mind of their own, makes mistakes, and oh, by the way changes their mind. I'll never forget the chain letters going around saying how people shouldn't vote for Kerry because he voted to have certain warheads banned in the early 90's. That was a COMPLETELY different time, you can't hold that against someone over 10 years later! Republicans have created this new standard of having a lifelong track record that must be 100% consistant. It's not right. The world does not work like that. Times change, people change. But Republicans want to discard that way of reasoning and would much rather accept someone that got "saved" again. After all, Bush was an alcoholic and, it's been rumored but never confirmed, a crackhead. He's said a lot of really immature disrespectful things earlier in his life. But that's ok! He got SAVED!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
I realize it can be used or interpreted differently, but in this country today, most of the people who support the Iraq war and the moral agenda, etc. are labeled as "neo-cons." I'll just use "the right wing" or "Bush administration" from now on so you don't get all pissy.
I realize it can be used or interpreted differently, but in this country today, most of the people who support the Iraq war and the moral agenda, etc. are labeled as "neo-cons." I'll just use "the right wing" or "Bush administration" from now on so you don't get all pissy.
So basically you were either using the term wrong, or just saying you disagree with the Iraq war, or just saying you don't like the current Administration, or just saying you're not "right wing." But you would be more of a centrist if it weren't for the Iraq war or the current Administration, or the fact that the right wing is on the other side of the center.Diablos said:
[EDIT: the "moral agenda" side of the Iraq war may be a "neocon" position, but the "moral agenda" of the Bush Administration is NOT, so it's not just a matter of me being "pissy," but of using labels correctly to mean the right things]
You know exactly what I meant by it.
Really? I'm pretty sure I remember a "traditional" republican ("old fashioned" if you will) denoucning BushCo for their moral agenda during the election, with gay marriage and everything else. He labeled them as "neocons". I can't remember who this was or when it was, but I've noticed a lot of people use the term like that. A lot of people that know more about politics than you or I ever will.
I think, in a sense, the word "neocon" is changing to a lot of people, and rather quickly. Is this right? I don't have all the answers, but I've definitely heard this term used a lot lately.
Really? I'm pretty sure I remember a "traditional" republican ("old fashioned" if you will) denoucning BushCo for their moral agenda during the election, with gay marriage and everything else. He labeled them as "neocons". I can't remember who this was or when it was, but I've noticed a lot of people use the term like that. A lot of people that know more about politics than you or I ever will.
I think, in a sense, the word "neocon" is changing to a lot of people, and rather quickly. Is this right? I don't have all the answers, but I've definitely heard this term used a lot lately.
WTF are you talking about?Diablos said:Really? I'm pretty sure I remember a "traditional" republican ("old fashioned" if you will) denoucning BushCo for their moral agenda during the election, with gay marriage and everything else. He labeled them as "neocons". I can't remember who this was or when it was, but I've noticed a lot of people use the term like that. A lot of people that know more about politics than you or I ever will.
[EDIT:]
ARGH!Diablos said:
I was asking you. But what I said was, I've heard many politicans, analysts, etc. use the term "neocon" just like I did. There's really no need to get pissed off over the use of one word here.
I promise I won't use the word "neo-conservative" like that ever again!
Take this to PM if you want to continue discussing this with me, I'd much rather finish the argument that way as it's just between you and I. BTW, I'm not saying I'm right here.
I promise I won't use the word "neo-conservative" like that ever again!
Take this to PM if you want to continue discussing this with me, I'd much rather finish the argument that way as it's just between you and I. BTW, I'm not saying I'm right here.
I think the people that use the term so, uh, loosely must not care what it really means (because I've heard a lot of people use it like I did). That's what I meant when I said the term is being "reinvented" to some people. I never said that was right of course. I'm just sayin'.
Some people seem to use it like they'd use "ultra-Conservative," which I imagine would be frustrating to genuine Neocons. And ultra-Conservatives for that matter.Diablos said:I think the people that use the term so, uh, loosely must not care what it really means (because I've heard a lot of people use it like I did). That's what I meant when I said the term is being "reinvented" to some people. I never said that was right of course. I'm just sayin'.
Drinky Crow
Banned
A "neocon" is an ex-liberal who sides with the stated goals of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in DC (the Silvermans, Novak, Kristol, Podhoretz, Norquist et al). They believe in aggressive Middle Eastern geopolitical strategy and extensive use of military might and the privitization of all government accounts, including Social Security, welfare, and education. Anti-semitic archconservatives and asshole liberals will point to the neocon roots in the Jewish community, and truth be told, the tern "neocon" really did start in the 70s and 80s under Carter/Reagan when certain Jewish community leaders demanded a more aggressive stance in protecting Israel's interests. However, that became quickly subverted for a number of reasons: some ideological (proactive security for the US by "stablizing" the region); other financial (control of oil resources by the US); and some social ("Islam is a threat to our way of life" et al).
Outside of that, neocons generally retain many of their civil libertarian beliefs from their previous liberal political existence, although their ability to quickly jettison them in favor of advancing their militaristic agenda is rapidly becoming part of what makes them "neocons" these days. Many have sold out wholesale to the Christian Right in order to keep their own agenda operating with a strong support base, or just because they're tired of criticism from current liberal and progressive leadership.
More on neocons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States
Outside of that, neocons generally retain many of their civil libertarian beliefs from their previous liberal political existence, although their ability to quickly jettison them in favor of advancing their militaristic agenda is rapidly becoming part of what makes them "neocons" these days. Many have sold out wholesale to the Christian Right in order to keep their own agenda operating with a strong support base, or just because they're tired of criticism from current liberal and progressive leadership.
More on neocons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States
Mr. Blonde
Member
LS:I don't see why Rudi shouldn't be considered the front-runner. Even since Sept. 11 he's been popular and has constantly echoed whatever Bush has said.
McCain is too old and is pissing off Republicans with what he's been doing in the Senate with his gang of seven.
Frist is losing the filibuster and judge battle against McCain and is unelectable.
I really hope it is McCain though that gets nominated because he will be easy for Democrats to exploit as someone who has no principles and would do whatever it takes to get elected. Also he's way too old. In a Hillary vs McCain matchup Hillary would win in a landslide. If she faces Rudi it will be close but she will still win.
McCain is too old and is pissing off Republicans with what he's been doing in the Senate with his gang of seven.
Frist is losing the filibuster and judge battle against McCain and is unelectable.
I really hope it is McCain though that gets nominated because he will be easy for Democrats to exploit as someone who has no principles and would do whatever it takes to get elected. Also he's way too old. In a Hillary vs McCain matchup Hillary would win in a landslide. If she faces Rudi it will be close but she will still win.
Mr. Blonde
Member
You don't need southern states to win. If Kerry had won Ohio or Florida and if Gore had won Florida, Nevada, or New Hampshire then they would have won without winning anything in the south except possibly Florida.
No Democrats are going to win anything south of the 36-30 line except for possibly Florida and New Mexico anyway. Not even John Edwards.
No Democrats are going to win anything south of the 36-30 line except for possibly Florida and New Mexico anyway. Not even John Edwards.
Outdoor Miner
Member
Zell Miller would, let's get him back!
Drensch said:
Your original statement was, "What had Bush1, Bush2, Clinton, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR... Accomplished pre-presidency? I'd say pretty much all of them had weaker resumes than Hilary."
Taking nothing away from Hillary Clinton, she does not have a stronger resume than most of the people you listed above.
With regards to Jayfro: It's probably worth noting that just because some of us voted Democratic in the last election, that doesn't make us Democrats. I consider myself an independent, but that doesn't mean I have to vote for a non-Republican/Democratic party; it just means I don't affiliate myself with either one. By that logic, voting for the Green Party would automatically make me an affiliated member of their party, and I'm not. I voted for Kerry because I knew what Bush stood for in 2000 and after watching him run things for 4 years, I wanted, as they say, "a better America". That doesn't mean I agreed with everything Kerry stood for, or the Democrats for that matter, but I certainly didn't want the alternative.
Abortion isn't easy. I doubt there are many women who look forward to abortion as an easy way out to avoid condoms or birth control. Abortion is simply an option, and, in my opinion, it should be allowed. It's not a free or enjoyable service, and I find it intrusive upon a woman to mandate that she be forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy because a minority of people (and polls support Roe vs Wade) feel otherwise. Who's going to compensate the mother for any time she has to take off work to fulfill someone else's moral sense of duty? Who's going to adopt that child when we have thousands of children waiting to for a set of parents and some states intent on limiting potential parents by prohibiting perfectly acceptable parents from adopting because that they're both gay? There's no reason education can't help minimize the need for women to seek abortions in the first place. And in case you've never read the fine print on condoms or birth control, they're not perfect...you can still get pregnant even if you use a condom. I know of people that have.
I also find the notion that people like posters on here at GAF "scare" people into voting for the Democrats ludicrous and the kind of slogan I'd heard O'Reily spout. Watching that guy's Talking Points Memo is what's really scary, and should be to every sane person. "Holding people accountable for their views on the war on terror"? Thanks, but no.
Abortion isn't easy. I doubt there are many women who look forward to abortion as an easy way out to avoid condoms or birth control. Abortion is simply an option, and, in my opinion, it should be allowed. It's not a free or enjoyable service, and I find it intrusive upon a woman to mandate that she be forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy because a minority of people (and polls support Roe vs Wade) feel otherwise. Who's going to compensate the mother for any time she has to take off work to fulfill someone else's moral sense of duty? Who's going to adopt that child when we have thousands of children waiting to for a set of parents and some states intent on limiting potential parents by prohibiting perfectly acceptable parents from adopting because that they're both gay? There's no reason education can't help minimize the need for women to seek abortions in the first place. And in case you've never read the fine print on condoms or birth control, they're not perfect...you can still get pregnant even if you use a condom. I know of people that have.
I also find the notion that people like posters on here at GAF "scare" people into voting for the Democrats ludicrous and the kind of slogan I'd heard O'Reily spout. Watching that guy's Talking Points Memo is what's really scary, and should be to every sane person. "Holding people accountable for their views on the war on terror"? Thanks, but no.
If women's groups supported Hillary just because she has some form of a vagina then I'd lose all respect for them.
I think Edwards is the Democrat's best bet, but it depends on who they go up against really. If it's a Bush-clone then anybody that could be painted as wishy-washy or soft is going to have a hard time. Maybe? Perhaps.
I think Edwards is the Democrat's best bet, but it depends on who they go up against really. If it's a Bush-clone then anybody that could be painted as wishy-washy or soft is going to have a hard time. Maybe? Perhaps.
Why?Gruco said:
If the people of a state chose candidate x, then candidate x gets that's state's electoral votes.
That's not a good winning attitude! I believe in 1992 and 1996.
Well, it's nice to look at anyway.
BTW, the next Bush fan that says Kerry got owned in the last election, recall 1972 first.
Ouch.
The republican party has become too conservative and it's lost it's way in being truly conservative (small government, low spending).
I'd vote for a moderate democrat (like Bill Clinton). I'd also vote for a moderate real republican.
We need to start a third party dammit.
I'd vote for a moderate democrat (like Bill Clinton). I'd also vote for a moderate real republican.
We need to start a third party dammit.
- Status