Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    • CommentAuthorMr. Pants
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008
     (438.121)
    Attention: Craig Shaw. Your 'should' is an important qualifier. The Republican war machine should never, ever be underestimated in it's desire and ability to win. The current theme might be 'change', but it's based not just on the Obama steam train but also on a larger, virtriolic hatred for the political class. Democrats are part of that perceived elite. If Senator Clinton isn't nominated Republicans have got a "do-nothing" Democratic Congress (I know it's more complicated than that, but that'll be the phrase) to run against and until I see proof that the youth/internet/'agent of change' shtick will actually turn up on election day, I still see whichever of the four 'front-runner' GOP candidates is nominated having a 50/50 shot.


    I agree. Unfortunately I don't think Hillary is worth a hill of beans either. Nor do I think she is the lesser of all evils out there. Quite frankly there isn't anyone on any side that looks strong, competent or capable. Really, to me this election lacks anyone redeeming. My opinion.

    That said, there is a strong desire to change the way we've done things. People are a lot poorer this time around. A desire to afford proper food I think outweighs a war machine. All the Democrats need to win is one strong candidate. That's their problem. They got none. And the republicans look organized at least.

    So we'll see.

    But I wish there was a third option. Because honestly I like neither party's choices right now.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008 edited
     (438.122)
    Scott, obviously character is not a throwaway factor, nor was I claiming that it was. However, the majority of posters who claim that Hillary is evil fail to offer the reader tangible reasons as to why this is truly the case. Most of it seems to derive from vague hunches about what goes on behind the scene on the campaigns. Other people seem not to really understand where Clinton stands on a variety of issues and thus attribute behaviors and attitudes to her based on false premises. If people are honestly tired of the beauty-contest mentality associated with American politics, then they should make the effort to express themselves in ways that demonstrate an understanding of how candidates differ on the issues. Certainly, if more people qualified their opinions with suficient proof, it would make this thread more engaging. I find it difficult to respond to "such and such candidate sucks" in a constructive way.

    Edited for typos.
  1.  (438.123)
    I find it difficult to respond to "such and such candidate sucks" in a constructive way.


    Which is the heart of it. Its not a real argument, it is putting up a staw man someone else made, and saying "see I agree with that." Policy is not everything, and you do need to look at the person, but I am not convinced the Hilary bashers look at her with such easy access to the rights pre-packaged Hilary, ready to hate.

    Which sadly brings me to my major concern with her. See I like her, but I admit, like Al Gore (who I still wish was president) she has a "the smartest kid in the room is not well loved" issue. However, even more so, I worry this thread is representative of the fact there are people on the left can't see past a version of her created by the right. And thus...will vote for freaking McCain.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008
     (438.124)
    Jess,
    I never said Hilary was evil, I just think that one policy is stupid.
    Maybe I've been reading misinformation (more likely than reading truth anywhere), but my understanding was that people who invest in real estate are essentially buying property that they can't afford to make payments on, then selling it once the prices go up. When the prices DON'T go up, obviously these people are fucked; And if that is all true, then I don't think those investors deserve a 30 fucking BILLION dollar bail-out fund. Maybe that's completely incorrect information, I don't know.
    Anyway, I hate to argue blatantly, but:
    Kosmo: All I mean to say is that Ron Paul's idea of trying to understand foreign cultures was a more effective way to go about foreign policy than say... I don't know what all the othr Republican candidates want? Ron Paul is the only one who says America had it coming. Other nations don't like it when they are occupied by fucking American troops. Perhaps, the terrorists don't just "hate our freedom", because if they did, they'd be attacking some of the other countries that are actually freer than us. It has to do with Saudi oil interests which can't be fully understood without studying the history of the Christian world's conflict with the Muslim world, starting maybe with Britain and Saudi Arabia during The Crusades.

    Not that tha matters Vote Obama.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008 edited
     (438.125)
    Cyman, the reality is that there are indeed people who made bad investments, but there are also people who are being screwed over by a poor economy and interest rates. It's hard to really hash out which is the bigger factor at times, as they tend to go hand in hand. Very few people actually can afford a house without taking a loan, and you can't always anticipate losing a job or not making enough to meet the current interest rates. So I don't think this is strictly a story of foolish speculation. Regardless of the reason, however, I don't see what's so terrible about helping people maintain their homes. It's not exactly going to be beneficial to anyone to have a significant number of people homeless and bankrupt. Nor is it appropriate to just say "tough luck" and move on, especially when the situation (economy and interest rates) is partly the fault of federal policies.

    Anyway, you claimed that all the candidates were evil, and I assumed that all the examples you gave below were reasons as to why this was the case. As Hillary's stance on the housing crisis didn't necessarily strike me as a good example of how she was evil, it's good that you clarified that you only felt this was an example of a policy you disagreed with.

    Out of curiosity, what's Obama's stance on the housing crisis?
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008
     (438.126)
    Let's just be happy I can't vote; Canadian.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008
     (438.127)
    When I said "I didn't say she was evil", that was a lie. I did, and I shouldn't have.
    I'm not 100%, but I assume he jumped behind Hilary's idea after she came up with it... something they tend to do...
    And that makes it even more ridiculous for me to say I like him and not her... but I haven't actually seen him talk about it...
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008 edited
     (438.128)
    "Maybe I've been reading misinformation (more likely than reading truth anywhere), but my understanding was that people who invest in real estate are essentially buying property that they can't afford to make payments on, then selling it once the prices go up. When the prices DON'T go up, obviously these people are fucked;"


    No, people who had never owned their own home were told they could now afford to buy one.

    In far too many cases, they weren't told that, for example, their monthly payments would double or triple at the end of the introductory period or that that low introductory interest rate was actually offset by outrageously high fees and penalties if they were even a single day late with a single payment or if they wanted to refinance at the end of the introductory period.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008
     (438.129)
    I don't know, that kinda shit freaks me out...
    I don't buy anything I don't have money for.
    I've paid my college tuition in cash every time out of my own pay checks, because loans are just plain risky.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2008
     (438.130)
    Are you saying that, based on what was known at the time (hindsight is always 20/20, innit?) the U.S. should have started a pre-emptive war against Italy in the 1920s or against Germany in the 1930s? Or do you think invading Iraq was a good idea handled badly?


    I'm saying that if the US had joined the League of Nations it would probably have deterred both Italian and German aggression.

    The current Iraq invasion is a bad idea handled badly. But I can point to a bunch of American-led interventions that ended if not well better than the alternative. World War II and the Korean War for a start.
  2.  (438.131)
    And the republicans look organized at least.


    I have to ask, who do you think looks organized on the right?
  3.  (438.132)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    Ok, as far as the billion dollar bailouts go, Hillary's was 70, Obama's was 75. This included giving out tax rebates(much like the ones bush gave out, but to poor people). Obama's plan was to hand out $250 now, and then $250 more if the economy still needed it in 3 months. I'm not sure the specifics on hillarys, but it was similar.

    Where the plans differed, like you guys stated above, is on the Home Owners Mortgage.

    Obama's plan would help out people who only have the one home, and would loose it otherwise, whereas Hillarys plan was more geared towards helping out people with multiple homes.

    This has been a major problem, both in that people are dumb at math and dont understand a home loan, while Banks are really good at math and use it to confuse and misrepresent info to the before mentioned dumb people.



    Now as far as hillary being evil, she certainly comes off that way. But for me, it basically comes down to her being a yes-man to the Bush admin until it was unpopular to do so, now she wants to run under "change" give me a f'n break.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2008
     (438.133)
    Thanks for clarifying that, Dave. I don't know why I can't just go on their web sites and see a list of their proposed policies to find out where they really differ.
    It's frustrating that whenever they're talking, they're talking about how great they are or (In Hillary's case) how shitty the other guys are instead of telling us what it actually means to vote for them.
    In Canada, we don't do all this years of wasting money on campaigns shit as I doubt they do in England.
    The Canadians just call for an election; everyone states their platforms; the people go vote a month later. It's fantastically simple actually.
    •  
      CommentAuthorEgon
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2008
     (438.134)
    I seriously cannot wait to get back to having mediocrity in the White House. It's going to be so awesome, guys!
    •  
      CommentAuthorCyman
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2008
     (438.135)
    Don't jinx it!
    • CommentAuthorMacgyver
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2008
     (438.136)
    Yeah, the UK system is a lot simpler. They call an election, they campaign, we vote, the guy or girl is in. No year of working out who the person is going to be, then another year of campaign for which of the two bad choices you want to take, then 2 months where the guy who's going out is still in and knows which side is taking over.

    Of course, we get fun things like Tony Blair deciding that Gordon Brown can take over and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2008 edited
     (438.137)
    The Nevada caucuses are tomorrow, so if anyone here lives in that state, they should think about heading out to their designated caucusing area. If you've never caucused before or need a ride, contact the campaign of the candidate who you plan on endorsing. They'll make sure to get you where you need to go and that you know what to do.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJoe Paoli
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008
     (438.138)
    @OctEgon
    I seriously cannot wait to get back to having mediocrity in the White House. It's going to be so awesome, guys!
    Me neither. Mediocrity'll be a huge improvement.
  4.  (438.139)
    The thing that, for me, determined that Hillary is evil was the Travelgate affair.

    To review: she wanted to give several of her political friends government jobs, but didn't have enough vacant positions. So she arranged for the FBI to investigate a dozen civil servants in the White House Travel Office on highly specious charges, pressuring them to resign. The charges turned out to be bogus, but the old crew was out, Hillary's friends were in, and nobody could pin anything illegal on her, so after weathering a period of embarrassment the whole thing blew over and was mostly forgotten.

    Or is the claim now that this whole sordid story was something made up by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (R)?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJess
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2008 edited
     (438.140)
    I'm pretty sure this blew over exactly because they couldn't find sufficient evidence of illegal activities. It's not like the situation wasn't investigated.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.