The FYM Democratic Primary

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Which Democratic Presidential candidate are you voting for?

  • U.S. Sen. Joseph R. "Joe" Biden, Jr. (D-DE)

    Votes: 6 5.8%
  • U.S. Sen. Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY)

    Votes: 27 26.0%
  • U.S. Sen. Christopher J. "Chris" Dodd (D-CT)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 'VP 04 nominee / ex-U.S. Sen. John R. Edwards (D-NC)

    Votes: 9 8.7%
  • ex-U.S. Sen. Maurice "Mike" Gravel (D-AK)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • '04 candidate / U.S. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)

    Votes: 22 21.2%
  • U.S. Sen. Barack H. Obama (D-IL)

    Votes: 33 31.7%
  • Gov. William B. "Bill" Richardson (D-NM)

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Other - Write In

    Votes: 5 4.8%

  • Total voters
    104
  • Poll closed .
anitram said:


This is the problem I have with Kucinich - he takes all the "easy" positions but so often they are completely divorced from reality. This one is a great example. Even universities in Europe, particularly the top schools in the UK, which were historically essentially free can no longer keep up. Research, particularly biomedical, is very expensive, and grants are scarce and not enough to keep the institutes afloat. The best researchers don't want to work in facilities that do not meet their needs. Whether we like it or not, tuition is a major (sometimes the major) source of revenue for a school. That is not to say that charging $40K per year is justifiable. But free college is unreasonable for many reasons, not the least of which is that it will further dilute an already dilute BA. So that's why I wouldn't vote for Kucinich - he makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but what difference does it make if his ideas are not practicable?

i didn't think grants were all that scarce. most of my current full-time students have grants (the others have assistantships) and most of my friends in the sciences and engineering depts were funded with grants too. and omg have you seen alumni funds? LOADED with goodies.

i don't see free college education for all happening overnight, but i think that all it takes is a reallocation of funds. if this admin found it possible to pour billions of dollars into this war, i'm sure it is possible to invest more in research and education.
 
I've been super busy, too busy for FYM, but I just voted for Clinton. I only voted because U2dem said there'd be another poll in 2 months and I am in no way certain about my vote.
 
anitram said:
This is the problem I have with Kucinich - he takes all the "easy" positions but so often they are completely divorced from reality. This one is a great example. Even universities in Europe, particularly the top schools in the UK, which were historically essentially free can no longer keep up. Research, particularly biomedical, is very expensive, and grants are scarce and not enough to keep the institutes afloat. The best researchers don't want to work in facilities that do not meet their needs. Whether we like it or not, tuition is a major (sometimes the major) source of revenue for a school. That is not to say that charging $40K per year is justifiable. But free college is unreasonable for many reasons, not the least of which is that it will further dilute an already dilute BA. So that's why I wouldn't vote for Kucinich - he makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but what difference does it make if his ideas are not practicable?

A wonderful summary of roughly how I feel about him. He kind of reminds me of the Canadian NDP--a party that many Canadians love as their social conscience, but are loathe to see in charge.
 
unico said:


i didn't think grants were all that scarce. most of my current full-time students have grants (the others have assistantships) and most of my friends in the sciences and engineering depts were funded with grants too. and omg have you seen alumni funds? LOADED with goodies.

I'm talking about research grants, not graduate students grants. Those are small potatoes, 20ish thousand a year or so - who cares? I'm referring to grants to laboratories to do their work. The flow cytometer, which is just one piece of equipment out of the hundreds we had, cost $500,000. Do you honestly believe that it is easy to get grants to set up R&D operations? Because I'll have to tell you, nothing is farther from the truth. In fact, most of the research labs in universities these days are being largely funded by the private sector, which outsources much of their preliminary stage research to labs. We used to do this all the time - get $400K from some big pharma company to do screening tests for them. They are done cheaply when you have grad students and underpaid technicians working on them. Then they take over the work once you've optimized the conditions. Nobody really wants to do this type of work and nobody really enjoys it but labs can't stay afloat without prostituting themselves for extra cash this way.

Kucinich is really out to pasture on this issue if you ask me. It's a feel good soundbyte - free school for all! but it isn't practicable, it isn't executable, and it will never, EVER happen. So what's the point of taking a position like this other than to get votes by seeming to be ultra-populist? Like melon says, it's equivalent to our NDP here in Canada. Pretty ideas that are unworkable. In some ways, I find it almost dishonest.
 
Kucinich.

In the general elections, I'd support anyone but Hillary or Gravel. I'd defect off to the Greens if it was one of them.
 
My views are actually closest to the views Kucinich holds, so I'm slightly tempted to vote for him. However, on the other hand, every time I hear the dude speak I get the impression that he's FUCKING CRAZY.

That's why my vote's for Obama at this point. Solid views along with a solid, somewhat honest, non-crazy personality.

PLUS HE'S HALF BLACK!!1 :drool:
 
AngelofHarlem01 said:
Ideally, I'd love an Obama/Biden ticket. :up:

I'm totally with you on this one. That's probably my dream ticket as of now. :up:

Either that or Obama/Dodd. Chris Dodd really impressed me at the last Democratic debate. Solid guy, though he doesn't have the charisma or foreign policy experience that Biden does.
 
Please, let's all just vote for Dennis in the primary because he is so smart and eloquent and righteous and all that with a sense of humor (see him on Colbert!).

Then, when Hillarobama Baracklinton goes to the general election, s/he will know that a lot of us are more progressive and peaceful than her centrist advisors tell her to be.
 
Dennis has been so great in the debates, but I was impressed also with Richardson tonight.

And I hate Hillary just a little bit less because she can work it. She is smart and charismatic even if she is a femme version of Bush on the war issue.
 
2861U2 said:
Really? You liked "Let's give peace a chance" and "human rights are more important that national security"?

Rather that then the Republican alternative.

I'd say human rights are equal to national security, wouldn't you?
 
Wow, give peace a chance is a wrong thought? Human rights-pshaw, who cares about those. Last I checked Jesus was pro war and didn't give a crap about human rights-then I turned in my Christian identity card in exchange for a national security card.
 
joyfulgirl said:
Did anybody get Hillary's asbestos joke at the beginning?

Yes.

And that was the weakest of any debate I've ever witnessed in all my years.

Candy as*ses.

dbs
 
Let it go...no one has an obligation to respond to anyone else, and their reasons for not doing so could be anything from they don't have an answer to they've got you on ignore to they're turned off by your tone. Such is life.

Plus it's rude to talk down other posters in the third person.
 
yolland said:
Let it go...no one has an obligation to respond to anyone else, and their reasons for not doing so could be anything from they don't have an answer to they've got you on ignore to they're turned off by your tone. Such is life.

Plus it's rude to talk down other posters in the third person.

I understand and I apologize but don't you find it frustrating when someone misrepresents?

I honestly don't think I'm being any ruder to this individual than he is being to this forum. I think being rude is coming in and spouting off misinformation and not being able to back it up. I also find it very rude when someone claims certain beliefs but most of their posts contradict those beliefs.

Out of respect I'll let it go...

Sorry.
 
As of this moment in time, I'm voting for Clinton.

However, it's not going to hurt my feelings if Obama wins.
and either he or Edwards for VP.

I really would like to see Richardson back in foreign policy in some capacity.

I might vote for Kuchinich if I thought he could win.
But that's not going to happen. Which is all our loss.

Biden deserves to be in there also, but not as President (imo)

It's still early yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom