US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bush Sr. campaigned on "no new taxes" and then he decided to raise them in a bipartisan effort to balance the budget. Then during the campaign vs. Clinton democrats said "he said no new taxes, he lied." The democracts continued overspending in congress. :down: Knife in the back. McCain better watch out. Everybody is partisan in the end.
Your history is being seen through partisan glasses my friend... and none of which has anything to do with the situation we are in today.

The fuzzy math has to do with democrats focussing on the cost of the war and not health care and education entitlements that costed more. Boondoggle spending needs to be looked at first before the war. The war is a necessity. This goes along with my point that if America is barely keeping the bullies at bay cutting and running in Iraq and Afghanistan because it costs too much then western democracies are in a jam. Dictators can make actions with confidence that the U.S. will do little to stop them.

Thanks for addressing my point. :| You remind me of politicians, speak in a bunch of rhetoric and never actually address the issue.
 
Vincent, do you really want to discuss US military now? I´m pretty sure our fellow sportsmen ready for the Navy Cross would love to, but my radar says this thread title is election.. and we´re too used to get long winded 2 paged derailing replies on that topic..

No, actually I'm trying to write an assignment about environmental politics of the 1960s/70s (Clean Water and Air Act) and therefore tried to cut it as short as possible.
And yes, I don't want to further derail the thread. :)
 
Yes there are enemies, but when did peace talks become a bad word? The conservative superhero Reagan knew when to use them, but now all of a sudden all conservatives have short term memory(must be caused by the Kool-Aid) and sabre rattling is the only way...


"Conservative Superhero"????????????????????
You couldn't have been around in the early 80's.
In his first term he was KING SABRE RATTLER!!!
Many people from all political leanings thought he was going to start World War Three. Especially in his first term, Pre- Gorbechev.
 
I'm looking at the U.S. as the only one with the chance. Yes Americans are usually not the best at ground forces (though they are improving as they gain experience) but my point is that cutting military for budget purposes weakens the west in its deterrance of bullies around the world. The U.S. doesn't have that option. If your comment is correct then the U.S. is already in a weak position. I wish Europe was on side but they rely heavily on Russian oil (hence Russia's dislike of U.S. trying to have Georgia subvert their economic stranglehold). Sarkozy at least is supportive.

I wouldn't argue with you for the need of a higher military budget of the US given its unique position in the world.
However, when you plan to increase that budget even further in order to fight two wars at a time you shouldn't at the same time cut back income on taxes drastically. And I think that was the point BVS was trying to make, too, though I could be wrong.
Don't increase the budged excessively on the one hand and cut back your main source of income on the other. It's almost like a family where the breadwinner is dropping out of work, yet they buy an expensive new home which they have to pay of over decades with a too small income by the other partner.
 
"Conservative Superhero"????????????????????
You couldn't have been around in the early 80's.
You don't think conservatives idolize him? WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

see what I did there?


In his first term he was KING SABRE RATTLER!!!
Many people from all political leanings thought he was going to start World War Three. Especially in his first term, Pre- Gorbechev.

Yes he was dangerous that wasn't my point, the point was he finally came around and embraced negotiations, and that's something conservatives have forgotten.
 
you are correct that it is Republicans, including McCain, who are to be faulted for the current crisis.

The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in the Senate by a margin of 90-8 almost a decade ago. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer...they all voted for the repeal.

Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law, the final nail in the coffin of Glass-Steagall.

Barack Obama has the second highest amount of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac in the last decade, topped only by Chris Dodd. Disgraced former Fannie chairman Jim Johnson was also booted off Obama's VP exploratory committee. Conflict of interest for Obama perhaps?

Many people also consider that the Greenspan Fed may have kept interest rates too low for too long as the economy rebounded from 9/11. Monetary policy plays a big role in the credit bubble as well.


The above is not to indict Democrats, hardly that, because Republicans have always been for de-regulation up to this point, and the Bush Adminstration has been hands off on policing mortgages. But it really is baloney to blame a single political party when everyone's hand has been in the cookie jar. Not to mention a complete lack of "nuance".
 
I would agree, neo-liberalism was a false prophet that was believed in for much too long by both sides of the aisle.
 
Your history is being seen through partisan glasses my friend... and none of which has anything to do with the situation we are in today.



Thanks for addressing my point. :| You remind me of politicians, speak in a bunch of rhetoric and never actually address the issue.

My writing isn't rhetoric, and calling it "rhetoric" isn't an argument.
Stabbbing Bush in the back after pretending to agree with him on balancing the budget is a track record that does apply to today.

The only time I saw less partisanship was when the republicans sought to reform welfare and cut spending. Bill Clinton didn't get in the way with his line item veto. Most of the time there has been partisanship, and I think that will always be the case because Democrats and Republicans cannot compromise on their core beliefs.

This campaign is partisan. Hillary Clinton complimenting McCain during the primaries and denouncing him during the DNC is a perfect example. Hillary Clinton boycotting the U.N. demonstration regarding Iran because Sarah Palin is there is partisanship. Let's face it. That's the way it's going to be most of the time.

McCain and Palin are attacking Obama on his ideas. There's no way you can avoid having to debate and try to prove you are right to the public. The question is whether Conservatives are just going to compromise on their side just because they want to seem "moderate", or are the Democrats going to compromise for the same reason.

Partisanship is only bad if people side with a point of view they know is wrong simply because the rest of the party believes it. Being partisan when you are staying true to your core beliefs is completely appropriate. What's wrong with sticking to your core beliefs?

If you go across the isle too often you will get back stabbed. It's just a matter of time. People are too scared of saying what they believe and too lazy to convince people.

Washington lobbyists for special interest groups that want a foothold on taxpayer dollars are worried and they should be.
 
Sorry, but your definitely not one of the least popular Presidents ever when you get re-elected with over 50% of the popular vote. W got 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004.

There are only TWO democratic Presidents that have ever been re-elected with 50% or more of the popular vote, Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt. Without those two, the Democrats don't have anyone as popular and successful as W was in November 2004.

Yes, if you adjust for population, Johnson is ahead of W, but not by much and Johnson was not re-elected like W.


STING, why on God's earth are you trying to defend George W. Bush as a "popular" President???? :huh: What point are you trying to make? His re-election numbers from 4 years ago mean absolutely nothing in terms of popularity. Are you factoring in the number of people who voted for him simply because they didn't like Kerry? Are you factoring in the number of people who, like an old professor of mine, believed that "you don't change horses in the middle of the race," even if that horse is leading you off the track?

Gimme a break.

Bush could've won 100% of the vote 4 years ago.

The guy's fucking approval rating is 30%.

Give it a fucking rest.
 
Are you factoring in the number of people who, like an old professor of mine, believed that "you don't change horses in the middle of the race," even if that horse is leading you off the track?

"Vote Bush. Why change horseman mid-apocalypse?"
 
Most of the time there has been partisanship, and I think that will always be the case because Democrats and Republicans cannot compromise on their core beliefs.

What in your view are the core beliefs of the Republican party in 2008?
 
STING, why on God's earth are you trying to defend George W. Bush as a "popular" President???? :huh: What point are you trying to make? His re-election numbers from 4 years ago mean absolutely nothing in terms of popularity. Are you factoring in the number of people who voted for him simply because they didn't like Kerry? Are you factoring in the number of people who, like an old professor of mine, believed that "you don't change horses in the middle of the race," even if that horse is leading you off the track?

Gimme a break.

Bush could've won 100% of the vote 4 years ago.

The guy's fucking approval rating is 30%.

Give it a fucking rest.

That "old professor" sounds like a quack.
 
He's Albertan. That pretty much explains everything.

Calling someone Albertan as a slur is pretty typical of the left. They are bankrupt for ideas. All they have is stereotypes and identity politics. The left and the right have actual technical differences in politics and economics that can be argued without regional labels. We have liberals in Alberta as well.
 
Not funding wars to balance the budget is basically suicide since the U.S. is the only one that has a chance of checking Russia, Iran, N. Korea, & China.

Ah yes, manichaeist thinking - a classic symptom of the neo-'conservative' meme.

Sadly, there is no known cure for this affliction. :sad:
 
That "old professor" sounds like a quack.


:lol: Yeah, he spent a little too much time looking through an electron microscope. ;) He's a WWII vet who took the Reagan bait that post-60s US could still somehow be like 1940s America.
 
Calling someone Albertan as a slur is pretty typical of the left. They are bankrupt for ideas. All they have is stereotypes and identity politics. The left and the right have actual technical differences in politics and economics that can be argued without regional labels. We have liberals in Alberta as well.

A slur? Wow. I was stating what you have in your location, as a way of explaining your hardcore right wing stance. That's a slur?

The rest? That's rich, coming from someone who stated unequivocally that Canadians are envious of the US.
 
Today's FYM is a sad, sad representation of the conservative viewpoint. It's a shame, because there ARE reasonable conservatives out there. Just none here.
 
Today's FYM is a sad, sad representation of the conservative viewpoint. It's a shame, because there ARE reasonable conservatives out there. Just none here.

I think I prefer the less than "reasonable" ones. They are more exciting. They have something which the "reasonable" ones lost a long time ago...Spunk. Despite disagreeing with most of their politics I have to admire that they stick to their guns - no pun intended.
 
I think I prefer the less than "reasonable" ones. They are more exciting. They have something which the "reasonable" ones lost a long time ago...Spunk. Despite disagreeing with most of their politics I have to admire that they stick to their guns - no pun intended.
No doubt.
Yes. We all want to be like George W. Bush and believe the same thing on Wednesday we believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday.
 
What in your view are the core beliefs of the Republican party in 2008?

Well it's been divided between Nixon wing and Goldwater wing and it hasn't changed. The Nixon wing would include the Bushes and "compassionate conservatism" (sympathy for liberals), and the Goldwater wing would be supply side (influenced by Hayek). Nixon would be Keynesian and pro more intervention in the economy. Goldwater would be more for libertarian economics. Of course if presidents could comeback as ghosts maybe they would change their minds on things. I know that Keynes believed that if he was wrong about unemployment and inflation (which he was during the '70's stagflation) he would go back on his theory. He died before he could see that.

Roughly I would say McCain is aligned to Nixon, and Palin to Goldwater. Both on the ticket seem to be willing to compromise on their differences and push their similarities. They use the classic conservative arguments of Burke which looked at how a democracy can fall apart if government actions aren't for all citizens but for interest groups only. Sometimes voter apathy can occur from this problem. So most conservatives would agree with fighting special interest groups. I don't think they would compromise on that.

More drilling and energy independence is very much what Reagan and Goldwater would want. Conservatives like that. Don't rely on dictators for your energy if you can.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would definately be a conservative idea. Not just because of abortion but because they don't want the judiciary to legislate from the bench. Let abortion be dealt with by the executive. I believe that McCain is okay with abortion if there is rape, incest, or the mother will die from giving birth. Palin I've heard people say she's against that too and other say she isn't. Go figure. I think most conservatives would be happy with that minimum standard. A few fringe conservatives would want to go all the way but probably can't convince the rest of the republicans on that strict view of abortion. I don't think they will succeed in reversing that because people are becoming more secular over the generations. Religious people can't believe in abortion because they would then have to concede that the mother Mary would have to have the right to abort Jesus. They just can't reconcile that. Abortion is very popular in my country because of its secularness. Conservatives just abandoned it for the current election in Canada.

McCain is more liberal on immigration than many conservatives but it's very popular with the overall public.

In economics cutting spending and removing health insurance barriers between states are conservative and cutting useless spending will be obvious. Most conservatives are not completely libertarian so they will believe in social programs for the needy but they would be focussed on catastrophic situations that people couldn't possibly prevent (acts of god, baby is born with defects, helping mentally ill people, and keeping poor people from starving. Though if they keep adding to the list they are aware that the taxpayer can only take so much before they decide to stop working due to obvious large tax burdens.

The military being supported and an aggressive stance versus the enemies of the U.S. will be a conservative core belief. Endless diplomacy they believe sends a placation signal to bullies.

The military and economic areas are the ones they won't compromise on. The U.S.'s debt burden is in a crisis and I think they have no choice but to fight all the way on it. The U.S. failing to pay their minimum debt payments would be a disaster of Banana Republic proportions. They also don't want to have an attack on U.S. soil while they are in power so they will not cut military.

One thing that is missing (that should be a pushed as a conservative core belief) is the need for savings. We may have in Canada (if the Conservatives win) a savings account where you can put after tax money in and earn investment income tax free. You can invest 5,000 per year and you can take the money out whenever and put back the full amount (5,000 x # of years) back in without any tax penalties. Something like this needs to be pushed so there is an incentive for Americans to save. The entire point of Capitalism is to have an ownership society so people can't be manipulated by social programs and the dependency it creates. Unfortunately it's up to the people to adjust their lifestyles. There's no magic wand. If Americans want to be super consumers and not capitalists they will be weak.

The aging baby boomers will stretch social security leading to cuts in benefits. New Zealand went through that shake up in the '90s. Americans need to save like the Chinese (25% of your paycheck to invest and more if you can). I think the last time Americans saved 20% was in the 80's when there was higher interest rates. After the fall of the berlin wall it was "party time!" all the way until now.

Depending on how the Congress is made up there will be lots of fights. Anybody trying to shake up Washington and the entitlements in there will get a stiff fight a la Mr. Smith goes to Washington. It's like taking drugs away from an addict. I'm sure if they succeed there will be withdrawal symptoms.:ohmy:
 
Today's FYM is a sad, sad representation of the conservative viewpoint. It's a shame, because there ARE reasonable conservatives out there. Just none here.
I don't think the rapid-fire, horse-race focused, bickery swipe-counterswipe dynamic that's characterized most of these threads since primary season shows much of anyone's reasonableness or general character as a debater in a particularly flattering light, frankly. Myself included.

Time to move to the next thread in the series, I'm closing this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom