|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Did his mother have melanoma? He avoids that left-profile shot for a reason. I'd be very worried about who he picks for a running mate. He doesn't have to die to be out of the picture - a serious relapse would be enough to put him fairly out of the picture as President.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
But those are the only areas where McCain is like a Republican. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
well, he supports the Bush tax cuts, err...... now ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Yeah, but it's a meaningless endorsement. While the Democrats control a house of congress, no bill 'extending' the tax 'cuts' will go through. They will expire whether the President is in favor or against, so McCain can talk big but doesn't have to back it up with action. And then he gets to blame the Democrats for a tax 'hike'.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
McCain favors a balanced budget. He doesn't buy into the logic that being a fiscal conservative means cutting taxes and hoping for the best. The thing that bothers me about Obama and Clinton is that they favor spending more money than repealing the Bush tax cuts will cover.
Cutting taxes stimulates economic growth. We know this. Balancing the budget stimulates economic growth. Government spending also stimulates economic growth. Finding the balance is the key. Huckabee strikes me as being the person who most realizes this. McCain may spend a great deal more on military spending. As a matter of fact, if Huckabee had his same resume but some other prior profession, I'm convinced he would win the nomination and perhaps the election.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Looking at how things stand at the moment, is the battle between Clinton and Obama as close as it appears? Does Obama stand a chance of winning the nomination from the place he's in at present or are things likely now to go all Clinton's way? Are any Americans out there surprised at the number of delegates Obama has secured?
It looks like McCain is sailing off into the sunset. Can anyone challenge him? [I think he's an odd bloke, but I don't quite know why!]
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is there where one makes jokes about West Virginians voting based on identifying with a name (Huckabee).
I can't believe they are still holding out for that wack job.
Some tactical voting by McCain supporters, maybe? Just a guess ...
Definitely tactical voting by McCain supporters, trying to knock Romney out of the race.
Huh? Why not just vote for McCain?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
It really is as close as it looks, for a couple of reasons. Obama appears to be very close behind Clinton in the delegate count (though we'll know for sure once they've finished apportioning the delegates based on yesterday's voting). Obama won some states where he was behind in the polls -- Minnesota, and Missouri, which is a bellwether state, and most notably to my mind Connecticut, which is right next door to New York and part of that media market and which was supposed to be Clinton territory. Obama is flush with cash, having taken in a record $32 million in January, while Clinton is not. The primaries to be held in the next few weeks are good ones for Obama: Feb 12 has Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC voting, then Wisconsin and Hawaii on Feb 19. The next big-delegate states to vote will be Ohio and Texas on March 4, and while Clinton is far better known in these states, Obama has the big mo going right now and has a month -- which is an eternity in primary politics -- to campaign there and plenty of money to spend.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Is there where one makes jokes about West Virginians voting based on identifying with a name (Huckabee).
I can't believe they are still holding out for that wack job.
Some tactical voting by McCain supporters, maybe? Just a guess ...
Definitely tactical voting by McCain supporters, trying to knock Romney out of the race.
Huh? Why not just vote for McCain?
It was a caucus, and McCain wasn't viable in the first round, so his voters had to go somewhere else in the second round.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Did his mother have melanoma? He avoids that left-profile shot for a reason. I'd be very worried about who he picks for a running mate. He doesn't have to die to be out of the picture - a serious relapse would be enough to put him fairly out of the picture as President.
From a New York Times article: quote:
The (left) temple melanoma was at least 2.2 millimeters deep as measured in a biopsy that was performed at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center on Aug. 4. Such depth is a critical factor in determining a melanoma patient's prognosis. Mr. McCain's temple melanoma would be classified as type 2 for which textbooks cite 10-year survival figures of about 60 percent to 70 percent.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
A commentator on CBS yesterday evening said that Republicans are unhappy with the election results.
This is very peculiar. What have we just had, massive election fraud? I thought that millions of Republican voters had made their choices and set into motion the procedures that Republicans themselves had established to select delegates accordingly. This turns out to look like an overwhelming majority for John McCain. You'd think, then, that there would be an unusual sense of unity in the party. How is it that they so soon regret the levers they've just pulled?
Maybe those in charge need to rethink their own winner-take-all procedures for the future. Or is it that a few loudmouth bitches like Ann Coulter and overweight drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh claim a right to serve as gatekeepers, determining who the real Republicans are? If I were a Republican, I would object that my priorities in a candidate are just as valid as Ann Coulter's. If they happen to affront some precious tenet of the platform, or whatever, and I'm in the majority, then why shouldn't the platform adapt to us rather than vice versa?
Perhaps this little scene is part and parcel of why I am not a Republican.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It was a caucus, and McCain wasn't viable in the first round, so his voters had to go somewhere else in the second round.
Oh! Thanks. And Maine is a caucus state too, so you'd think I'd have spotted that.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
[I think he's an odd bloke, but I don't quite know why!]
I think that if I met McCain personally, I would like him, because I like people who do too much thinking for themselves to fit any mold perfectly, and I also like people who are steadfast and unashamed about that.
This being said, we can't overlook the fact that McCain toes the party line at least 90% of the time. It is an indicator of the brittleness of the ideologues and the mindless complaisance they expect from their followers, that they make more of McCain's independent 10% than of the loyal 90%. He would continue to appoint repressive judges with whom our children might have to live until they're middle-aged. As far as the war is concerned, he has no major differences with Bush. He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. All in all, if you wish for a third term for Bush, McCain is an excellent stand-in.
Then there are his liabilities such as age (at inaugration, he would be even older than Reagan was) and repeated hints that he might have a screw loose. I'd trust him more if I heard from him a calm and rational explanation of his past opposition to efforts to investigate and free MIAs & POWs from the Vietnam-War period. Given his own experience, you'd think that he would be especially in favor of these proposals, but in fact he has a vehement aversion to them. It almost makes one wonder if he's hiding something.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Looking at how things stand at the moment, is the battle between Clinton and Obama as close as it appears? Does Obama stand a chance of winning the nomination from the place he's in at present or are things likely now to go all Clinton's way? Are any Americans out there surprised at the number of delegates Obama has secured?
I think he stands a decent chance. Two weeks ago he was down 20 points in national polls, and now he appears to be ahead by a nose. The more people see him the more they like him; the more people see of Hillary, the more they dislike her.
Five Reasons Hillary Should be Worried
[ 06. February 2008, 20:18: Message edited by: Living in Gin ]
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Cutting taxes stimulates economic growth. We know this. Balancing the budget stimulates economic growth. Government spending also stimulates economic growth.
I'm glad to hear, at least, that cutting taxes stimulates growth no matter who gets the tax cuts and what one does with them.
The rationale for the "Bush tax cuts" is trickle-down: cut taxes for the rich so that they can invest the extra money, and eventually the poor will also benefit. You see, what the economy needs is more investment. But the rationale for the recent emergency rebate is, this is money that consumers can take to the mall and buy stuff with. In fact, we will remind them of their civic duty to do exactly that, free-market principles be damned. You see, what the economy needs is more retail sales.
But it so happens that I have all the stuff I need right now, so I'm going to pretend that my couple hundred bucks of rebate money is Permanent Bush Tax Cut money: invest it in a savings account, municipal bonds, mutual funds. You see, what my economy needs is savings for retirement. I'm sure it will be frittered away soon enough.
But this is probably very uppity behavior. Not knowing one's proper place in society is terribly unpatriotic, isn't it?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
In the past year, 21 Republican Senators have voted the party line less frequently than did McCain.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Cutting taxes stimulates economic growth. We know this. Balancing the budget stimulates economic growth. Government spending also stimulates economic growth.
I'm glad to hear, at least, that cutting taxes stimulates growth no matter who gets the tax cuts and what one does with them.
The rationale for the "Bush tax cuts" is trickle-down: cut taxes for the rich so that they can invest the extra money, and eventually the poor will also benefit. You see, what the economy needs is more investment. But the rationale for the recent emergency rebate is, this is money that consumers can take to the mall and buy stuff with. In fact, we will remind them of their civic duty to do exactly that, free-market principles be damned. You see, what the economy needs is more retail sales.
But it so happens that I have all the stuff I need right now, so I'm going to pretend that my couple hundred bucks of rebate money is Permanent Bush Tax Cut money: invest it in a savings account, municipal bonds, mutual funds. You see, what my economy needs is savings for retirement. I'm sure it will be frittered away soon enough.
But this is probably very uppity behavior. Not knowing one's proper place in society is terribly unpatriotic, isn't it?
The vast majority of the income tax is paid by upper income folks, so a cut in taxes is naturally going to go to them, too. We haven't been declared rich by folks who keep up with what that means, but we also saw a tax decrease.
As for whatever additional rebate we receive, we will do what I think they are secretly wanting to do - pay off some bank debt. It's better politics than the govt just sending the money straight to the banks.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
The most sensible and fair income tax rebate/reform-- not to mention simplicity itself-- would be to raise the personal exemption to at least $15000, and then to ensure that this figure rose with the cost of living. This is no innovation: it would restore the place of the personal exemption in the picture to what it was some decades ago, ever since which the personal exemption has withered on the vine. Then we could dispense with any number of child-care credits, alternative minimums, and other complexities designed (so we're told) to relieve working-American families. Provided this were done and maintained, I might even be able to give the flat-taxers the time of day. But I haven't heard of such a basic on any candidate's drawing board. Beats me why not.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Alogon,
It seems Huckabee's plan (I know) might come the closest to what you are looking for. It seems citizens are given a prebate periodically based upon what the sales tax would be on some amount, maybe 40k a year, or so.
The strangest thing I've seen regarding taxes is the special treatment large vehicles (>6,000 lbs) receive, such as SUVs. According to the tax code, SUVs and stretch limos are not "luxury" vehicles as long as they weigh over three tons. At one of my tax seminars a fews years back we were given information about how some manufacturers were actually welding in additional steel into the vehicles to reach the 6,000 pounds.
You used the word "sensible". In my first tax class in college the prof started out by telling us to not try to look for "sensible" when it comes to taxes or it will drive us nuts.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Going back a few posts, to a discussion of Obama's changing fortunes, I offer "The Shock of the Red States" from the New York Times.
(Parenthetically, I am somewhat amused that the term "red states" refers to the more conservative, and therefore presumably anti-Communist, parts of the US. But who remembers the Cold War?)
this quote : quote:
This kicked off the second biggest political rally in Idaho history. And the first? That was when President Dwight Eisenhower came to visit. Last week his granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, made a small bit of family history on her own. She said that if Obama is the nominee, “this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected.”
is interesting.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Cutting taxes stimulates economic growth. We know this. Balancing the budget stimulates economic growth. Government spending also stimulates economic growth.
I'm glad to hear, at least, that cutting taxes stimulates growth no matter who gets the tax cuts and what one does with them.
The rationale for the "Bush tax cuts" is trickle-down: cut taxes for the rich so that they can invest the extra money, and eventually the poor will also benefit. You see, what the economy needs is more investment. But the rationale for the recent emergency rebate is, this is money that consumers can take to the mall and buy stuff with. In fact, we will remind them of their civic duty to do exactly that, free-market principles be damned. You see, what the economy needs is more retail sales.
But it so happens that I have all the stuff I need right now, so I'm going to pretend that my couple hundred bucks of rebate money is Permanent Bush Tax Cut money: invest it in a savings account, municipal bonds, mutual funds. You see, what my economy needs is savings for retirement. I'm sure it will be frittered away soon enough.
But this is probably very uppity behavior. Not knowing one's proper place in society is terribly unpatriotic, isn't it?
The vast majority of the income tax is paid by upper income folks, so a cut in taxes is naturally going to go to them, too. We haven't been declared rich by folks who keep up with what that means, but we also saw a tax decrease.
As for whatever additional rebate we receive, we will do what I think they are secretly wanting to do - pay off some bank debt. It's better politics than the govt just sending the money straight to the banks.
Most tax is paid by people on low to middle income. There are far more of them than there are upper income folks who pay a whole lot less in taxes on purchases, and in this country anyway, far lower National Insurance contributions*. It's true that the rich pay income tax at a higher rate, but is that manifestly unfair as much of their income comes from something other than their own labour?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Income tax is usually "progressive": that is, it is not charged on the lowest-income people (who presumably have little enough to exist on) and is then charged at progressively higher rates on the marginal incomes, precisely for the reasons you state: the rich have more margin over their basic needs.
As you might expect, therefore the rich complain the most, because, in most cases, they didn't get rich by considering the needs of the greater community, and they object to sharing their wealth, even if they are Christian and should therefore be socialist (according to the Book of Acts).
Sales taxes are an unfair burden on the poor, because the extra charge on their purchases clearly affects their ability to buy what they need. If you want money to circulate faster, you reduce sales taxes before you play games with income tax. The poor will spend any money they get, while the rich will find ways to hide their income and will not spend it immediately.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most tax is paid by people on low to middle income.
Not the income tax in this country (USA).
quote:
It's true that the rich pay income tax at a higher rate, but is that manifestly unfair as much of their income comes from something other than their own labour?
I don't know because it seems what ever is "manifestly unfair" is subjective. If someone decides to not do something because of the tax they would have to pay, that is their response to what they consider unfair, it seems.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most tax is paid by people on low to middle income.
Not the income tax in this country (USA).
Have you a source for that? I'd be genuinely interested. We might end up disagreeing on what counts as "upper income" though!
quote:
quote:
It's true that the rich pay income tax at a higher rate, but is that manifestly unfair as much of their income comes from something other than their own labour?
I don't know because it seems what ever is "manifestly unfair" is subjective. If someone decides to not do something because of the tax they would have to pay, that is their response to what they consider unfair, it seems.
OK, "manifestly" is a bit pretentious but while gaining through hard work is fine, gaining through other people's hard work takes a bit of moral justification. I suppose what you do with it can justify it, and from what I have seen and read well-heeled Americans come out of this rather better than the better off over here.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
in most cases, they didn't get rich by considering the needs of the greater community, and they object to sharing their wealth, even if they are Christian and should therefore be socialist (according to the Book of Acts).
Everyone I've met or have heard of who got rich got that way by considering the needs of the community, their customers. I could see what you're saying if you're talking about, say, sports stars, or something. But then, people freely opt to pay them.
The Christians in the book of Acts were acting voluntarily. Peter said so to Ananias and Sapphira. It seems a big stretch to read about a voluntary community and then try to make it obligatory through government.
quote:
Sales taxes are an unfair burden on the poor, because the extra charge on their purchases clearly affects their ability to buy what they need. If you want money to circulate faster, you reduce sales taxes before you play games with income tax. The poor will spend any money they get, while the rich will find ways to hide their income and will not spend it immediately.
It sure looks that way in this state regarding the sales tax. There are sales tax free weekends every year before the school year starts on various items someone might need for school. The stores are packed.
One of the problems with the Huckabee plan is the boom-bust it would cause as folks rushed to stock up before the sales tax kicked in.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Most tax is paid by people on low to middle income.
Not the income tax in this country (USA).
Have you a source for that? I'd be genuinely interested. We might end up disagreeing on what counts as "upper income" though!
Yes, Who Pays Income Taxes. I understand if some question the link, but the numbers come from the IRS.
"Upper income" means the guy who makes ten bucks a year more than you.
[ 07. February 2008, 12:57: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
"Upper income" means the guy who makes ten bucks a year more than you.
LOL! Ain't that the truth!
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
(Parenthetically, I am somewhat amused that the term "red states" refers to the more conservative, and therefore presumably anti-Communist, parts of the US. But who remembers the Cold War?)
This is my ultimate pet peeve so far in this election cycle (and it lingers over from prior ones.) Republicans should be Tory Blue. The Democrats should be socialist red! I just know the networks did this on purpose to annoy the Republicans.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
This is my ultimate pet peeve so far in this election cycle (and it lingers over from prior ones.) Republicans should be Tory Blue. The Democrats should be socialist red! I just know the networks did this on purpose to annoy the Republicans. [/QB]
It used to be that way, didn't it? I guess the limousine liberals who made the decision just decided to go by blood colors.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Red is Nancy Reagan's favorite color. It's all her fault. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The blue/Democrat and red/Republican thing comes from the 2000 election, the first time all the major networks happened to choose the same color scheme for their election-coverage graphics -- it got stuck that way when determining the election results dragged out for weeks and they ended up talking in terms of red vs. blue for so long.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
Breaking news: Romney is out.
Interesting stuff.... I wonder if the right-wingers will now rally around Huckabee?
Some wags have speculated that the GOP (thanks in large part to Bush) is headed for a very ugly divorce between the evangelical right wing and the establishment moderates, and this divorce could potentially split the GOP in half and lead to the formation of a third party.
Moderates won't touch Huckabee with a barge pole, and right-wingers seem to feel the same way about McCain. Could this be how such a split happens?
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I am like, WTF?
I think that the million dollar question is if Bloomberg gets in. If he does, I think that is where the split might happen. Although I don't think it will be as simple as fundies and moderates because both Bloomberg and McCain are moderates (of sorts). I think that Bloomberg and McCain will split the vote and the Dem will flat out win. Fundies will just get screwed, a very happy development IMO.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
I think the fundies are backed into a corner no matter what, and I don't see any plausible scenario in which they could win this election. Huckabee will either lose to McCain in the primaries, or he'll lose to the Democrat in the general election.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Re: Who Pays Income Taxes That's a weird way of showing the portion of tax revenue.
What's the no-income-tax threshold? Seems a bit strange that half of the population basically pays no tax, on the assumption (I suppose) that they are too poor. Or are many of those 50% dependent children (who don't declare income, so shouldn't show up in the stats at all)?
Could we have a link that isn't trying to prove that the sponsors don't want to pay tax?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
I think the fundies are backed into a corner no matter what, and I don't see any plausible scenario in which they could win this election. Huckabee will either lose to McCain in the primaries, or he'll lose to the Democrat in the general election.
I think that's the point that resonates with the politicos among them. I have already heard conservative pundits on TV talk about withdrawing their support from the Republicans this election so that they can claim to be the power that lost it for the Republicans -- if they can sell that, they may be able to gain greater clout next time. The anlogy has been made to the 1992 election, which led up to the strong emergence of values [sic] voting power in the congressional election that brought us the ascendency values Republicans like Tom DeLay and ultimately GW.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Izzybee
Shipmate
# 10931
|
Posted
Ugh! Somebody calm me down!
I've just got back from a disturbing informal company lunch where Huckabee was lauded as "The only choice a Christian could make" while thinly veiled racism made up the rest of the banter, which everyone else was laughing like crazy at.
I seriously never realised that apparently rational people think like that - these are people who are well educated, successful and apparently adult - and yet "Obama Bin Laden" and "who'd vote for someone of his type?" were the most popular comments over pizza today.
--------------------
Hate filled bitch musings...
Posts: 1336 | From: Baltimore, MD | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The anlogy has been made to the 1992 election, which led up to the strong emergence of values [sic] voting power in the congressional election that brought us the ascendency values Republicans like Tom DeLay and ultimately GW.
Bill Clinton certainly did his share to help that movement along, and I worry that a President Billary would do likewise. 1994 all over again.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
Ugh! Somebody calm me down!
I've just got back from a disturbing informal company lunch where Huckabee was lauded as "The only choice a Christian could make" while thinly veiled racism made up the rest of the banter, which everyone else was laughing like crazy at.
I seriously never realised that apparently rational people think like that - these are people who are well educated, successful and apparently adult - and yet "Obama Bin Laden" and "who'd vote for someone of his type?" were the most popular comments over pizza today.
Yeah, I was shocked this Sunday when our interim minister expressed his revulsion during coffee hour at the race-based campaign of Obama in a way that sounded like something that might have been said during the civil rights movement ("I'm not against Negroes, but why do they have to..." sort of thing.) There may well be a lot more racism left in ordinary folks than I had imagined.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
I wonder if we conservatives could form a viable third party? (Not that we should or that I am advocating such.)
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I had missed this story in the NY Times until Slate mentioned it in an article today. I can just see the mud flying as Republicans tell the truth about the Clintons while Bill lies about McCain in a way that would do Karl Rove proud if Hillary wins the nomination. Heaven forefend!
--Tom Clune
ETA: The Times actually endorsed Ms Clinton!
[ 07. February 2008, 17:39: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I wonder if we conservatives could form a viable third party? (Not that we should or that I am advocating such.)
Probably not...how could conservatives agree on a platform that truly distinguishes them from the Republicans? As much as conservatives have a problem with John McCain, he agrees with most of their issues.
ETA: I think a conservative Christian Democrat party could be viable.
[ 07. February 2008, 17:42: Message edited by: Matins ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by New Yorker:
I wonder if we conservatives could form a viable third party? (Not that we should or that I am advocating such.)
Depends. Locally, you may have a chance in some areas. Nationally? Nah. Just look at what Ralph Nader did.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
Ugh! Somebody calm me down!
I've just got back from a disturbing informal company lunch where Huckabee was lauded as "The only choice a Christian could make" while thinly veiled racism made up the rest of the banter, which everyone else was laughing like crazy at.
I seriously never realised that apparently rational people think like that - these are people who are well educated, successful and apparently adult - and yet "Obama Bin Laden" and "who'd vote for someone of his type?" were the most popular comments over pizza today.
If I were you, I'd tell those people to stop dragging their knuckles on the floor or else they will get rug burns. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Seriously, it is obvious that people are only saying things like that about Obama and his name because they can't find any other way to discredit him. So they resort to schoolyard tactics. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
And an endorsement for a candidate as 'the Christian choice' would actually make me not want to vote for that person. It would be one thing if it were just a pastor or whatever giving their opinion, but Huckabee seems to have dubbed himself 'the Christian choice'. I find that rather arrogant, and I don't appreciate my faith or commitment to my religion called into question because I don't vote for the candidate who knows the right things to say and how to smile on cue. This has happened to me quite a bit, actually.
Oh, and, Mitt Romney is out. Story here.
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
There may well be a lot more racism left in ordinary folks than I had imagined.
While acknowledging it exists still, I have to point out that a black man is a SERIOUS contender for president. There's cause for hope.
Did this statement by Romnut make anyone else want to hurl?:
quote:
"I forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
What a penis.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrSponge2U
Ship’s scrub
# 3076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I wonder if we conservatives could form a viable third party? (Not that we should or that I am advocating such.)
I suspect that Ron Paul may run as an independent candidate for the general election. (Or if not him, some hard-right winger might try it)
If that is true, it will be interesting to see how many hard-right conservatives and fundies will jump to his side in order to avoid supporting McCain. Probably not a lot of people, but maybe enough to swing the election to the Democrats.
[ 07. February 2008, 18:30: Message edited by: MrSponge2U ]
--------------------
sig? what sig?
Posts: 3558 | From: where two big rivers meet | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Did this statement by Romnut make anyone else want to hurl?:
quote:
"I forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
What a penis.
Why should it make me want to hurl? It's true. Obama and Clinton both want to surrender and withdraw from Iraq. McCain and Romney do not.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
Good riddance. While I disagree with McCain and Huckabee on almost every issue, I think they're both half-decent people who each have some shred of principle to stand on, and they each have a good sense of humor.
Romney seems like the mealy-mouthed CEO who lays off half your co-workers before taking a ski trip to Aspen, all with a big smile on his face.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Izzybee
Shipmate
# 10931
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Did this statement by Romnut make anyone else want to hurl?:
quote:
"I forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
What a penis.
Why should it make me want to hurl? It's true. Obama and Clinton both want to surrender and withdraw from Iraq. McCain and Romney do not.
I'm probably being really thick here, but surrender to who (or should that be whom)? We deposed Saddam, found no weapons of mass destruction, and then created a big mess. I'm not sure where surrender comes into it?
[ 07. February 2008, 18:37: Message edited by: Izzybee ]
--------------------
Hate filled bitch musings...
Posts: 1336 | From: Baltimore, MD | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Re: Who Pays Income Taxes That's a weird way of showing the portion of tax revenue.
What's the no-income-tax threshold? Seems a bit strange that half of the population basically pays no tax, on the assumption (I suppose) that they are too poor. Or are many of those 50% dependent children (who don't declare income, so shouldn't show up in the stats at all)?
Could we have a link that isn't trying to prove that the sponsors don't want to pay tax?
With data coming from the IRS and using the AGI number, I suspect it wouldn't include children unless they filed a return.
Looking at this very briefly seems to saying pretty much the same thing.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Did this statement by Romnut make anyone else want to hurl?:
quote:
"I forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
What a penis.
Why should it make me want to hurl? It's true. Obama and Clinton both want to surrender and withdraw from Iraq. McCain and Romney do not.
They might want to fold the tent when they aren't the president who would be blamed, but in an earlier debate none of them could promise to be out by the end of their first term. I haven't been watching the debates, though, so maybe they are singing a different tune to the far left party activists in their efforts to get the nomination.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MrSponge2U:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I wonder if we conservatives could form a viable third party? (Not that we should or that I am advocating such.)
I suspect that Ron Paul may run as an independent candidate for the general election. (Or if not him, some hard-right winger might try it)
If that is true, it will be interesting to see how many hard-right conservatives and fundies will jump to his side in order to avoid supporting McCain. Probably not a lot of people, but maybe enough to swing the election to the Democrats.
The people who would vote for Ron Paul in the general election could vote for Ron Paul in primary election and haven't. I heard speculation on MSNBC that if Obama wins conservatives may rally around a third party candidate. The problem is finding a viable candidate to rally behind. Thompson flopped. Gingrich and Jeb Bush won't run as a third party candidates. George Allen is toast. Santorum might be a possibility. But...how do they fund the campaign? They need a viable, conservative multi-millionaire. No name comes to mind. There are fringe hard right candidates in ever election that never prevent the Republican from winning. Buchanan had the best chance in 2000 and didn't do.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I haven't been watching the debates, though, so maybe they are singing a different tune to the far left party activists in their efforts to get the nomination.
"Far left" = About 70% of the population.
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
