I couldn't disagree with you more. From where I am, there is a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. It may seem like they aren't very different at election time, but that's due to the two-party system of the US, where to win, you must pander to the moderates and move to the center. Their actions once in office show their true intentions and reveal the big differences.
If Gore was president today:
1. We would be in Kyoto.
2. CAFE standards would be higher.
3. The Patriot act would be non-existent since Ascroft wouldn't be in power.
4. No cruel and unnecessary war with Iraq. Tell those dead Iraqi civilians there's no difference.
5. We'd have the beginnings of universal health care with presciption drug coverage.
6. It's likely the Democrats would still control the senate.
7. NASA would have more money.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
You don't know how Gore would have made it through 9/11. Trading freedoms for security is not a Republican monopoly. The Patriot Act still could have passed...it merely had to be proposed in order to get passed. Who is going to vote against it?
There really is very little difference and to speculate that Gore would have done all those things while in office is just that...mere speculation.
where did i say bad asshole (or should i say trumpetupyourasshole?) or any of that?
the fact remains that george will's argument is flawed very very flawed...
and you are a strawman
Thanks for you insightful display of reasoning ability.
Article quote:
Quote:
Winning re-election last year, Blackwell won 50 percent of the African-American vote, but does not think this helped the gubernatorial candidate at the top of the Republican ticket, Bob Taft, who won without significant African-American support. However, Blackwell believes that his own statewide success made it easier for Taft to select an African-American, Jennette Bradley, as his running mate for lieutenant governor.
The second African-American elected lieutenant governor last year is Michael Steele, the first African-American ever elected statewide in Maryland. Steele is a Republican (as was the only African-American elected lieutenant governor in 1998 -- Joe Rogers in Colorado). Robert Ehrlich, who selected Steele and is now governor, may have received as much as 14 percent of the African-American vote, while his opponent, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, did not get the African-American turnout she needed.
Blackwell elected with majority of white and black vote...hmmm..that to me would indicate what you mentioned. Yet you labeled anyone who would believe this as making a shameful and somewhat sad assumption. Isn't the assumption your own? Aren't you the one saying that being Republican and black means no one black is going to vote for you? That to me suggests that you don't believe blacks can vote for ideas but must vote as a block for the same (Democratic) candidate.
You then complained that people should vote for people that agree with them politically, and not just a face of a certain color. Yet this must be what happened for these office seekers to get elected.
You indicated your clear preference which is a majority of the plurality of people voting. Will was suggesting that this is exactly what Republcans are hoping for as well. Perhaps they can't get a majority of every community, but they can listen, be active, seek their votes and grow their percentages. When did this become a terrible thing? Perhaps it is only terrible when Republicans do it since you indicated that Blacks can only vote for Democrats.
Will wasn't arguing that Republicans were going to get the majority of the black vote simply because blacks have been elected to political office while being Republican. He suggested that it might show Republicans garnering 15% of the black vote in the near future instead of the current 9%.
You find the thought that 15% of blacks might vote for Republicans because of the increase of black elected officials in the party (which again likely results from grassroots and recruiting efforts) but you don't find the 91% monolithic lock/block that the Democrats receive offensive? You don't find that evidence of what you complain about? A few black faces in the party = get all the vote of that color is what you decry but it is what has been happening. I do find that curious and that is why I made those statements.
George was suggesting EXACTLY what you talked about, building a plurality majority. Republicans are working very hard at this. They have done so with nothing that indicates they are using anything but ideas. If anything the other side complains that they still don't do anything because they don't attempt gesture tokenism, or to buy their votes which is what the Democrats do politically.
Anybody see the Daily Show's foreign policy 'debate' between Governor George W Bush and President George W Bush? They used footage of Bush from the last three years to show how he has gone 180 degrees on foreign policy, use of US troops and 'nation building.' He was even somewhat likable as Governor.
Gosh I wonder what could cause a change like that? Maybe something catastrophic?
Thanks for you insightful display of reasoning ability.
as i mentioned somewhere down the page, your failure to provide a reason for your statements regarding what i "said" as opposed to what i said is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to my reasoning furthermore... well see below...
Quote:
{snip}
Blackwell elected with majority of white and black vote...hmmm..that to me would indicate what you mentioned. Yet you labeled anyone who would believe this as making a shameful and somewhat sad assumption. Isn't the assumption your own? Aren't you the one saying that being Republican and black means no one black is going to vote for you? That to me suggests that you don't believe blacks can vote for ideas but must vote as a block for the same (Democratic) candidate.
i never said "being Republican and black means no one black is going to vote for you." hence your following statement is wrong, nor did i imply it hence your reasoning is lacking. again, the republican won not because of the black vote, the plurality of voters are white and likely he was helped by their votes but not as much as him being a republican in a republican state, see what i am getting at? well let me spell it at since reasoning here is lacking... i am a white republican in the running for office in the south in 1874. my county is mostly black and black republicans have been elected to the post i am running for since the end of the civil war. the democrats having realized that the plurality of the county votes for blacks put up a local black farmer whom they think they can control for the office. does the county go with tradition of racial identity? or of political party? the "racial" shake up places me in a narrow victory because both things occur -- blacks who have voted republican since having recieved the right to vote continue to vote republican for the most part, some however thinking perhaps wrongly that the black canidate has their best interest in mind vote for him, on the other hand some white democrates find themselves at odds with voting for a black man (how can we do that, they say) vote for me.
this is precisely what is happening today in that there is a balance between voting with what has been the traditional mainstay for all persons and voting for someone with whom you identify racially if not perhaps economically or otherwise...
Quote:
You then complained that people should vote for people that agree with them politically, and not just a face of a certain color. Yet this must be what happened for these office seekers to get elected.
i didnt complain, again those are your words and your assigning me an argument... and yes it must have been what happened, ignoring some thousand years of growing racial identity and the conceptions that a minority race does well be voting in block (as long as they vote in block for the party that serves their interests, and as long as they can "shake things up"), i see our current system as offensive as can be. eg. baltimore where the democratic machine controls the city like something out of 19th century policitcal machines, the black inner city population are totally ignored because, in some part, their votes are "in the bag", its sad but true, and while i feel (this is from the observed tendencies at that particular party looking down on "handouts," head start programs, public education funding etc) that republicans wouldnt do a damned thing either, the democrats or someone should be doing something to improve the quality of life of the inner city population...
Quote:
You indicated your clear preference which is a majority of the plurality of people voting. Will was suggesting that this is exactly what Republcans are hoping for as well. Perhaps they can't get a majority of every community, but they can listen, be active, seek their votes and grow their percentages. When did this become a terrible thing? Perhaps it is only terrible when Republicans do it since you indicated that Blacks can only vote for Democrats.
i indicated no such thing... again stop assigning me with an argument i didnt make...
Quote:
Will wasn't arguing that Republicans were going to get the majority of the black vote simply because blacks have been elected to political office while being Republican. He suggested that it might show Republicans garnering 15% of the black vote in the near future instead of the current 9%.
You find the thought that 15% of blacks might vote for Republicans because of the increase of black elected officials in the party (which again likely results from grassroots and recruiting efforts) but you don't find the 91% monolithic lock/block that the Democrats receive offensive? You don't find that evidence of what you complain about? A few black faces in the party = get all the vote of that color is what you decry but it is what has been happening. I do find that curious and that is why I made those statements.
see above for the balance issues... again i think it is a fact that parties will segregate the people into groups -- it is more likely that fiscally well off people will vote republican, it is more likely that upper middle class highly educated people (those with professional degrees) will vote democrat (these statements are from an npr report concerning the last presidential election so dont shoot me), etc, these segregations occur because the parties express ideologies that conform to the nature of the people to which these descriptions apply. it is unlikely and indeed completely unrealistic to assume that the parties would have a fair an equitable distribution of all sorts of people because it is groups often that express similar ideas, and no politician can realistically pander to every individual... a monolitic block sometimes has desirable and sometimes undesirable results but it is exactly because we have a two party system that this occurs...
anyway, i do wish you would stop putting words in my "mouth" -- leaping to a conclusion about my line of argument has never lead to a sucessful debate with -- i dont think linearly so dont apply linear logic to my statements or any other "reasoning" that you may have...
i wont apologize for calling you an asshole until you take back your claims of what i was arguing... because it is extremely offensive to me to be given arguments that fall well outside of the conceptions that i have ever had
Likewise if you don't want someone to draw conclusions or discuss what you post. Then don't post. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Nick
the question of you being an ASSHOLE was never debated, huh, i draw the conclusion that you agree with the statement...
you not only drew conclusions about my posts, you made up entire arguments i neither reasonably implied or otherwise, if you are able to make up arguments for other people, then you shouldnt post
the question of you being an ASSHOLE was never debated, huh, i draw the conclusion that you agree with the statement...
you not only drew conclusions about my posts, you made up entire arguments i neither reasonably implied or otherwise, if you are able to make up arguments for other people, then you shouldnt post
I can see where you are coming from with your anti-tajikistan policy, but come on, what relevance could that possibly have to the current conversation?
I don't know if I would pocket California just yet. It has been a Democratic lock for the last 3 elections but it was Republican for the three prior to that.
The 35 billion dollar hole in our budget has put Davis at all time lows, in fact he may be recalled.
The party in power typically suffers when things are bad while nationwide things are so-so, in California things are very bad budget-wise and the Dems hold both houses and the entire executive branch. There really is only one party to toss out.
Nick
I don't know. The pre-9/11 situation in California was pretty scandalous, it seemed (from over here in middle America). Rolling blackouts and energy shortages. Then there was that scuttlebutt about how the energy crisis in CA had been created by some energy company (was it Halliburton?). I seem to remember (and again, non-CA perspective) that there was a feeling of abandonment out there.
Could be wrong.
But this points out all the things that were simply forgotten after 9/11. I mean, jeebus, remember Giuliani pre-9/11? Goog god! scandal after scandal. Divorce. Affair. You name it.
I don't know. The pre-9/11 situation in California was pretty scandalous, it seemed (from over here in middle America). Rolling blackouts and energy shortages. Then there was that scuttlebutt about how the energy crisis in CA had been created by some energy company (was it Halliburton?). I seem to remember (and again, non-CA perspective) that there was a feeling of abandonment out there.
Could be wrong.
But this points out all the things that were simply forgotten after 9/11. I mean, jeebus, remember Giuliani pre-9/11? Goog god! scandal after scandal. Divorce. Affair. You name it.
Now? America's hero.
The energy crisis involved the problems of deregulation, no foresight 20 years ago in building new plants, and Enron's scheming. It was a multifaceted crisis. Oh, and I never got a rolling blackout because I have the LA DWP which is regulated and working just fine.
I can see where you are coming from with your anti-tajikistan policy, but come on, what relevance could that possibly have to the current conversation?
I don't know. The pre-9/11 situation in California was pretty scandalous, it seemed (from over here in middle America). Rolling blackouts and energy shortages. Then there was that scuttlebutt about how the energy crisis in CA had been created by some energy company (was it Halliburton?). I seem to remember (and again, non-CA perspective) that there was a feeling of abandonment out there.
Could be wrong.
But this points out all the things that were simply forgotten after 9/11. I mean, jeebus, remember Giuliani pre-9/11? Goog god! scandal after scandal. Divorce. Affair. You name it.
Now? America's hero.
Yep now all Davis has to do is get the public not to re-elect Enron, Halliburton or any other electric company....oh wait...
Regardless of that it isn't going to stick to either candidate in the next election in California. Being at the mercy of out of state electrical generators just proves what asses we were in California for not allowing an electrical plant to be built in over a decade. But you know blaming the general population is sure to get you elected.
And again we are talking reason, logic, etc. What percentage of people vote with those come election time?
As the "It's the economy" crowd mentioned the people look at their wallet and vote. If we were in a recession I would seriously doubt Bush would win, but as it turns out we will likely be rolling along at 4% or so growth come election time. At a minimum Bush will be able to say he saved the world, rescued us from terrorists and didn't let the economy double-dip from the recession that technically started before he came into office.
Now I really don't care to debate that last paragraph because I am not going to argue that Bush or any other candidate is going to portray themselves badly during an election and I clearly stated it will be Bush saying it, not that it is an objective reality that just hasn't happened yet. However under any of the scenarios it doesn't look too bad for Bush.
Yep now all Davis has to do is get the public not to re-elect Enron, Halliburton or any other electric company....oh wait...
Regardless of that it isn't going to stick to either candidate in the next election in California. Being at the mercy of out of state electrical generators just proves what asses we were in California for not allowing an electrical plant to be built in over a decade. But you know blaming the general population is sure to get you elected.
And again we are talking reason, logic, etc. What percentage of people vote with those come election time?
As the "It's the economy" crowd mentioned the people look at their wallet and vote. If we were in a recession I would seriously doubt Bush would win, but as it turns out we will likely be rolling along at 4% or so growth come election time. At a minimum Bush will be able to say he saved the world, rescued us from terrorists and didn't let the economy double-dip from the recession that technically started before he came into office.
Now I really don't care to debate that last paragraph because I am not going to argue that Bush or any other candidate is going to portray themselves badly during an election and I clearly stated it will be Bush saying it, not that it is an objective reality that just hasn't happened yet. However under any of the scenarios it doesn't look too bad for Bush.
Nick
I agree. I'm not happy about it, but I agree completely.
bush will be elected because any democrat (or otherwise) running against him will take the race for granted, because they will feel that bush has done such a bad job that who could possibly vote for him again. then they will half-ass it the whole way, while trying to cater to the republicans for their votes "just in case," pissing off their own constituents, etc., etc.
There will be no easy election either way in 2004. The country right now is pretty much 45% Democrats and 45% Republicans, with a few percent in the middle who will vote for a third party and a couple thousand people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan who will determine the next president.
Democrats already have 100 or so electoral votes wrapped up with NY and CA and the northeast without lifting a finger, and Republicans already have about the same from the Bible belt and the West.
False. Recent polls suggest Bush support is higher than any of his Democratic opponents in NY. He is apparently gaining ground in CA as well.
Barring anything totally unforseen, Bush will be easily relected. It's not even a question. If the economy continues to improve (it's starting to already) he will be unbeatable. And on top of this, the Democrats have no one to run. Lieberman is their best chance. Kerry and Edwards are a joke.
Dean is too liberal to be elected, and his war opposition will hurt him later.
I think we should all reword our wording so that we do not confuse our international friends.
Bush wasn't elected in the first place so "re-elected" is somehwhat of a misnomer. A more aptly worded question would be "Will Bush get a second term?"
Remember friends, the only people he was elected by was with a majority in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
My God. There are really people on this earth that think like you do.
Whether you voted for him or not, he won. He won on election night, he won a recount, and in some cases 3 or 4 manual recounts. Gore was never ahead in the tally even once. He was never declared the winner. Bush won 29 states. Please. That argument is over.
My God. There are really people on this earth that think like you do.
Whether you voted for him or not, he won. He won on election night, he won a recount, and in some cases 3 or 4 manual recounts. Gore was never ahead in the tally even once. He was never declared the winner. Bush won 29 states. Please. That argument is over.
Yep now all Davis has to do is get the public not to re-elect Enron, Halliburton or any other electric company....oh wait...
Regardless of that it isn't going to stick to either candidate in the next election in California. Being at the mercy of out of state electrical generators just proves what asses we were in California for not allowing an electrical plant to be built in over a decade. But you know blaming the general population is sure to get you elected.
And again we are talking reason, logic, etc. What percentage of people vote with those come election time?
As the "It's the economy" crowd mentioned the people look at their wallet and vote. If we were in a recession I would seriously doubt Bush would win, but as it turns out we will likely be rolling along at 4% or so growth come election time. At a minimum Bush will be able to say he saved the world, rescued us from terrorists and didn't let the economy double-dip from the recession that technically started before he came into office.
Now I really don't care to debate that last paragraph because I am not going to argue that Bush or any other candidate is going to portray themselves badly during an election and I clearly stated it will be Bush saying it, not that it is an objective reality that just hasn't happened yet. However under any of the scenarios it doesn't look too bad for Bush.
" but as it turns out we will likely be rolling along at 4% or so growth come election time. "
Out of just what crystal ball did you get this one? There's no indication that we are moving toward this. Greenspan thinks we're headed for growth yes but the economy hasn't been acting like anyone has predicted. I hope you're right even if it might mean 4 more years but I don't think it's likely. I think we'll be in the same quagmire we're in now. By then the public will be sick of it.
My God. There are really people on this earth that think like you do.
Whether you voted for him or not, he won. He won on election night, he won a recount, and in some cases 3 or 4 manual recounts. Gore was never ahead in the tally even once. He was never declared the winner. Bush won 29 states. Please. That argument is over.
Ah, but he didn't win the popular vote which is the only true reflection of what the voting public think. It's the only one where every american's vote counts. Which I think is the only point of an election. To find out what the majority want.
Comments
Originally posted by Existence
I couldn't disagree with you more. From where I am, there is a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats. It may seem like they aren't very different at election time, but that's due to the two-party system of the US, where to win, you must pander to the moderates and move to the center. Their actions once in office show their true intentions and reveal the big differences.
If Gore was president today:
1. We would be in Kyoto.
2. CAFE standards would be higher.
3. The Patriot act would be non-existent since Ascroft wouldn't be in power.
4. No cruel and unnecessary war with Iraq. Tell those dead Iraqi civilians there's no difference.
5. We'd have the beginnings of universal health care with presciption drug coverage.
6. It's likely the Democrats would still control the senate.
7. NASA would have more money.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
You don't know how Gore would have made it through 9/11. Trading freedoms for security is not a Republican monopoly. The Patriot Act still could have passed...it merely had to be proposed in order to get passed. Who is going to vote against it?
There really is very little difference and to speculate that Gore would have done all those things while in office is just that...mere speculation.
Originally posted by billybobsky
where did i say bad asshole (or should i say trumpetupyourasshole?) or any of that?
the fact remains that george will's argument is flawed very very flawed...
and you are a strawman
Thanks for you insightful display of reasoning ability.
Article quote:
Winning re-election last year, Blackwell won 50 percent of the African-American vote, but does not think this helped the gubernatorial candidate at the top of the Republican ticket, Bob Taft, who won without significant African-American support. However, Blackwell believes that his own statewide success made it easier for Taft to select an African-American, Jennette Bradley, as his running mate for lieutenant governor.
The second African-American elected lieutenant governor last year is Michael Steele, the first African-American ever elected statewide in Maryland. Steele is a Republican (as was the only African-American elected lieutenant governor in 1998 -- Joe Rogers in Colorado). Robert Ehrlich, who selected Steele and is now governor, may have received as much as 14 percent of the African-American vote, while his opponent, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, did not get the African-American turnout she needed.
Blackwell elected with majority of white and black vote...hmmm..that to me would indicate what you mentioned. Yet you labeled anyone who would believe this as making a shameful and somewhat sad assumption. Isn't the assumption your own? Aren't you the one saying that being Republican and black means no one black is going to vote for you? That to me suggests that you don't believe blacks can vote for ideas but must vote as a block for the same (Democratic) candidate.
You then complained that people should vote for people that agree with them politically, and not just a face of a certain color. Yet this must be what happened for these office seekers to get elected.
You indicated your clear preference which is a majority of the plurality of people voting. Will was suggesting that this is exactly what Republcans are hoping for as well. Perhaps they can't get a majority of every community, but they can listen, be active, seek their votes and grow their percentages. When did this become a terrible thing? Perhaps it is only terrible when Republicans do it since you indicated that Blacks can only vote for Democrats.
Will wasn't arguing that Republicans were going to get the majority of the black vote simply because blacks have been elected to political office while being Republican. He suggested that it might show Republicans garnering 15% of the black vote in the near future instead of the current 9%.
You find the thought that 15% of blacks might vote for Republicans because of the increase of black elected officials in the party (which again likely results from grassroots and recruiting efforts) but you don't find the 91% monolithic lock/block that the Democrats receive offensive? You don't find that evidence of what you complain about? A few black faces in the party = get all the vote of that color is what you decry but it is what has been happening. I do find that curious and that is why I made those statements.
George was suggesting EXACTLY what you talked about, building a plurality majority. Republicans are working very hard at this. They have done so with nothing that indicates they are using anything but ideas. If anything the other side complains that they still don't do anything because they don't attempt gesture tokenism, or to buy their votes which is what the Democrats do politically.
Nick
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Anybody see the Daily Show's foreign policy 'debate' between Governor George W Bush and President George W Bush? They used footage of Bush from the last three years to show how he has gone 180 degrees on foreign policy, use of US troops and 'nation building.' He was even somewhat likable as Governor.
Gosh I wonder what could cause a change like that? Maybe something catastrophic?
Originally posted by trumptman
Thanks for you insightful display of reasoning ability.
as i mentioned somewhere down the page, your failure to provide a reason for your statements regarding what i "said" as opposed to what i said is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to my reasoning furthermore... well see below...
{snip}
Blackwell elected with majority of white and black vote...hmmm..that to me would indicate what you mentioned. Yet you labeled anyone who would believe this as making a shameful and somewhat sad assumption. Isn't the assumption your own? Aren't you the one saying that being Republican and black means no one black is going to vote for you? That to me suggests that you don't believe blacks can vote for ideas but must vote as a block for the same (Democratic) candidate.
i never said "being Republican and black means no one black is going to vote for you." hence your following statement is wrong, nor did i imply it hence your reasoning is lacking. again, the republican won not because of the black vote, the plurality of voters are white and likely he was helped by their votes but not as much as him being a republican in a republican state, see what i am getting at? well let me spell it at since reasoning here is lacking... i am a white republican in the running for office in the south in 1874. my county is mostly black and black republicans have been elected to the post i am running for since the end of the civil war. the democrats having realized that the plurality of the county votes for blacks put up a local black farmer whom they think they can control for the office. does the county go with tradition of racial identity? or of political party? the "racial" shake up places me in a narrow victory because both things occur -- blacks who have voted republican since having recieved the right to vote continue to vote republican for the most part, some however thinking perhaps wrongly that the black canidate has their best interest in mind vote for him, on the other hand some white democrates find themselves at odds with voting for a black man (how can we do that, they say) vote for me.
this is precisely what is happening today in that there is a balance between voting with what has been the traditional mainstay for all persons and voting for someone with whom you identify racially if not perhaps economically or otherwise...
You then complained that people should vote for people that agree with them politically, and not just a face of a certain color. Yet this must be what happened for these office seekers to get elected.
i didnt complain, again those are your words and your assigning me an argument... and yes it must have been what happened, ignoring some thousand years of growing racial identity and the conceptions that a minority race does well be voting in block (as long as they vote in block for the party that serves their interests, and as long as they can "shake things up"), i see our current system as offensive as can be. eg. baltimore where the democratic machine controls the city like something out of 19th century policitcal machines, the black inner city population are totally ignored because, in some part, their votes are "in the bag", its sad but true, and while i feel (this is from the observed tendencies at that particular party looking down on "handouts," head start programs, public education funding etc) that republicans wouldnt do a damned thing either, the democrats or someone should be doing something to improve the quality of life of the inner city population...
You indicated your clear preference which is a majority of the plurality of people voting. Will was suggesting that this is exactly what Republcans are hoping for as well. Perhaps they can't get a majority of every community, but they can listen, be active, seek their votes and grow their percentages. When did this become a terrible thing? Perhaps it is only terrible when Republicans do it since you indicated that Blacks can only vote for Democrats.
i indicated no such thing... again stop assigning me with an argument i didnt make...
Will wasn't arguing that Republicans were going to get the majority of the black vote simply because blacks have been elected to political office while being Republican. He suggested that it might show Republicans garnering 15% of the black vote in the near future instead of the current 9%.
You find the thought that 15% of blacks might vote for Republicans because of the increase of black elected officials in the party (which again likely results from grassroots and recruiting efforts) but you don't find the 91% monolithic lock/block that the Democrats receive offensive? You don't find that evidence of what you complain about? A few black faces in the party = get all the vote of that color is what you decry but it is what has been happening. I do find that curious and that is why I made those statements.
see above for the balance issues... again i think it is a fact that parties will segregate the people into groups -- it is more likely that fiscally well off people will vote republican, it is more likely that upper middle class highly educated people (those with professional degrees) will vote democrat (these statements are from an npr report concerning the last presidential election so dont shoot me), etc, these segregations occur because the parties express ideologies that conform to the nature of the people to which these descriptions apply. it is unlikely and indeed completely unrealistic to assume that the parties would have a fair an equitable distribution of all sorts of people because it is groups often that express similar ideas, and no politician can realistically pander to every individual... a monolitic block sometimes has desirable and sometimes undesirable results but it is exactly because we have a two party system that this occurs...
anyway, i do wish you would stop putting words in my "mouth" -- leaping to a conclusion about my line of argument has never lead to a sucessful debate with -- i dont think linearly so dont apply linear logic to my statements or any other "reasoning" that you may have...
i wont apologize for calling you an asshole until you take back your claims of what i was arguing... because it is extremely offensive to me to be given arguments that fall well outside of the conceptions that i have ever had
Likewise if you don't want someone to draw conclusions or discuss what you post. Then don't post. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Funny... I don't recall asking for an apology.
Likewise if you don't want someone to draw conclusions or discuss what you post. Then don't post. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Nick
the question of you being an ASSHOLE was never debated, huh, i draw the conclusion that you agree with the statement...
you not only drew conclusions about my posts, you made up entire arguments i neither reasonably implied or otherwise, if you are able to make up arguments for other people, then you shouldnt post
Originally posted by billybobsky
the question of you being an ASSHOLE was never debated, huh, i draw the conclusion that you agree with the statement...
you not only drew conclusions about my posts, you made up entire arguments i neither reasonably implied or otherwise, if you are able to make up arguments for other people, then you shouldnt post
I can see where you are coming from with your anti-tajikistan policy, but come on, what relevance could that possibly have to the current conversation?
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't know if I would pocket California just yet. It has been a Democratic lock for the last 3 elections but it was Republican for the three prior to that.
The 35 billion dollar hole in our budget has put Davis at all time lows, in fact he may be recalled.
The party in power typically suffers when things are bad while nationwide things are so-so, in California things are very bad budget-wise and the Dems hold both houses and the entire executive branch. There really is only one party to toss out.
Nick
I don't know. The pre-9/11 situation in California was pretty scandalous, it seemed (from over here in middle America). Rolling blackouts and energy shortages. Then there was that scuttlebutt about how the energy crisis in CA had been created by some energy company (was it Halliburton?). I seem to remember (and again, non-CA perspective) that there was a feeling of abandonment out there.
Could be wrong.
But this points out all the things that were simply forgotten after 9/11. I mean, jeebus, remember Giuliani pre-9/11? Goog god! scandal after scandal. Divorce. Affair. You name it.
Now? America's hero.
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't know. The pre-9/11 situation in California was pretty scandalous, it seemed (from over here in middle America). Rolling blackouts and energy shortages. Then there was that scuttlebutt about how the energy crisis in CA had been created by some energy company (was it Halliburton?). I seem to remember (and again, non-CA perspective) that there was a feeling of abandonment out there.
Could be wrong.
But this points out all the things that were simply forgotten after 9/11. I mean, jeebus, remember Giuliani pre-9/11? Goog god! scandal after scandal. Divorce. Affair. You name it.
Now? America's hero.
The energy crisis involved the problems of deregulation, no foresight 20 years ago in building new plants, and Enron's scheming. It was a multifaceted crisis. Oh, and I never got a rolling blackout because I have the LA DWP which is regulated and working just fine.
I can see where you are coming from with your anti-tajikistan policy, but come on, what relevance could that possibly have to the current conversation?
absolutely none. welcome to AO.
Originally posted by Scott
Gosh I wonder what could cause a change like that?
I'm glad you can finally see how big of a close minded moron he was in the first place.
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't know. The pre-9/11 situation in California was pretty scandalous, it seemed (from over here in middle America). Rolling blackouts and energy shortages. Then there was that scuttlebutt about how the energy crisis in CA had been created by some energy company (was it Halliburton?). I seem to remember (and again, non-CA perspective) that there was a feeling of abandonment out there.
Could be wrong.
But this points out all the things that were simply forgotten after 9/11. I mean, jeebus, remember Giuliani pre-9/11? Goog god! scandal after scandal. Divorce. Affair. You name it.
Now? America's hero.
Yep now all Davis has to do is get the public not to re-elect Enron, Halliburton or any other electric company....oh wait...
Regardless of that it isn't going to stick to either candidate in the next election in California. Being at the mercy of out of state electrical generators just proves what asses we were in California for not allowing an electrical plant to be built in over a decade. But you know blaming the general population is sure to get you elected.
And again we are talking reason, logic, etc. What percentage of people vote with those come election time?
As the "It's the economy" crowd mentioned the people look at their wallet and vote. If we were in a recession I would seriously doubt Bush would win, but as it turns out we will likely be rolling along at 4% or so growth come election time. At a minimum Bush will be able to say he saved the world, rescued us from terrorists and didn't let the economy double-dip from the recession that technically started before he came into office.
Now I really don't care to debate that last paragraph because I am not going to argue that Bush or any other candidate is going to portray themselves badly during an election and I clearly stated it will be Bush saying it, not that it is an objective reality that just hasn't happened yet. However under any of the scenarios it doesn't look too bad for Bush.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yep now all Davis has to do is get the public not to re-elect Enron, Halliburton or any other electric company....oh wait...
Regardless of that it isn't going to stick to either candidate in the next election in California. Being at the mercy of out of state electrical generators just proves what asses we were in California for not allowing an electrical plant to be built in over a decade. But you know blaming the general population is sure to get you elected.
And again we are talking reason, logic, etc. What percentage of people vote with those come election time?
As the "It's the economy" crowd mentioned the people look at their wallet and vote. If we were in a recession I would seriously doubt Bush would win, but as it turns out we will likely be rolling along at 4% or so growth come election time. At a minimum Bush will be able to say he saved the world, rescued us from terrorists and didn't let the economy double-dip from the recession that technically started before he came into office.
Now I really don't care to debate that last paragraph because I am not going to argue that Bush or any other candidate is going to portray themselves badly during an election and I clearly stated it will be Bush saying it, not that it is an objective reality that just hasn't happened yet. However under any of the scenarios it doesn't look too bad for Bush.
Nick
I agree. I'm not happy about it, but I agree completely.
it's gore v. bush, version 2.0.04
Originally posted by BRussell
There will be no easy election either way in 2004. The country right now is pretty much 45% Democrats and 45% Republicans, with a few percent in the middle who will vote for a third party and a couple thousand people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan who will determine the next president.
Democrats already have 100 or so electoral votes wrapped up with NY and CA and the northeast without lifting a finger, and Republicans already have about the same from the Bible belt and the West.
False. Recent polls suggest Bush support is higher than any of his Democratic opponents in NY. He is apparently gaining ground in CA as well.
Barring anything totally unforseen, Bush will be easily relected. It's not even a question. If the economy continues to improve (it's starting to already) he will be unbeatable. And on top of this, the Democrats have no one to run. Lieberman is their best chance. Kerry and Edwards are a joke.
Dean is too liberal to be elected, and his war opposition will hurt him later.
Originally posted by Existence
I think we should all reword our wording so that we do not confuse our international friends.
Bush wasn't elected in the first place so "re-elected" is somehwhat of a misnomer. A more aptly worded question would be "Will Bush get a second term?"
Remember friends, the only people he was elected by was with a majority in the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.
My God. There are really people on this earth that think like you do.
Whether you voted for him or not, he won. He won on election night, he won a recount, and in some cases 3 or 4 manual recounts. Gore was never ahead in the tally even once. He was never declared the winner. Bush won 29 states. Please. That argument is over.
Originally posted by SDW2001
My God. There are really people on this earth that think like you do.
My God. There are really people on this earth that think like you do.
Lest we not forget voter purges...Anyway, that's (to steal phrase from Bill Maher) so September 10th. Moving on...
Originally posted by SDW2001
My God. There are really people on this earth that think like you do.
Whether you voted for him or not, he won. He won on election night, he won a recount, and in some cases 3 or 4 manual recounts. Gore was never ahead in the tally even once. He was never declared the winner. Bush won 29 states. Please. That argument is over.
*thumbs nose*
"wah wah... he won"
I suppose he did.
Originally posted by trumptman
Yep now all Davis has to do is get the public not to re-elect Enron, Halliburton or any other electric company....oh wait...
Regardless of that it isn't going to stick to either candidate in the next election in California. Being at the mercy of out of state electrical generators just proves what asses we were in California for not allowing an electrical plant to be built in over a decade. But you know blaming the general population is sure to get you elected.
And again we are talking reason, logic, etc. What percentage of people vote with those come election time?
As the "It's the economy" crowd mentioned the people look at their wallet and vote. If we were in a recession I would seriously doubt Bush would win, but as it turns out we will likely be rolling along at 4% or so growth come election time. At a minimum Bush will be able to say he saved the world, rescued us from terrorists and didn't let the economy double-dip from the recession that technically started before he came into office.
Now I really don't care to debate that last paragraph because I am not going to argue that Bush or any other candidate is going to portray themselves badly during an election and I clearly stated it will be Bush saying it, not that it is an objective reality that just hasn't happened yet. However under any of the scenarios it doesn't look too bad for Bush.
Nick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" but as it turns out we will likely be rolling along at 4% or so growth come election time. "
Out of just what crystal ball did you get this one? There's no indication that we are moving toward this. Greenspan thinks we're headed for growth yes but the economy hasn't been acting like anyone has predicted. I hope you're right even if it might mean 4 more years but I don't think it's likely. I think we'll be in the same quagmire we're in now. By then the public will be sick of it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
My God. There are really people on this earth that think like you do.
Whether you voted for him or not, he won. He won on election night, he won a recount, and in some cases 3 or 4 manual recounts. Gore was never ahead in the tally even once. He was never declared the winner. Bush won 29 states. Please. That argument is over.
Ah, but he didn't win the popular vote which is the only true reflection of what the voting public think. It's the only one where every american's vote counts. Which I think is the only point of an election. To find out what the majority want.
Still in check.