NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: the following refers to America:

Everyone I talked to seems to always think the candidate they want to win has the best chance (unless it's a third-party candidate).

I try the experiment on NationStates: If you want either a Republican or Democrat to win, but don't think they will, I applaud you. If you think the opposing party will win, I applaud you even more.

I demand a poll.

The candidate I want to win most is Mike Gravel, but I think it's obvious that he won't.

But the Democrats will most likely win, and I favour them over the Republicans.

Huzzah!

On-topic: For Obama, don't think he'll win.

I want richardson to win...

I demand a poll.

Your wish is my command. *does a Sandestin bow*

The candidate I want to win most is Mike Gravel, but I think it's obvious that he won't.


Ya, he doesn't really have a chance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8

I wish I could vote "none of the above". 20 or so running and not a good choice in the bunch.

I want to see John Edwards win. However, Hillary is solidifying her ground as the first primaries approach in...eh, three months:rolleyes:

I expect that a thid paty cadidate will trumph.
Yes, I am making fun of your spelling.

Experiment, eh?

If this is about putting my brain in the monkey again, I already told you NO!

Anyway ...

I'm all about Kucinich again ... but ... well ... you know.

So far I have never approved of who won. So I am assuming that whoever I vote for will lose.

I don't know how to answer. :( Seeing as how Hilary just might get the emocratic nomination, I'm going to be forced to vote Republican. I don't want Hilary to win, but I'd like a Democrat to be the next president. If Guliani somehow gets the Republican nomination, I'll vote for him. I don't think he'll get the nomination, I also don't think he'll win if he somehow manages to get the npmination. Honestly, at this point I have no idea. Ask me after the primaries.

The candidate I want to win most is Mike Gravel, but I think it's obvious that he won't.

But the Democrats will most likely win, and I favour them over the Republicans.

Same. I agree with him on everything, but he doesn't get any coverage except in friggin' New Hampshire...

My candidate Giuliani wins. Hill 'o Beans Goddamn Clinton crashes and burns. MoveOn, George Soros, San Fran Nan, Harry Reid et al. cry. I am happy :D

I couldn't care less. All the canidates suck. Not that I can vote anyway, but it's hard to not have an opinion.

Vote for me, otherwise I will torture your family.

My candidate Giuliani wins. Hill 'o Beans Goddamn Clinton crashes and burns. MoveOn, George Soros, San Fran Nan, Harry Reid et al. cry. I am happy :D
Orly

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/30/christian-leaders-may-back-third-party-candidate-if-rudy-wins-gop-nomination/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/02/wgiuliani102.xml
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048605.htm

Heh ... fuck Giuliani and his anti-weasel stance.

The only candidate I'd be willing to vote for, Gore, isn't even running...so I'll be voting against the Dems and Repubs with a "wasted" 3rd party vote.

I do not want Hillary to win....but I expect that she will.

Unfortunately, no matter who wins, America loses.

I want Kucinich or Gravel to win. Since the U.S. is too far right-wing for them to win, I will be voting for one of them in the primary, then a third party in the main election.

Note: the following refers to America:

Everyone I talked to seems to always think the candidate they want to win has the best chance (unless it's a third-party candidate).

I try the experiment on NationStates: If you want either a Republican or Democrat to win, but don't think they will, I applaud you. If you think the opposing party will win, I applaud you even more.
I don't think there will be a candidate I want to win.

I'd like a Democrat to be the next president. If Guliani somehow gets the Republican nomination, I'll vote for him.
I cannot figure out how these two things are compatible.

My desired pairing is Edwards/Richardson. Naturally, there isn't a chance in hell of this happening.

I'm still going with my projected winners in 2008 as Bush/Cheney. Seems about as likely as any other grouping.

I'm waffling between Giuliani and Obama, so I'm not really sure where I fall in regard to this experiment.

How about "Too soon to tell, but I think my candidate has a decent chance"?

I want to see John Edwards win. However, Hillary is solidifying her ground as the first primaries approach in...eh, three months:rolleyes:

Obama is currently leading by at least 4 points in Iowa and the first primaries have a big effect on the later ones.

I cannot figure out how these two things are compatible.

In a nutshell. Guliani is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and turned a massive debt into a surplus. This country's economy is freaking scary, and it's only going to get worse. We need someone who can get us back on the right track. Sure Guliani is pro-censorship (a big negative), but all the presidential hopefuls are this time around. And yes, he's begining to tow the party line when it comes to abortion, but you can look at his history. He's pro-choice.

In a nutshell. Guliani is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage

If you believe that President Giuliani would actively work to protect the right to choose and equal rights for gay citizens, then I've got a piece of the True Cross I would like to sell you.


And yes, he's begining to tow the party line when it comes to abortion, but you can look at his history. He's pro-choice.
Not a chance.

He's all for appointing strict constructionist judges, which is code for "will overturn Roe." He's the perfect guy for the anti-choicers to have in office, because he'll talk pro-choice while helping to dismantle the legal protections for reproductive health care. Digby, one of my favorite bloggers, has some good pieces related to this.

If Rudy is pro-anything, he's pro-Rudy.

Of course, my primary problem with him is that he's more of the same. He's Dubya Part 2, only a bit more cocky and a bit more shameless. He's just another authoritarian bully who thinks the rules apply to everybody but him. I have absolutely no doubt that he will continue all the mistakes of the Bush administration, while adding spectacularly disastrous flourishes of his own.

If you believe that President Giuliani would actively work to protect the right to choose and equal rights for gay citizens, then I've got a piece of the True Cross I would like to sell you.


Not a chance.
Look how things changed after he began seriously thinking about running:
Ultimate decision by woman, her conscience & her doctor. (Aug 2007)
Allowing choice keeps government out of people's lives. (May 2007)
Seek bipartisan ways to reduce abortion & increase adoption. (May 2007)
Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood throughout 1990s. (May 2007)
Ok to repeal Roe v. Wade, but ok to view it as precedent too. (May 2007)
Allow states to fund or not fund abortion. (May 2007)
Encourage adoptions; ban partial-birth abortion. (May 2007)
Embryonic stem cell research ok if limited properly. (May 2007)
FactCheck: Encouraged adoptions; but over-stated results. (May 2007)
Pro-choice; no ban on partial-birth abortions. (Dec 1999)
He's still way off the party line.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm


He's all for appointing strict constructionist judges, which is code for "will overturn Roe." He's the perfect guy for the anti-choicers to have in office, because he'll talk pro-choice while helping to dismantle the legal protections for reproductive health care. Digby, one of my favorite bloggers, has some good pieces related to this.
Doesn't matter anyway. Notice the justices Bush put in place? We're fucked anyway.

Guliani donated to Planned Parenthood throughout the 90's. Why would a closeted pro-lifer do that?

He opposed Bush's ban on gay marriage. He's said he's pro-civil union not marriage. After listening to Hilary and the other democrats flounder in the debate on gay rights, I'm quite certain they aren't pro-gay rights either. I'm sorry, you know the questions that are going to be asked. How can you screw that up?

If Rudy is pro-anything, he's pro-Rudy.
And the same can be said for all canidates.

Of course, my primary problem with him is that he's more of the same. He's Dubya Part 2, only a bit more cocky and a bit more shameless. He's just another authoritarian bully who thinks the rules apply to everybody but him. I have absolutely no doubt that he will continue all the mistakes of the Bush administration, while adding spectacularly disastrous flourishes of his own.
I'll still vote for him over Hillary. At least we'll have a balanced budget.

Edit: Sorry, forgot the source for the quote.

I'm rooting for the Obomba Explosion, but I know he'll not detonate. Cliton Cards will probably be delivered to the White House by 09.

I'll still vote for him over Hillary. At least we'll have a balanced budget.


Why?

Why?

Because Hillary has pledged to bring calculators back to the White House, that's why.

I hope John McCain will win.

Why?

I don't trust Hilary. She'll say and do anything to be president. She votes for too many programs that cost too much money. Yes, I'd like to save the planet too, but there's only so much money in the coffers.

She's pro-gun control big time. That's a big one for me. She voted against capping malpractice suits. Even bigger. She wants to increase minimum wage, which does nothing execpt creat inflation. All of her education plans are quite spendy. She's now embracing gay marriage with open arms, nevermind she defended traditional marriage in the past. She voted no on flag burning. I hate it too, but it's protected speech.

I don't trust Hilary. She'll say and do anything to be president. She votes for too many programs that cost too much money. Yes, I'd like to save the planet too, but there's only so much money in the coffers.

She's pro-gun control big time. That's a big one for me. She voted against capping malpractice suits. Even bigger. She wants to increase minimum wage, which does nothing execpt creat inflation. All of her education plans are quite spendy. She's now embracing gay marriage with open arms, nevermind she defended traditional marriage in the past. She voted no on flag burning. I hate it too, but it's protected speech.

IIRC, she also pushed for the NY law that would make it a felony to sell certain video games to minors.

Her nanny state viewpoints are what bother me the most about her.

Because Hillary has pledged to bring calculators back to the White House, that's why.

Yes, thank you. I forgot about that. Calculators, along with maps need to be removed from the White House forever.

America only loses if someone horrible (such as Tancredo or another evolution denier) manages to win. Fortunately, we'll have Hillary around instead to fix Bush's mess.

Speakjing of which I haven't done the actual math, but I would not be surprised if the money Bush wasted on Iraq would be more than enough to pay for the Hillary programs you claimed were 'too expensive".

How about we the people call a vote and force them to get all new candidates...since all the ones running now suck...and while we're at it put a cap on campaign funds...that would help even the playing field...

How about we the people call a vote and force them to get all new candidates...since all the ones running now suck...and while we're at it put a cap on campaign funds...that would help even the playing field...

I'd vote for that.

I'd vote for that.

Let the revolution begin!

America only loses if someone horrible (such as Tancredo or another evolution denier) manages to win. Fortunately, we'll have Hillary around instead to fix Bush's mess.

Speakjing of which I haven't done the actual math, but I would not be surprised if the money Bush wasted on Iraq would be more than enough to pay for the Hillary programs you claimed were 'too expensive".
Hey, I'm in no way defending Bush. Bush's spending was and is out of control. Once the budget is balanced, the country can look at more social spending. My taxes are pretty fair for my bracket IMO, so why not spend the rest to make life better for all? I'm also not speaking for other brackets, they could be getting screwed on a regular basis.

Bush over spent. End of story. It doesn't mean the next president gets to overspend too.

Beyond that, I just don't trust her. I do not trust someone who is as transparent as she is. She's in it just to be the first woman president. That's it.

I don't trust Hilary. She'll say and do anything to be president. She votes for too many programs that cost too much money. Yes, I'd like to save the planet too, but there's only so much money in the coffers.

She's pro-gun control big time. That's a big one for me. She voted against capping malpractice suits. Even bigger. She wants to increase minimum wage, which does nothing execpt creat inflation. All of her education plans are quite spendy. She's now embracing gay marriage with open arms, nevermind she defended traditional marriage in the past. She voted no on flag burning. I hate it too, but it's protected speech.

None of which answers the question I asked, by the way.

Bush over spent. End of story. It doesn't mean the next president gets to overspend too.


Based on the last few presidents, it seems more likely that ANY democrat would be more fiscally responsible than any republican... strange as that seems.


Beyond that, I just don't trust her. I do not trust someone who is as transparent as she is. She's in it just to be the first woman president. That's it.

Yes, she's the only candidate running because they want to be President.

I'm waffling between Giuliani and Obama, so I'm not really sure where I fall in regard to this experiment.

I'm the same although I'm keeping other options opened. Why isn't there a poll option for those who just don't know yet?

None of which answers the question I asked, by the way.
I'm sorry, I understood the question to be why I wouldn't vote for Hilary or why I would vote for Guliani over Hilary. My response was why I wouldn't vote for Hilary, on the previous page I stated why I liked Guliani.

Based on the last few presidents, it seems more likely that ANY democrat would be more fiscally responsible than any republican... strange as that seems.
Proof is in the actions. Hilary hasn't balanced anything. Guliani created a surplus.



Yes, she's the only candidate running because they want to be President.
No. The only one so transparent about it.

I'm sorry, I understood the question to be why I wouldn't vote for Hilary or why I would vote for Guliani over Hilary. My response was why I wouldn't vote for Hilary, or prefer Guliani. Take your pick.


Your statement was that you'd vote for Giuliani (over Clinton) because you seem sure "we'll have a balanced budget".

Seems a little bit optimistic...


Proof is in the actions. Hilary hasn't balanced anything. Guliani created a surplus.


Actually, neither of them has any 'proof' as President.


No. The only one so transparent about it.

Seems to me they all have suggested they want to be President...

Not the one I want to win. Because I don't want anyone to win. :rolleyes:

Your statement was that you'd vote for Giuliani (over Clinton) because you seem sure "we'll have a balanced budget".

Seems a little bit optimistic...
That's one part of many, yes that's in the forefront of my mind. That's the most important issue to me.



Actually, neither of them has any 'proof' as President.
Guliani balanced a city's budget with ease. I'm fairly certain he can apply his knowledge of economics to a larger scale.


Seems to me they all have suggested they want to be President...
No shit. Not all of them waffle as much to to curry favor with the majority. Not all of them look back at their voting record and decry that "they'd been had!" Not all of them said "well, you shouldn't vote for me as a senator if you are worried about me running for president."

That's one part of many, yes that's in the forefront of my mind. That's the most important issue to me.


The most important thing - above all other considerations - is balancing the budget?

I'm thinking two of the last three Republicans have demonstrated less fiscal responsibility than their Democrat counterparts, but I could be wrong. Not a good track record, if true.

Of course, balancing the budget wouldn't be quite so important if the next President was not walking into a legacy paved with an extra 2 billion dollars of international debt per day.

Personally, I think the 'balance-y-ness' of the budget is pretty soon going to be just about irrelevent. We're dancing on the edge of a depression... apparently, the leadership is unaware (or knows, but doesn't want to say) of what happens when you have much greater imports than exports, coupled with an increasingly weak currency. It's going to suck when China balances it's checkbook.


Guliani balanced a city's budget with ease. I'm fairly certain he can apply his knowledge of economics to a larger scale.


So - if Clinton can balance her checkbook, she can balance a national budget?


No shit. Not all of them waffle as much to to curry favor with the majority. Not all of them look back at their voting record and decry that "they'd been had!" Not all of them said "well, you shouldn't vote for me as a senator if you are worried about me running for president."

I've been watching a pretty much universal display of politicians changing their stripes, and/or claiming they were deceived over the war, and/or revising their resumes... in the lead up to the primaries

I've been watching a pretty much universal display of politicians changing their stripes, and/or claiming they were deceived over the war, and/or revising their resumes... in the lead up to the primaries

I have to agree with Snaf here. Yes, all politicians use a lot of rhetoric, change their positions depending on who they're talking to, and try to paint even the worst of mistakes in a good light. The cynic in me recognizes that they wouldn't be where they are if they didn't play that game to some extent.

But Clinton, for whatever reason, seems to be more of a politician than some of the other candidates. She seems to be less trustworthy and to be too well-connected in the playing of the game. She comes off, to me anyways, as insincere and kind of scummy. I get a sense of all of this from pretty much all politicians, but I get a stronger sense of it from her than from, say, Obama.

The most important thing - above all other considerations - is balancing the budget?

I'm thinking two of the last three Republicans have demonstrated less fiscal responsibility than their Democrat counterparts, but I could be wrong. Not a good track record, if true.

Of course, balancing the budget wouldn't be quite so important if the next President was not walking into a legacy paved with an extra 2 billion dollars of international debt per day.
And that's all very true. The debt is there, however, and there's nothing we can do about that. All the next president can do is attempt to pay it down.

Personally, I think the 'balance-y-ness' of the budget is pretty soon going to be just about irrelevent. We're dancing on the edge of a depression... apparently, the leadership is unaware (or knows, but doesn't want to say) of what happens when you have much greater imports than exports, coupled with an increasingly weak currency. It's going to suck when China balances it's checkbook.
The balanced budget is the only part I can really judge Guliani on.


So - if Clinton can balance her checkbook, she can balance a national budget?
There's a world of difference between personal economics and national economics.


I've been watching a pretty much universal display of politicians changing their stripes, and/or claiming they were deceived over the war, and/or revising their resumes... in the lead up to the primaries
Not to the extreme Hilary does.

And that's all very true. The debt is there, however, and there's nothing we can do about that. All the next president can do is attempt to pay it down.


Why?

It's pretty much at the point now where it almost doesn't matter. The dollar is so weak that our debt is increasing even when it isn't moving.

And - to be honest - why should the next President feel any responsibility for the shortfall? Especially should the next President be from the other half of the corpocracy?

Sure - I'd like to think our national debt was decreasing but - to be honest - I don't CARE if it is, so long as it isn't harmful.


The balanced budget is the only part I can really judge Guliani on.


That's a scary sort of voter-pledge, then. What about his abortion stance - just for starters?


There's a world of difference between personal economics and national economics.


And between city economics and national economics.


Not to the extreme Hilary does.

None of it necessarily makes her a bad candidate for Presidency, though.

I have to agree with Snaf here. Yes, all politicians use a lot of rhetoric, change their positions depending on who they're talking to, and try to paint even the worst of mistakes in a good light. The cynic in me recognizes that they wouldn't be where they are if they didn't play that game to some extent.

But Clinton, for whatever reason, seems to be more of a politician than some of the other candidates. She seems to be less trustworthy and to be too well-connected in the playing of the game. She comes off, to me anyways, as insincere and kind of scummy. I get a sense of all of this from pretty much all politicians, but I get a stronger sense of it from her than from, say, Obama.

And Mr New York is any better? Almost his entire election platform is that he was boss in New York when terrorist blew stuff up, and he was all-like-brave-and-stuff about it.

He's parlayed an okay job at dealing with a tragedy (and MOST of his approach to that was wannabee-patriotic ego-stroking), into a semi-successful Primary bid. It's scary how many people seem to have been sucked in - but not surprising, since standing on 9/11 corpses seems to have pretty much been the formula for the last Republican election victory, too.

It'd be a close toss-up for me, to be honest. Gravel and Kucinich are about the only people in the list I could actually say I could find sympathy for, in terms of agenda, and I wouldn't totally support either of those. But, of those with a real chance in primaries, Giuliani is pretty unique for his pretty-much complete lack of international experience of any kind.

I'd say a little experience dealing with the world was important... but not that little.

I want Edwards, but he's in a distant third. But, even though Obama is raising more money than any dem, Hilly seems to be running away with the media. So I'll bet it'll Hilly/Obama, or Hilly/Edwards. Either of which I could vote for, and not feel too bad.

And Mr New York is any better? Almost his entire election platform is that he was boss in New York when terrorist blew stuff up, and he was all-like-brave-and-stuff about it.

I didn't express any support for Guiliani, now, did I? I just pointed out one of my problems with Clinton.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Obama in this election.

I didn't express any support for Guiliani, now, did I? I just pointed out one of my problems with Clinton.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Obama in this election.

Well, you were agreeing with Snaf, from what I could tell. So - while you didn't expressly sanction Giuliani, it didn't seem unreasonable to assume the topic was still that which I had been loosely skirting-around Snaf... that is, Giuliani's superiority over Clinton.

I'm not sure how I feel about Obama... I worry that his successes are basically the same as Clinton's... just playing slightly different cards.

I don't particularly like any of them, so I guess it's going to be a candidate that I don't want to win.

Why?

It's pretty much at the point now where it almost doesn't matter. The dollar is so weak that our debt is increasing even when it isn't moving.

And - to be honest - why should the next President feel any responsibility for the shortfall? Especially should the next President be from the other half of the corpocracy?
Fixing that takes more than a president. It's fixable though.

That's the thing with civic positions. Your job is to leave the place better than when you came in. Not that all president's do that. Bush is a great example of a president who didn't.

Sure - I'd like to think our national debt was decreasing but - to be honest - I don't CARE if it is, so long as it isn't harmful.
It has the potential to be devistating. Like you pointed out a few posts ago, what happens when China comes calling. Guliani also created jobs when he was in office.


That's a scary sort of voter-pledge, then. What about his abortion stance - just for starters?
Where did I say only? I said most important. I'm allowed to care about some issues more than others.

If you look on the first page you'll see I've posted his abortion stance.

He understands the need to stifle outsourcing.

He supports the voucher program for education. I know it's controversial, I happen to agree with it.

He seems to be for free trade which I don't like. Then again, free trade seems to be something that's here to stay.

He is pro-gun control, but not as much as Hilary. I could live with his gun control if I had to.

I like his stance on welfare.

And between city economics and national economics.
It's a hell of a lot closer than personal economics and national economics.


None of it necessarily makes her a bad candidate for Presidency, though.
I can't see one plus for her to be in office. She's against many of the things I find important. Not that I can trust her stance to begin with. She's go to bed with the NRA if it would get her elected.

Well, you were agreeing with Snaf, from what I could tell. So - while you didn't expressly sanction Giuliani, it didn't seem unreasonable to assume the topic was still that which I had been loosely skirting-around Snaf... that is, Giuliani's superiority over Clinton.

I'm not sure how I feel about Obama... I worry that his successes are basically the same as Clinton's... just playing slightly different cards.

I was agreeing with Snaf's opinion of Hillary, not her opinion of Guiliani. =)

As for Obama, I get the impression that he truly is enthusiastic about the issues - that he hasn't been in this business long enough to lose that. I also admire him for refusing campaign contributions from corporate interests and from people who donate in their childrens' names. Last I read, he'd given something like $1 million in campaign contributions back because of that.

I was agreeing with Snaf's opinion of Hillary, not her opinion of Guiliani. =)

As for Obama, I get the impression that he truly is enthusiastic about the issues - that he hasn't been in this business long enough to lose that. I also admire him for refusing campaign contributions from corporate interests and from people who donate in their childrens' names. Last I read, he'd given something like $1 million in campaign contributions back because of that.

Wouldn't Edwards be an even better option, then?

He supports the voucher program for education. I know it's controversial, I happen to agree with it.

Is that like charter schools?

Romney/Edwards. Either. But it's unlikely Edwards will get the nomination, and it's slightly unlikely Romney will either. Hence I doubt they will win. But GO anyway!

Fixing that takes more than a president. It's fixable though.

That's the thing with civic positions. Your job is to leave the place better than when you came in. Not that all president's do that. Bush is a great example of a president who didn't.


I'm not sure anyone agrees with you that the civic duty is to leave the place better than you found it. In general, I'd say that civic positions are largely about pandering to certain groups. Bush is an example - not of failing to meet the requirement to leave the place better than he found it - but of pandering to a smaller group of pie-fingerers.


It has the potential to be devistating. Like you pointed out a few posts ago, what happens when China comes calling. Guliani also created jobs when he was in office.


And that's the problem with US 'I'm alright, Jack' politics. For most people, it really does seem that no harm will even be perceived until the dollar bottoms out or the China finally steps up.


Where did I say only? I said most important. I'm allowed to care about some issues more than others.

If you look on the first page you'll see I've posted his abortion stance.

He understands the need to stifle outsourcing.

He supports the voucher program for education. I know it's controversial, I happen to agree with it.

He seems to be for free trade which I don't like. Then again, free trade seems to be something that's here to stay.

He is pro-gun control, but not as much as Hilary. I could live with his gun control if I had to.

I like his stance on welfare.


His stance on welfare is basically 'fuck you if you can't afford it', isn't it?

Wasn't that his big 'contribution' in New York... he cut everything except police and teachers?

For the most part, I wish it wasn't so, but Giuliani comes across as the worst sort of conservative... a far-right blamethrower. I've heard him blame porous borders for everything from the deficit, to soaring crime, to domestic terror. He's quite willing to strip any 'right' from anyone, if he doesn't need their vote that bad.


It's a hell of a lot closer than personal economics and national economics.


Is it? Based on what? What's his State experience? That would be even closer, wouldn't it?


I can't see one plus for her to be in office. She's against many of the things I find important. Not that I can trust her stance to begin with. She's go to bed with the NRA if it would get her elected.

As would Giuliani. He's a capitalist in the other sense of the word - he's capitalised on tragedy. At least Clinton would be a clarion call that the US was aware there was a 21st century.

I'm not sure anyone agrees with you that the civic duty is to leave the place better than you found it. In general, I'd say that civic positions are largely about pandering to certain groups. Bush is an example - not of failing to meet the requirement to leave the place better than he found it - but of pandering to a smaller group of pie-fingerers.[/quopte]
That's what it's become, that's not it's purpose. There's a difference.


[QUOTE]And that's the problem with US 'I'm alright, Jack' politics. For most people, it really does seem that no harm will even be perceived until the dollar bottoms out or the China finally steps up.
And that's one of the reasons I'm really concerned with the economy. Unfortunately free trade and economics in general aren't the issues people care about. It's much more fun to debate abortion and faith based initiatives. Doesn't require much thought.


His stance on welfare is basically 'fuck you if you can't afford it', isn't it?
Not exactly. It was a welfare to work type model. As welfare should be. Unless someone is disabled, welfare should be a stepping stone to getting back to being a productive member of society.

Wasn't that his big 'contribution' in New York... he cut everything except police and teachers?
If you want to believe the negative spin on it yes. Realistically, he cut everywhere he could to balance the budget.

For the most part, I wish it wasn't so, but Giuliani comes across as the worst sort of conservative... a far-right blamethrower. I've heard him blame porous borders for everything from the deficit, to soaring crime, to domestic terror. He's quite willing to strip any 'right' from anyone, if he doesn't need their vote that bad.
His international policy is something that conerns me. Mostly because he has had no experience on the international level with much of anything.

Is it? Based on what? What's his State experience? That would be even closer, wouldn't it?
You were the one equating personal finance with state finance, not me.


As would Giuliani. He's a capitalist in the other sense of the word - he's capitalised on tragedy. At least Clinton would be a clarion call that the US was aware there was a 21st century.
I'd rather have someone who owns up to their past mistakes (at least partially) instead of someone who throws the blame onto others for everything.

Is that like charter schools?

Kind of. The short version is every child gets X amount of dollars paid by the government for them to sit in a public school. The voucher program means the parent can take that money and apply it to any school the kid attends, even a private school.

Charter schools are a publicly funded school that is kind of like a private school (as far as rules and laws they have to follow). They still have some accountability since they are public.

I suck at explaining things.

My candidate Giuliani wins. Hill 'o Beans Goddamn Clinton crashes and burns. MoveOn, George Soros, San Fran Nan, Harry Reid et al. cry. I am happy :D
Mrs. President has such a nice ring to it. :p

The only thing crashing and burning in 2008 will be the Republican platform.

Perhaps you should reserve your padded cell (with extra padding) now? :p

Wouldn't Edwards be an even better option, then?

No. He may be opposed to corporate corruption, but he also has a past as a person little better than an ambulance chaser (if better at all) - and even his opposition to corporations come across as smarmy and insincere. He also showed a distinct inability to form and articulate his own opinions when running with Kerry in 2004 - something which led me to dislike him as a candidate in that election, and which he has done nothing at all to overcome in this one. Even now, he'll answer questions with what others think - often telling you what his wife thinks if his position may be unpopular. He doesn't seem like a leader, and I don't trust him any more than Clinton.