Caucus Discussion in General
- Thread starter Jaeger
- Start date
~Blazi-King~
Active Member
Personally, I wasnt at all surpised by the fact that Obama killed in the Iowa Primary, and that Hillary did poorly...
Ive known for a while (Since 2006) that Obama is exactly what this country needs...a non-polarizing entity!
Now on the other hand, Huckabee was a clear surprise..To me it show'd that the republican majority are sick of even their own party...
SIDE NOTE: If Huckabee wins, and becomes president..Then Chuck Norris will be President, though indirectly. FTW!
Ive known for a while (Since 2006) that Obama is exactly what this country needs...a non-polarizing entity!
Now on the other hand, Huckabee was a clear surprise..To me it show'd that the republican majority are sick of even their own party...
SIDE NOTE: If Huckabee wins, and becomes president..Then Chuck Norris will be President, though indirectly. FTW!
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
RE ixidor: the ABC/WMUR debate was decided on criteria that included poll placement, which Giuliani had "qualified" for. Fox News just chose who it liked.
I'm a conservative, yet I'm disgusted by how biased Fox News is. Making a decision like that BEFORE the results are out makes me want to burn my face off at times! :///
RE Blazi-King a.k.a. Clay: Obama is what America needs in that aspect. However, here is why I would never vote for him...
-He has very little national experience. He hasn't even completed his first term as a Senator, misses MANY votes, and is just overall inconsistent enough to not be considered a "safe" choice.
-He is very shaky on specifics. Obama resembles the stereotypical candidate more than other because he promises everything to everyone, yet has no real plan to deliver any of this effectively.
-Change, the one thing Obama guarantees that he will achieve, isn't necessarily a good thing. Not to make too bold of an analogy, but didn't Hitler also deliver a vague promise of "change"?
It's a shame that Clinton and Obama are at the top, because Dodd/Biden (dropped out), Richardson, and even Edwards would prove to be much more effective leaders. Richardson is about as moderate as you could get, and Dodd/Biden are the most experienced, intelligent, and honest out of anyone running for either party.
I'm a conservative, yet I'm disgusted by how biased Fox News is. Making a decision like that BEFORE the results are out makes me want to burn my face off at times! :///
RE Blazi-King a.k.a. Clay: Obama is what America needs in that aspect. However, here is why I would never vote for him...
-He has very little national experience. He hasn't even completed his first term as a Senator, misses MANY votes, and is just overall inconsistent enough to not be considered a "safe" choice.
-He is very shaky on specifics. Obama resembles the stereotypical candidate more than other because he promises everything to everyone, yet has no real plan to deliver any of this effectively.
-Change, the one thing Obama guarantees that he will achieve, isn't necessarily a good thing. Not to make too bold of an analogy, but didn't Hitler also deliver a vague promise of "change"?
It's a shame that Clinton and Obama are at the top, because Dodd/Biden (dropped out), Richardson, and even Edwards would prove to be much more effective leaders. Richardson is about as moderate as you could get, and Dodd/Biden are the most experienced, intelligent, and honest out of anyone running for either party.
~Blazi-King~
Active Member
I definitely agree with everything you said...But I would rather have that, than someone who is gonna divide the country. =/
Im willing to accept that more from a president, than I am, say Congress. Look at what happened during the Civil War, all our leaders (In congress) were getting too old and/or didnt want to run again to hold their offices. What happened as a result was a failure to stop that war before it got out of hand. A. Jackson was a strong president and did a good job at being strong and stopped the mess the first time (30 years prior to the war), but he also had the backing of a experienced Congress. Granted a president could have done something, but with inexperienced leaders in the other branches, basically tore the country apart then (Until Abe). (<-----That paragraph was my History theises on why the war fell upon us After Andrew Jackson left office)
Anways:
Experienced Congress > Experienced President
At least Congress can guide the president in matters.
Another point, is that the President also has advisors, so even if he isnt all the experienced, he can still run the country somewhat effectively until he figures out the system.
Now, Hitler was a Appeaser...Promising everything to every group, without actually comming through on those promises. If that were to happen here and now, I think he would definitely hear about it and be voted out next term. Thats the beauty of our system.
In words of Kinky Friedman: "I may not know HOW to do it, but I sure can learn...:biggrin:"
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
I like how you mention Kinky...I voted for him over Grandma, Perry, AND Bell in the '06 race!
I essentially agree with that: a person "could" learn the office pretty quickly. However, whereas in the case of the '06 gubernatorial race, where Kinky was the only candidate I could stand, the Republicans and Democrats have actually cranked out some elect-able individuals that outskill Obama.
IMO, the only truly polarizing figure who could effectively "divide" the country is Hillary. If it were a heads-up Hillary VS Obama race in the general election, with no other candidates, I would vote for Obama over her due to the reasons you bring up. For much of the same reason, I voted for Kinky: when your incumbant is crooked, and when his two main opponents are glory-seekers who would not put your state on the right track, there's only one option!
I essentially agree with that: a person "could" learn the office pretty quickly. However, whereas in the case of the '06 gubernatorial race, where Kinky was the only candidate I could stand, the Republicans and Democrats have actually cranked out some elect-able individuals that outskill Obama.
IMO, the only truly polarizing figure who could effectively "divide" the country is Hillary. If it were a heads-up Hillary VS Obama race in the general election, with no other candidates, I would vote for Obama over her due to the reasons you bring up. For much of the same reason, I voted for Kinky: when your incumbant is crooked, and when his two main opponents are glory-seekers who would not put your state on the right track, there's only one option!
Otaku
Active Member
See, the concern about polarization... it puzzles me.
First, usually the person/group/etc. wanting to "unite" everyone is as much to blame or more so than anyone else for the initial schism. I mean the whole "Red America/Blue America" thing didn't really become big until after George W. Bush won. That means its all his fault, right?
Or maybe its a large part of the media and the Left trying to explain how they lost to Dubya. So they chop up the U.S. and can blame the "Red states". Well, I guess that applies more to 2004. We know what they blame 2000 on. >.>
For that matter, it used to be "Republican" states were "Blue States" and "Democratic" states were "Red states". Boy that switch makes it confusing for people like me who grew up hearing Republicans use the old anti-Communist "better dead than red" slogan about Democrats.
So where was I? Ah yes, polarizing figures and why I feel the need for them. Simply put, I find ideas can often gain support by trying to appear innocuous and then "infecting" people. That is to say, you convince everyone that something isn't a big deal and that it is "okay" to believe it and then, once you have enough people at least accepting other people believing it, suddenly its starts getting touted as right. If you don't manage to get enough of majority then and their, and the other side fights back and says "no, this isn't right", then you say they are being partisan. And polarizing. If ideas are worth having, then they are worth fighting for. No, I don't mean starting a new "civil war". However, I have my political beliefs and I don't want to be sold out, again, by a Republican who says he'll be a conservative and then governs as, at best, a moderate.
Compromise is for deciding where the family eats out at, not for law and policy.
So... I fear I am probably not coming across clearly. What I want to say is that I feel we need candidates that emphasize, properly, the true difference between conservative and liberal politics in the U.S. and that people realize they need to choose a side. Yes, you can choose a side without sacrificing your own beliefs: simply put if something you strongly believe in conflicts with stuff on both sides, then perhaps you need to make sure you have the proper definition of either or re-evaluate your own beliefs. I know that as I got older, I realized I had conflicting beliefs with either side of the political spectrum. Thing is, it was all down to either misunderstanding what being a conservative or liberal met or what my own faith demanded of me.
First, usually the person/group/etc. wanting to "unite" everyone is as much to blame or more so than anyone else for the initial schism. I mean the whole "Red America/Blue America" thing didn't really become big until after George W. Bush won. That means its all his fault, right?
Or maybe its a large part of the media and the Left trying to explain how they lost to Dubya. So they chop up the U.S. and can blame the "Red states". Well, I guess that applies more to 2004. We know what they blame 2000 on. >.>
For that matter, it used to be "Republican" states were "Blue States" and "Democratic" states were "Red states". Boy that switch makes it confusing for people like me who grew up hearing Republicans use the old anti-Communist "better dead than red" slogan about Democrats.
So where was I? Ah yes, polarizing figures and why I feel the need for them. Simply put, I find ideas can often gain support by trying to appear innocuous and then "infecting" people. That is to say, you convince everyone that something isn't a big deal and that it is "okay" to believe it and then, once you have enough people at least accepting other people believing it, suddenly its starts getting touted as right. If you don't manage to get enough of majority then and their, and the other side fights back and says "no, this isn't right", then you say they are being partisan. And polarizing. If ideas are worth having, then they are worth fighting for. No, I don't mean starting a new "civil war". However, I have my political beliefs and I don't want to be sold out, again, by a Republican who says he'll be a conservative and then governs as, at best, a moderate.
Compromise is for deciding where the family eats out at, not for law and policy.
So... I fear I am probably not coming across clearly. What I want to say is that I feel we need candidates that emphasize, properly, the true difference between conservative and liberal politics in the U.S. and that people realize they need to choose a side. Yes, you can choose a side without sacrificing your own beliefs: simply put if something you strongly believe in conflicts with stuff on both sides, then perhaps you need to make sure you have the proper definition of either or re-evaluate your own beliefs. I know that as I got older, I realized I had conflicting beliefs with either side of the political spectrum. Thing is, it was all down to either misunderstanding what being a conservative or liberal met or what my own faith demanded of me.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Agreed: fourth place, or even last place, is making quite a difference, and is therefore worth discussing : D
Soooo Republican candidates, two months until the Texas primary? You have time, so convince me to vote for you!
~~~My rankings of the Republican candidates right now~~~
-Fred Thompson: He's "extremely" honest, and overall a no-nonsense guy. While I disagree with his, as well as almost every other candidate's, view on abortion, Thompson's convictions on the border, laissez-faire politics, and the economy make him one of my big favorites right now.
-John McCain. While he's a very liberal Republican, I feel that he has the uncanny ability to truly unite congress. Barack Obama, despite what any may say, is a polarizing figure, whereas McCain stands to actually get something done. His border policies are really shabby, but at least he said in the South Carolina debate that he's for a wall!
-Ron Paul: Of all the candidates, I feel that, bar the minor extreme here or there, Ron Paul's stances on the ISSUES are more rock-solid than anyone else. However, in modern times, the head of the Executive Branch is expected to LEAD...As evident from his newspaper (hijacked by racists), and his candidacy (hijacked by radicals), Ron Paul simply cannot lead, but only "represent."
-Giuliani (tied with Romney): seems like a very honest, upstanding individual, with some good foreign policies, and even better fiscal policies. However, at times he is very "warhawkish," and seems to claim too much credit for NYC's response to 9/11.
-Mitt Romney (tied with Giuliani): amazing business sector experience and former governor...What's there not to like? Well, his flip-flop on abortion is very telling, and uhhh, this may seem silly, but I HUGELY resent not being allowed to attend a Romney speech held on my very own college campus.
-Mike Huckabee: seems like a wonderful person, but his "fair" tax policies would do short "and" long term harm to the middle/lower classes. Rather than make Americans pay the same amount in a different sector of the economy, why not make them pay _less_, and cut spending???
-Duncan Hunter: other than his very intelligent border views, there's almost nothing that makes him stand out over the others.
~~~My rankings of the Democratic candidates right now~~~
-Hillary Clinton: As much as I almost "hate" to say it, Mrs. Clinton is the most moderate, and most experienced, of the four remaining Democrats (IDK if Gravel dropped out). She has much more experience than "no show" Obama (reference to how he is rarely seen at the Senate), and has more common sense than John Edwards.
-Obama, Edwards, and Gravel: I dislike a presidency with any of those three people severely. I may go into detail later.
Soooo Republican candidates, two months until the Texas primary? You have time, so convince me to vote for you!
~~~My rankings of the Republican candidates right now~~~
-Fred Thompson: He's "extremely" honest, and overall a no-nonsense guy. While I disagree with his, as well as almost every other candidate's, view on abortion, Thompson's convictions on the border, laissez-faire politics, and the economy make him one of my big favorites right now.
-John McCain. While he's a very liberal Republican, I feel that he has the uncanny ability to truly unite congress. Barack Obama, despite what any may say, is a polarizing figure, whereas McCain stands to actually get something done. His border policies are really shabby, but at least he said in the South Carolina debate that he's for a wall!
-Ron Paul: Of all the candidates, I feel that, bar the minor extreme here or there, Ron Paul's stances on the ISSUES are more rock-solid than anyone else. However, in modern times, the head of the Executive Branch is expected to LEAD...As evident from his newspaper (hijacked by racists), and his candidacy (hijacked by radicals), Ron Paul simply cannot lead, but only "represent."
-Giuliani (tied with Romney): seems like a very honest, upstanding individual, with some good foreign policies, and even better fiscal policies. However, at times he is very "warhawkish," and seems to claim too much credit for NYC's response to 9/11.
-Mitt Romney (tied with Giuliani): amazing business sector experience and former governor...What's there not to like? Well, his flip-flop on abortion is very telling, and uhhh, this may seem silly, but I HUGELY resent not being allowed to attend a Romney speech held on my very own college campus.
-Mike Huckabee: seems like a wonderful person, but his "fair" tax policies would do short "and" long term harm to the middle/lower classes. Rather than make Americans pay the same amount in a different sector of the economy, why not make them pay _less_, and cut spending???
-Duncan Hunter: other than his very intelligent border views, there's almost nothing that makes him stand out over the others.
~~~My rankings of the Democratic candidates right now~~~
-Hillary Clinton: As much as I almost "hate" to say it, Mrs. Clinton is the most moderate, and most experienced, of the four remaining Democrats (IDK if Gravel dropped out). She has much more experience than "no show" Obama (reference to how he is rarely seen at the Senate), and has more common sense than John Edwards.
-Obama, Edwards, and Gravel: I dislike a presidency with any of those three people severely. I may go into detail later.
Kettler, you bring up good points, but many of the people you listed have flipflopped, and you won't find a more solid record then Ron Paul(I'm sure you already knew that tho )
I do like thompson for the most part, mostly because he isn't like Obama/Edwards/Romney filling what they say with so much rhetoric you don't know which way is up (I'm for "change").
And I would NEVER vote for McCain simply because of his foreign policy stances.
Overall, good post. 7.5/10
P.S. I am the official post-rater of the gym.
)I do like thompson for the most part, mostly because he isn't like Obama/Edwards/Romney filling what they say with so much rhetoric you don't know which way is up (I'm for "change").
And I would NEVER vote for McCain simply because of his foreign policy stances.
Overall, good post. 7.5/10
P.S. I am the official post-rater of the gym.
Otaku
Active Member
Oh, I don't know, a lot of candidates have done a good job to eliminate themselves from consideration already. XD
Cyrus, I'll have to catch you on AIM sometime: I'd love for you to explain why you disagree on that "one issue" with so many of the conservative candidates (I know better than to get into it here: how could it not take over the thread and still get done justice?)
Cyrus, I'll have to catch you on AIM sometime: I'd love for you to explain why you disagree on that "one issue" with so many of the conservative candidates (I know better than to get into it here: how could it not take over the thread and still get done justice?)
~Blazi-King~
Active Member
THats because Obama wasnn't on the Ballot....Which really surprises me! Why in the world would you leave off a potential presidential nominee? I dont understand that...