+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: we are nearing interesting times (/thread-2339.html)
we are nearing interesting times - eppie - 01-15-2008
Quote: When in doubt, I'd consider Dwayne Alazando Camacho. Camachos' got what voters crave. He's got electrolytes.
Is he family fo Hector 'macho' Camacho? If so I'm sure he can kick some but.
General question: do you think the party elections in which the candidates throw quite some mud at eachother are actually a good training on how to defend oneself, or does it give the candidate from the other party new tools to throw mud once the real election campaign start?
we are nearing interesting times - Hammerskjold - 01-15-2008
>Is he family fo Hector 'macho' Camacho? If so I'm sure he can kick some but.
No direct relation to Hector AFAIK, but Dwayne A. Camacho does kick butt.
Here's the proof.
(Warning, some bad language, may not be safe for work or for kids.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTpYBuD4p-0
we are nearing interesting times - kandrathe - 01-16-2008
Quote:General question: do you think the party elections in which the candidates throw quite some mud at each other are actually a good training on how to defend oneself, or does it give the candidate from the other party new tools to throw mud once the real election campaign start?I think excessive mud in the primary damages the candidate for actual election. The electorate does not forget the mud no matter who slings it.
The democrats tend to suffer more since there are more factions (the extremes of ecoterrorist lipstick lesbians, union autoworkers, and the southern former plantation owners). The Neocon and Libertarians have made a few waves in the Republican party, but the rifts are more nuances of foreign policy positions (hawk vs dove) and the role of the federal government (big vs small).
we are nearing interesting times - Jester - 01-16-2008
Quote:The Neocon and Libertarians have made a few waves in the Republican party, but the rifts are more nuances of foreign policy positions (hawk vs dove) and the role of the federal government (big vs small).
Religion?
-Jester
we are nearing interesting times - Quark - 01-16-2008
A decision made in May is suddenly "unconstitutional" because it would help Obama
Where exactly is this magical "5 times" Bill Clinton is spouting coming from? Why are people surprised that a help for people who work Saturdays was found? Why are people who don't work on Saturday the ones complaining?
This stinks, plain and simple.
we are nearing interesting times - kandrathe - 01-17-2008
Quote:Religion?Yes. That one too. :)
-Jester
Not so much as its existence, but its role in the political process. I think the mainstream Republicans try to stay out of the way of the some of the religious conservative blocs, and there does not seem to be much use in trying to argue with them. It is never mentioned much, but it exists as much for the democrats for both protestants and catholics. I feel the err for both religious left and right is the use of the state in both enforcing a morality, and in parenting a society.
Personally, I abhor single dimension politics. Even though I'm dedicated to being a religious person, I'm not interested in voting for a Pastor in Chief. I'm pretty happy with a republic based on democratic principles, and would stand against anything jeopardizing personal liberty, or smacking of a theocracy. I do like Ron Paul's position "The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population".
But he's pretty extreme for a Republican.
we are nearing interesting times - kandrathe - 01-17-2008
Quote:Where exactly is this magical "5 times" Bill Clinton is spouting coming from?It might be that each caucus gets to send delegates to the State convention, and if that caucus is not a representative portion of the population their nominating votes are unfairly allocated. Voting precincts are usually arranged with boundaries which are allocated into equal population zones. Imagine if, in addition to the normal population based caucuses in Michigan, that every auto plant was able to have its own delegates.
p.s. I found an article discussing the issue and the formula... link. The issue appears to be that beyond the population caucuses, States sometimes have "at-large" delegates. But it seems the issue is in designating their location which might favor a certain group of voters over others and inflate the number of at large delegates. When the race is so close, a 6% shift one way or the other will have a big impact.
we are nearing interesting times - Munkay - 01-17-2008
Quote:Personally, I abhor single dimension politics. Even though I'm dedicated to being a religious person, I'm not interested in voting for a Pastor in Chief.
Agreed, and agreed.
This blew my mind.
I really don't even know how to react. Blows my mind.
Cheers,
Munk
we are nearing interesting times - Hammerskjold - 02-01-2008
It's down to 2 for the Dem's side, and down to 4 for the Grand ole Partay. Though really, I count 2.5 or 3, never say never but I think Huckabee's best bet is to try to snag a VP ticket.
Bad timing for the writer's strike, because for me at least, this is the best show on television right now.
we are nearing interesting times - eppie - 02-01-2008
Quote:Agreed, and agreed.
This blew my mind.
I really don't even know how to react. Blows my mind.
Cheers,
Munk
Well this exactly shows why many people in europe are more scared of the US than of the Taliban.
I have big problems with the fact that if you state you don't believe in god you make 0 zero chance of becoming president.
One terrible outcome is that the cultural conflict between the west and Muslim extremism if turned into a religious conflict by leaders on both sides. The greatest victims being of course moderates.
But back to the elections; I'm sorry Edwards had to stop. Is there any chance he can be VP candidate again?
And what the republicans are cocnerned....well McCain would be the best candidate.
*laughs when thinking about 'the John McCain experience' from family guy*
Apparantly in vietnam he showed some real courage and did not give up. Hopefully it shaped him the right way. Bush was much to war-minded, maybe because he had never been in one.
we are nearing interesting times - Lissa - 02-01-2008
Quote:It's down to 2 for the Dem's side, and down to 4 for the Grand ole Partay. Though really, I count 2.5 or 3, never say never but I think Huckabee's best bet is to try to snag a VP ticket.
Bad timing for the writer's strike, because for me at least, this is the best show on television right now.
If the Democrats and Republicans are smart they'll have the following tickets:
Clinton/Obama (interchangeable on who's going for Pres and who's going for VP) and McCain/Romney (because Hucabee scares the crap out of a lot of people and Paul is too grass roots).
we are nearing interesting times - Munkay - 02-01-2008
Quote:If the Democrats and Republicans are smart they'll have the following tickets:
Clinton/Obama (interchangeable on who's going for Pres and who's going for VP) and McCain/Romney (because Hucabee scares the crap out of a lot of people and Paul is too grass roots).
I doubt the likelihood of an Obama/Clinton ticket, and am fully ready to eat my words come August. If Obama's comments were an early indicator (he answered 'No' to the question, 'would you accept a Vice President Term under any of these Candidates?'), I don't see the dual ticket happening.
Ask me three days ago and I would have said Edwards was a shoe-in for a VP spot. He has campaigned for the support of the working lower-to-middle class, comes from a southern state, and receives decent support nation wide.
But this was also assuming he'd stick around for super Tuesday, try to pick up some more delegates and maintain a percentage above 10%. I'm a bit baffled as to his abrupt withdrawal.
As is the case on both parties, now that the fields have narrowed and its essentially a two-horse race on each side, the mud slinging is going to increase exponentially. The niceties of last nights Obama/Clinton 'talk' are going to be in the past once Edwards supports chose a side.
Its definitely in the realm of possibility that the party tickets will go 1/2, but there's also a good chance of the following 7 months doing some irreparable damage.
I'm just praying (I couldn't resist) Huckabee doesn't get a VP nod.
Cheers,
Munk
PS. Eppie, I agree its a sad state of affairs when a president's religious beliefs determines his eligibility for becoming president. Early criticisms of Romney focused on the fact that 'a Mormon president could not get elected in the current US'. On one hand, I understand the role religion plays in politics, and in the US its acceptable for a politician to be religious and 'draw his morality/strength/etc from his religious principles'. But on the other hand, its frustrating to know if an individual says his morality/strength/etc doesn't come from his religious background, then higher political aspirations are shut out.
we are nearing interesting times - Occhidiangela - 02-01-2008
Quote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1199320302...p_us_whats_newsWhile you were paying attention to American politics, some European fools tried to promote a Pre Emptive Nuclear Posture for NATO.
A very interesting article. Especially the part about the snow shovels.
I always have very double feelings about these small factors that can influence an election.
I'm looking forward to reading more about everybody's opinions on the elections here on the lounge and have some good discussions.
Might want to park your blinders and look on your own side of the pond, the foolishness grows as heartily there as it does on this side of the pond.
For your reading pleasure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...22/wnato122.xml
Quote:Nato 'must prepare to launch nuclear attack'
2:29am GMT 24/01/2008
Nato must prepare to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks to ward off the use of weapons of mass destruction by its enemies, a group of former senior military officials has warned.
The document may be discussed at a Nato summit in April. Calling for a major change to Nato's approach to defending its members and their interests, the authors of the report, which has been handed to Nato and Pentagon chiefs, said the first-strike use of nuclear weapons was a "indispensable instrument".
The authors of the blueprint for reforming Nato are understood to include Lord Peter Inge, the former British chief of the defence staff and US General John Shalikashvili, the former Nato commander in Europe and chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff.
"The risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the report said.
"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."
The document reportedly includes Lord Inge's comments on the controversy surrounding nuclear weapons policy: "To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence."
The report called for a wholesale reform of Nato and a new pact between Nato, the US and the European union in order to tackle modern military and terrorist threats to the West.
It warned the spread of nuclear technology meant there was "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".
Terrorism, political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism were major threats to the West, and organised crime, climate change and migration on a mass scale posed dangers to the way of life of Nato members.
The report's authors also cited the weakening of global alliances, including the United Nations.
The authors have proposed major changes to the way Nato operates, including abandoning consensus decision making so fast action can be taken without the threat of vetoes and caveats imposed by some nations.
They also called for military action without ratification by the UN in cases where "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".
The report was compiled after authors were briefed by senior serving military officials who are unable to speak publicly about their concerns with Nato's military strategy.
The document may be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.
The other three authors are Klaus Naumann, a German former military commander, Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch military official, and Jacques Lanxade, the former French admiral and chief of defence.
Occhi
we are nearing interesting times - eppie - 02-01-2008
Quote:While you were paying attention to American politics, some European fools tried to promote a Pre Emptive Nuclear Posture for NATO.
Might want to park your blinders and look on your own side of the pond, the foolishness grows as heartily there as it does on this side of the pond.
Occhi
Of course I am fully aware of that foolishness. However the lurkerlounge has never shown must interest in other places than the US, making it a bit useless to start a Europe (or other continent) topic. ;)
But besides that, I think everybody agrees that the presidential elections of the US are a more interesting topic to discuss about than the opinion of some dutch army official that nobody knows.
By the way it is interesting that I didnot read anything about this in a newspaper over here.
we are nearing interesting times - Hammerskjold - 02-02-2008
Quote:If the Democrats and Republicans are smart they'll have the following tickets:
Clinton/Obama (interchangeable on who's going for Pres and who's going for VP) and McCain/Romney (because Hucabee scares the crap out of a lot of people and Paul is too grass roots).
Iirc Romney said he would not want a VP ticket with McCain, though that's kind of meaningless to me. Considering I thought Edwards would've stuck around for super Tuesday, and endorsements from the Governator and the Kennedys shows just how this race is still far from over.
Now for something a little lighter, watching this race reminds me of a great documentary I saw a while back.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/pleasevoteforme/
we are nearing interesting times - kandrathe - 02-02-2008
Quote:Iirc Romney said he would not want a VP ticket with McCain, though that's kind of meaningless to me.It's not surprising. McCain was contemplating switching parties and was almost Kerry's (Democrat) running mate in the last election. McCain might be the most experienced Democrat, if you like a centrist populist. Romney is probably the only conservative left in the Republican race.
we are nearing interesting times - Nystul - 02-02-2008
I had written McCain off as a viable presidential candidate about 6 years ago. :rolleyes: It makes me feel a bit better about this election cycle to see that he is actually a factor. There is a sense of independence about McCain that works to his advantage given the popularity of current GOP leadership. He is hardly a moderate, but he is a freethinking individual.
A few months is like a lifetime during the presidential election cycle. What seems like a sure thing today may seem laughable tomorrow.
I've always thought Hillary Clinton was unelectable as a presidential candidate, but continued economic frustrations make her a very viable option, and she certainly has someone who knows a lot about spin and presidential politics in her corner. One thing I'm fairly certain of is, she won't be getting my vote.
we are nearing interesting times - kandrathe - 02-02-2008
Quote:I had written McCain off as a viable presidential candidate about 6 years ago. :rolleyes: It makes me feel a bit better about this election cycle to see that he is actually a factor. There is a sense of independence about McCain that works to his advantage given the popularity of current GOP leadership. He is hardly a moderate, but he is a freethinking individual.I think he is the real anti-bush candidate since losing to him in 2000. I would call him a liberal in domestic policy(for big powerful federal government), although he would be probably be hawkish on foreign policy.
Quote:I've always thought Hillary Clinton was unelectable as a presidential candidate, but continued economic frustrations make her a very viable option, and she certainly has someone who knows a lot about spin and presidential politics in her corner. One thing I'm fairly certain of is, she won't be getting my vote.Ditto. What I despise about the Clintons is that they engage in the dirtiest of politics, get caught at it, and still somehow keep their political base. The smears and heinous way the Clinton camp has treated Obama would have been "Smart Politics" if carried out against their Republican rivals. It's as if their supporters believe the lies about a vast right wing conspiracy, just like Hillary believes that Bill is just framed by all those women who throw themselves against him. To me, Hillary represents the "Clueless Victims" party.
we are nearing interesting times - Jester - 02-02-2008
Since when is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a European job?
Not going to dump this on those "across the pond" that easily, although clearly there is enough stupidity to cross oceans with gas left over.
-Jester
we are nearing interesting times - Nystul - 02-03-2008
Quote:I think he is the real anti-bush candidate since losing to him in 2000. I would call him a liberal in domestic policy(for big powerful federal government), although he would be probably be hawkish on foreign policy.
Adding in his social views, I suppose he is a pretty far cry from the dream candidate of conservative libertarians. I'm not one, and he's still not my dream candidate, but I think we could do a lot worse.
Quote:What I despise about the Clintons is that they engage in the dirtiest of politics, get caught at it, and still somehow keep their political base. The smears and heinous way the Clinton camp has treated Obama would have been "Smart Politics" if carried out against their Republican rivals. It's as if their supporters believe the lies about a vast right wing conspiracy, just like Hillary believes that Bill is just framed by all those women who throw themselves against him. To me, Hillary represents the "Clueless Victims" party.
I do not believe that Hillary is the slightest bit naive/gullible/clueless with regards to her marriage or any other matter. Otherwise, we are in agreement. If anyone here is facing rough times and hoping the government will step into your life and make everything right, Hillary is your best bet. Just keep in mind that no matter how tiny your weekly paycheck is, the FICA lines are non-refundable...