we are nearing interesting times

[eppie]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1199320302...p_us_whats_news

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.

[Occhidiangela]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1199320302...p_us_whats_news

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.

Huckabee used the P word.

Plutocracy.

Intent: distance himself from the neoconservative core of the current GOP leadership, smear Romney as a neocon.

He also contrasts his own humble roots with the privileged life of his chief rival here in Iowa, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "If politics is going to end up being nothing more than about who has the most money, then we've not had a presidency, we've had a plutocracy, and we might as well put it on eBay and sell it to the highest bidder," he said yesterday in Mason City.

The Huckster (word deliberately chosen) in this appeal to fear of "those nasty elites" brushes over the last fifty years of American politics: the bolded condition is the current state of play.

"Populist" is an imprecise term, and one to be wary of, eppie.

It can be used to describe an appeal to nativist, nationalistic, or unionist sentiments, depending upon which candidate is using it, or selling it, and when. Something to consider: David Duke ran some years back as candidate from The Populist Party. This does not make all Populists Clansmen, nor Good Union Men. To make a Populist appeal is to assert the existence of "the common man" (who, truth be told, don't as a group agree on much of anything) by whomever is using it. As a label, it roughloy what the speaker intends it to mean, a la Humpty Dumpty.

In other news, Senator Clinton continues with her carefully fabricated persona, and hypocritically attempts to address a populist concern, even though she is one of the elites, well connected, whose income has soared in the last seven years.

Sen. Clinton has spiced up her own stump speech with a bit of middle-class populism this week. "The wealthy and the well-connected have had a president for seven years," she told a crowd in Ottumwa last night. "Meanwhile, most Americans have seen their incomes stall."

Cheeky bunt, that one.

Another note: populist sentiment is commonly tapped into by Libertarians.

Occhi

[Lissa]

Huckabee used the P word.

Plutocracy.

Intent: distance himself from the neoconservative core of the current GOP leadership, smear Romney as a neocon.

The Huckster (word deliberately chosen) in this appeal to fear of "those nasty elites" brushes over the last fifty years of American politics: the bolded condition is the current state of play.

"Populist" is an imprecise term, and one to be wary of, eppie.

It can be used to describe an appeal to nativist, nationalistic, or unionist sentiments, depending upon which candidate is using it, or selling it, and when. Something to consider: David Duke ran some years back as candidate from The Populist Party. This does not make all Populists Clansmen, nor Good Union Men. To make a Populist appeal is to assert the existence of "the common man" (who, truth be told, don't as a group agree on much of anything) by whomever is using it. As a label, it roughloy what the speaker intends it to mean, a la Humpty Dumpty.

In other news, Senator Clinton continues with her carefully fabricated persona, and hypocritically attempts to address a populist concern, even though she is one of the elites, well connected, whose income has soared in the last seven years.

Cheeky bunt, that one.

Another note: populist sentiment is commonly tapped into by Libertarians.

Occhi

The sad part of the whole situation is that you have canidates saying that they won't do what the people with money want them to do, yet politics (and this extends well beyond the US) has always had graft occuring with islands of incorruptiability (TR comes to mind here). And Politicians wonder why most people are cynics in western countries when it comes to politics... :blink:

[eppie]

We have several of these simple questionaires on internet to check which kandidate you would vote for (they ask you 30 questions etc.). Very funny.

I ended up with Edwards or Obama, and the closest republican is Giuliani (no surprise I guess).

Makes me think of the family guy episode where lois is trying to become major. In a debate she answers questions with just: 9.....11 and everybody cheers.

[eppie]

I just read something on Ron Paul. He seems to be an interesting character.
But with his views He will not have much chance to become presidential candidate I guess.

[Occhidiangela]

We have several of these simple questionaires on internet to check which kandidate you would vote for (they ask you 30 questions etc.). Very funny.

The closest republican is Giuliani (no surprise I guess).

That makes you close to a European Neocon.

I find that hilarious.

Obama is a popular choice with a lot of people, but the unanswered question about his is:

Does he have a spine?

I just read something on Ron Paul. He seems to be an interesting character.
But with his views He will not have much chance to become presidential candidate I guess.

He is already a candidate, what he has low odds for is becoming the Republican nominee.

His shot as a VP choice is also a long one. He scares the money people behind a lot of politics in Washington, in terms of his unreliability.

Occhi

[eppie]

That makes you close to a European Neocon.

I find that hilarious.

I think it might be because of the ethical questions. Giuliani is more liberal there then then the more hard core religious candidates.

He is already a candidate, what he has low odds for is becoming the Republican nominee.

His shot as a VP choice is also a long one. He scares the money people behind a lot of politics in Washington, in terms of his unreliability.

Occhi

So you mean that if Paul is not becoming the republican nominee he will run as an impartial presidential candidate?

[kandrathe]

The sad part of the whole situation is that you have candidates saying that they won't do what the people with money want them to do, yet politics (and this extends well beyond the US) has always had graft occurring with islands of incorruptibility (TR comes to mind here). And Politicians wonder why most people are cynics in western countries when it comes to politics... :blink:

Which party and candidate has received the most campaign contributions from defense contractors? If you want to know how the candidate will vote, look at how they are funded. I think I'm beyond cynical, I'm to the point of wondering if it really matters since whomever is elected will already be in someones pocket. I'm also wondering if that pocket is just as comfortable holding a Democrat or a Republican, so long as their pet president signs and vetoes in the right direction. I wonder if the chairmans of the Federal Reserve bank, Bank of England, and the Bundesbank actually hold more power than their respective democracies.

P.S. My Kandidate is ... :-) undecided.

P.S.S. If you want to do some interesting research into the candidate of your choice... Go to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) website and follow the money. For example, who is John F.X. Mannion, and why is he so integrally involved in the Clinton campaign (e.g. DNC, NY Delegate, Treasurer of the Friends of Hillary PAC)?

[Baylan]

That makes you close to a European Neocon.

I find that hilarious.

Obama is a popular choice with a lot of people, but the unanswered question about his is:

Does he have a spine?

He is already a candidate, what he has low odds for is becoming the Republican nominee.

His shot as a VP choice is also a long one. He scares the money people behind a lot of politics in Washington, in terms of his unreliability.

Occhi

I have to agree with the the Obama statement..

As for Paul, I think he's by far the best candidate out there. His unreliability with the money people is part of why I love him - he has principled positions that make sense. He's an extremist, but his extreme views would never pass in Congress. He would, however, create some very interesting situations in Federal Government.

[Occhidiangela]

I think it might be because of the ethical questions. Giuliani is more liberal there then then the more hard core religious candidates.
So you mean that if Paul is not becoming the republican nominee he will run as an impartial presidential candidate?

No. What I mean is that he has low odds of getting the GOP nom, and low odds of being chosen as the VP for whomever gets the nom.

What is an impartial presidential candidate?

I am not familiar with the term.

Occhi

[DeeBye]

I don't pretend to be an expert on US politics, but Mike Huckabee is kinda dumb.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/285862

[eppie]

No. What I mean is that he has low odds of getting the GOP nom, and low odds of being chosen as the VP for whomever gets the nom.

What is an impartial presidential candidate?

I am not familiar with the term.

Occhi

Sorry I'm mixing up words here I guess. I meant somebody like Nader or Perot, so not a member of the republican or democratic party.


I got confused by you saying Paul was a candidate already. With presidential candidate I meant the person running for his party, not all the guys that are battling over representing the party.


Cheers

[Occhidiangela]

Sorry I'm mixing up words here I guess. I meant somebody like Nader or Perot, so not a member of the republican or democratic party.
I got confused by you saying Paul was a candidate already.

He is a candidate. What he isn't is the nominee of the GOP.

You seem to have meant "third party" or "independent" candidate in American political parlance.

DR

[kandrathe]

I don't pretend to be an expert on US politics, but Mike Huckabee is kinda dumb.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/285862

I've heard you use snowmobiles to get around from igloo to igloo and still use whale and seal blubber to power the generators for your internet connectivity.

The national igloo is looking sweet, but hows the king doing these days?

[Munkay]

The national igloo is looking sweet, but hows the king doing these days?

King? Come on Kandrathe, how ignorant can you be. Canada is currently ruled by a Prince. He spends most of his days on his island, affectionately known as Prince Edward's Island.

Sorry Deebye, chalk Kandrathe up to being another dumb Yankee.

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

King? Come on Kandrathe, how ignorant can you be. Canada is currently ruled by a Prince. He spends most of his days on his island, affectionately known as Prince Edward's Island.

Sorry Deebye, chalk Kandrathe up to being another dumb Yankee.

Cheers,

Munk

Didn't I see him on Avonlea?

[DeeBye]

The national igloo is looking sweet, but hows the king doing these days?

The king is doing fine. He's featured on our national currency.

[Jester]

The king is doing fine. He's featured on our national currency.

/doffs cap

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Ok. What could be more interesting than this week?

Hillary vs Obama on racial issues. I love it when liberals get caught in their own PC traps. And, of course, Obama who cut his political teeth on being a neighborhood agitator would exploit the situation where a privileged white girl spouts off on how important a white male democrat was in forwarding civil rights. Yummy. She might as well have done it in black face. Obama's claim is that its not him, but the press... and I actually believe him. For some reason, liberals seem to be tired of the Clintons and that includes the press. Meanwhile, poor Edwards is hoping someone claims he is not white enough or not man enough to be running. I think there might be some other democrats still in the race other than those three, but I'm not sure why.

It's much more interesting than the Huckster vs Mitt on who loves Jesus more, or Guiliani vs McCain on who can be more like a Democrat and still keep the R by your name. I think Fred debates well in between naps, although there is no excitement from him or about him. In fact, it is a sad day for Republicans and Libertarians when Ron Paul seems to be one of the most lucid conservatives. Wacky, but lucidly wacky in a way that scares the bejesus out of the majority parties.

I'm still undecided though...

[Hammerskjold]

>Ok. What could be more interesting than this week?

I found New Hampshire was interesting and entertaining in the sense that the pollsters and press were shocked that their coronatio... I mean predictions didn't quite come true.

But it ain't over yet.


>Hillary vs Obama on racial issues. I love it when liberals get caught in their own PC traps. And, of course, Obama who cut his political teeth on being a neighborhood agitator would exploit the situation where a privileged white girl spouts off on how important a white male democrat was in forwarding civil rights. Yummy. She might as well have done it in black face. Obama's claim is that its not him, but the press... and I actually believe him. For some reason, liberals seem to be tired of the Clintons and that includes the press. Meanwhile, poor Edwards is hoping someone claims he is not white enough or not man enough to be running. I think there might be some other democrats still in the race other than those three, but I'm not sure why.

Most of the articles I've read seems to already predict an Obama & Hillary (or Hillary & Obama) ticket. I guess some folks in the press have an even shorter memory than a goldfish. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you'd think they'd remember how well predictions went at New Hampshire.

>I think Fred debates well in between naps, although there is no excitement from him or about him.

Heh, yeah when he's awake he can be entertaining. The other times though, I'm half expecting him to suddenly go awake and yell out ,"line?!"




>I'm still undecided though...

When in doubt, I'd consider Dwayne Alazando Camacho. Camachos' got what voters crave. He's got electrolytes.