Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2014, 05:18:12 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6
26  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:what states should the dem target and who for vp? on: March 30, 2004, 10:49:08 pm
I think it has to do with the fact that she's a strong woman. The republicans like traditional families where women are running things in the background. A first lady should stand beside her husband smiling quietly all the time, in their opinion. Seems to be an obvious answer, but is there a better one? This Hillary hatred is quite mysterious.
Well, Liddy Dole ain't that different from Hilalry in those respects.

Despite her public office, Liddy Dole apparently reassures conservatives that she is a "traditional woman". Sadly, social conservatives only accept women leaders if they (female politicians) go out of their way to act traditional. The only reason Hillary is hated more than other liberal Senators is that sexist men see her as an "assertive, pushy woman". Sexists see Hillary as trying to occupy a man's role in society.

I remember asking my father when i was noticably younger why Republicans hated Hillary so much. His response  "because she is more of a man then they will ever be".  Many conservatives feel like less of a man when a woman is in power, and if there is anything hillary is about it's being powerful.  Mrs. Dole isn't so much about power, conservatives probably feel that Bob can control her, while every knows that hillary is independent.
27  General Politics / Political Debate / Re:National Sales Tax?? on: March 30, 2004, 02:03:10 pm
National sales tax would be inherently unfair. For it to be anywhere close to replacing the income tax it would have to be close to 20%.

The poor spend all their money. Lets say we have a poor guy who makes only $10000 a year. He spends all his money and thus pays

20% of $10000 = $2000

in tax.

Say we have a rich guy. He makes $400,000 a year .  He very likey saves a lot of his money, and since the sales tax is so oppresively high he often goes to foreign countries to spend his money. Lets say he only spends $200,000 in the US

20% of $200,000 =  $40,000

Poor guy pays 20% of his income, rich guy only pays ten percent. Its entirely and utterly unfair.

Not to mention the current old. They saved their post-income tax earnings for retirement, and now you are asking them to pay a substatial chuck of tax on whats left.

Its one thing for the rich to say that they pay too much tax, its another for them to pay half as much (percentage-wise, which is the only -wise that matters) or less than the very poor.
28  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:Who is currently gaining in the polls? on: March 30, 2004, 01:49:46 pm
Well i Say
By Election Night
bush will Win A 2nd Term
Bush: 51%
Kerry: 46%

But the question was one of flow, not one of stock.  "Who is gaining?"  not  "Who is ahead?"  Clearly Bush is gaining in the Vorlon-approved polls.  As for your optimistic prediction:  I like it very much.  But I'm not sure Kim Jung-Il will like it.  

I don't like Bush gaining in the polls. But Osama does.

Percent prediction:

Bush: 49.2%
Kerry: 48.9% (but wins electoral college)
Nader: 1%

Kerry will get utterly torched in 2000 close states like Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and get beat decently in nevada. He'll just pull out wins in Ohio (perhaps Florida instead) and Penn and WV and NH. Thus Goring Bush.
29  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re:US annexing Canada, only a matter of time? on: March 30, 2004, 01:43:29 pm
Most of the immigrants to the US are probably Mexicans swimming across the Rio Grande.  

Actually they wade.
30  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re:Will Arnold Schwatzenegger get re-elected? on: March 29, 2004, 04:36:29 pm
We are like Arnold!  We are!

That's untrue.

How many republican office holders/candidates support civil unions, and wouldn't be against gay marriage if the people voted for it?
How many republican office holders/candidates are pro-choice?
How many republican office holders/candidates support medical marajuana?
How many republican office holders/candidates actually will not defer to the NRA on every single gun issue?
How many republicans in Washington are for balancing the budget? they are all pigs at the trough.



Arnold is for civil unions, choice, medical dope, reasonable gun laws, and he talks tough about deficits. He is more liberal than Evan Bayh, (Bayh is a deficit hawk too).

Of Senators only McCain, Chafee, Snowe, Specter, and Hagel (that's off the top of my head) are republicans who are reasonably like Arnold. Practically all the rest are far to the right.

If Arnold was a senator he would be the most liberal republican by quite a bit, and probably to the left of Bayh, Lieberman, Zell Miller (duh), and Breaux

Arnold is a Republican only because he likes them, and that was the only way he could become governor of California.

Arnold is an awful lot like Clinton. However in California i guess he counts as a republican, barely.
31  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re:FINAL RATIFICATION VOTE PART I on: March 28, 2004, 10:50:25 pm
I vote 'yea'
32  General Politics / Political Debate / Re:Pledge on: March 28, 2004, 08:47:26 pm
I'm an atheist. I'm against the words "under God" in our pledge. It was added because McCarthy and co. were raving lunatics claiming to see reds everywhere. They thought that no true Commy could say 'god' so they added it to the pledge thinking they could catch people that way.

As much as I support the original pledge, I really don't care.  I would prefer it gone, but if the right and center want it to stay let it stay. As long as they let us keep church and state seperate in other areas.

I personally just pause and let everyone else say 'under god' and then i continue with them.

In any case this is the sort of thing that will change in time. In a couple more generations the religious right spike of our time will cool down and the atheists will become a considerable part of the country, and maybe will get a dozen or so congessman and we can change it then when our voice is truly heard, but at this point I don't care.

In any case no one says the pledge after elementary school anyways, and there are few elementary atheists.
33  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re:Osama Bin Laden on: March 28, 2004, 08:27:32 pm
Assassinate him, all other terrorists, and bomb whatever crowds that form to protest it.


Yeah, that'd be a smart strategy...

I just thought of that one after they assassignated that Hamas guy - all those crowds protesting, all those potential terrorists conveniently gathered together..


Oh, so only Arab protesters then, not Western ones? I thought dropping a bomb on Times Square or Trafalgar Square might be slightly exaggerating the war on terror...

Opebo would drop a bomb on times square. In fact opebo would nuke all of Europe and all the middle east and then Boston, New York, Chicago, SF, and LA, and DC (once Dubya gets outta town). All in the name of fighting terrorism of course ...
34  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re:Concerned Citizens on: March 28, 2004, 06:57:32 pm
Supersoulty should be moved to a free-speech zone immediately.

Supersoulty is unatlasian. Anyone who speak to denigrate the president at a time like this is obviously working for the terrorists. To continue these charges would be treason, and slander, and ought to be hannatized.

I call for supersoulty to end his run for whatever political office and face a military tribunal.

Not to mention that he must be commiting perjery.

Wink    Wink    Wink    Smiley    Wink    Wink    Wink
35  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:Effect of a Kerry/Edwards ticketů on: March 28, 2004, 06:11:50 pm
Although I like Edwards he's always seen like a phony to me.

It seems to me that he sat down some day in late 96 after Clinton was reelected and thought to himself that he could be president. That HE could beat the republican incumbent who would be elected after clinton. So he decided to run for the senate. He got elected, he looked pretty, and he ran for president. Now he'll be Attorney general of sec. state or VP and he'll run in '12 or if Kerry loses he'll just shrug his shoulders and continue with his being an attorney .  
36  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:Is Pennsylvania "in play"..? on: March 27, 2004, 10:16:00 pm
as ive pointed out before, new hampshire is a right wing state.  

pat buchanan can attest to that.

but it is trending Dem...after going GOP every time 1968-1988, it is coming to us.

I don't think the fact that it went republican from 68-96 means anything. We (dems) have only won once in that time period (Carter '76)  and that was the last gasp of the Democratic South.

However I would agree that has become more democratic. Simply because the national parties are becoming more and more  south versus north. New Hampshire may be a republican state, but those republicans are often apt to be the sort of old school Republicans of the Hoover/Dewey type.  The party has moved away from them. The question is if they will respond like southern dems have when the same thing happened to them.

That is why the republicans have been so succesful since 68. They have been able to cause southern dems to vote republican and keep northern republicans (and R leaners) from voting democratic. Clinton (and to a much lesser degree, Gore) was able to convince northern republicans to vote for him, vote for Perot, or stay at home.

I think Kerry can pull off convincing NH republicans , since they won't be put off by his new england self. Real question is if he can do the same thing to enough Pennsylvania republicans to get the state.
37  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re:IMPORTANT!!!!!! March/April Census on: March 27, 2004, 08:24:32 pm
Kghadiali
Democrat
Indiana
38  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion on: March 27, 2004, 02:43:21 pm
Southwest

I think Bush will be dumping his campaign war chest in the Southwest, making it very difficult for Kerry to progress.  However, I think Colorado will be slightly ignored and Kerry will push hard with the Hispanic vote here.  We'll have to see.  I know most people can't see Colorado switching with New Mexico staying blue, but I suspect a surprise.



I think Kerry was born in Colorado. If I had to pick a state that almost everyone thinks is safe, and put it in the other column, I would pick Colorado too.
39  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign / Re:Dems rally for Kerry on: March 26, 2004, 10:31:57 am
Gore isn't much of a loser either.  He garnered more votes than his opponent in every single political race he has ever entered, excepting of course his '88 run for the nomination.
40  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:YAP - FOX NEWS AKA Republican NEWS on: March 26, 2004, 10:10:21 am
Give me a break with your FOX News rip.  They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS but that doesn't make them GOP news.  They report both sides, did you ever watch a Fox News debate show?  Watch Hannity and Colmes (a flaming liberal) and then turn to Larry King Live.  King pitches soft balls.  

Look at Clarke.  A booking on O'Reilly is known to sell books, but Clarke did not book on O'Reilly.  Why?  Cause his ridiculous assertions and his lies would be ripped to shreds piece by piece.  The mainstream media actually refuses to report the facts concerning Clarke and his contradicting statements.  They ignore facts if those facts get in the way of their story.   They have conviniently ignored Clarkes background interview he gave in 2002.  They act like it doesn't exist.  

Say this or that about Fox News,  but they report both sides of an issue.

Colmes, a flaming liberal? hahaha  
He might be flaming to you, but Colmes is known as one of the most moderate hosts around. Many  of the conservative guests on the show comment on how Colmes is their favorite liberal. Colmes himself has said that he is "moderate, quite moderate" . Count how many minutes Hannity speaks for on the show and then count how many Colmes does.  Its seriously tilted to Hannity.

O'Reilly and Hannity attack their guests. They cut mikes, they "hannatize", etc. So of course it looks like Larry King pitches soft balls.  Most of the rest of TV personalities actually like and respect their guests.

and BTW , the reason people sometimes call it "GOP news" is because they purport to be "fair and balanced", and also because the grand majority of their viewership is GOP
41  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re:Israel and Palestine on: March 26, 2004, 09:56:24 am
When I say state of Israel, I do not mean as part of the USA Wink


lol

I remember when I was first taught about Israel's creation.  I thought that it was silly place to put a nation of Jews. It didn't seem wise to put a few million Jews in the middle of tens of millions of Arabs. I said "why didn't we give them the Dakotas, its not like we were using them"
It was, is and will be their land. You heard about history, roots, etc.

I know that now. But when I was like eleven, obviously I didn't know the whole backstory.
42  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:YAP - FOX NEWS AKA Republican NEWS on: March 26, 2004, 09:51:04 am
Foxnews has also updated its Bush approval rating on its site ....

DOWN TO 47% !!
Most of that is a drop in Independents


It seems to me that Fox has always had the biggest margins for Kerry/Edwards .    Other polls that ask about the whole ticket usually have  Bush fall a point when you say "Bush/Cheney" instead of just "Bush" and just "Kerry/Edwards" is one point better than just "Kerry" . But this Fox gives Kerry a four-point boost for picking Edwards.

Johnny Sunshine is very very powerful
43  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re:Israel and Palestine on: March 26, 2004, 09:40:43 am
When I say state of Israel, I do not mean as part of the USA Wink


lol

I remember when I was first taught about Israel's creation.  I thought that it was silly place to put a nation of Jews. It didn't seem wise to put a few million Jews in the middle of tens of millions of Arabs. I said "why didn't we give them the Dakotas, its not like we were using them"
44  Questions and Answers / Electoral Reform / Re:DC Voting Rights on: March 25, 2004, 11:31:49 pm
DC gets a  raw deal.  It is treated like Puerto Rico except having to pay taxes and gets 3 electoral votes for paying those taxes.  At the very least DC deserves a congressman.

Thing is no one outside of DC gives a damn.
45  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:I can summarize this election in two sentences. on: March 25, 2004, 11:14:38 pm
I think a "riot" is hard to define. If a Kerry voter slugs a Nader voter for being an idiot and a few other people join that fracas it wouldn't be a riot.

The over/under should be on the number of arrests made because of poll area violence Wink
46  Questions and Answers / Electoral Reform / Re:Expanding the House a bit on: March 25, 2004, 11:10:01 pm
I think we do need to increase the number of representatives, probably not as drastically as you have it though.

We have added 2 states since they set that number, and so we ought to have an extra 3 or 4 congressman.  I think perhaps that we should add 2 for every state that we add to the union. So retroactively that would give us four more, and if/when DC or Puerto Rico become states we will increase the number too.  It would be pretty bad if four states all had to lose a seat because we added a those to the union, states should lose seats only because they grow slower than the nation as a whole.
47  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re:Your number on: March 25, 2004, 10:54:30 pm
TEN !!!

I think I moved farther to the left since the last time I took this.

Perot didn't cost Dole much at all. Arguably most of them would have stayed at home or voted for some other third party. Probably only Kentucky would have changed without Perot.
48  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re:Puerto Rico on: March 25, 2004, 01:16:36 am
I know what you mean. They better become a state, they've freeloading for two generations too many. Either free them or tax them ....

Puerto Rico wouldn't benefit democrats that much.  Practically every Republican thinks Bush has made serious inroads into the Hispanic population. They should have nothing to fear Wink

And we should combine the Dakotas while we are at it so we can still have 50 states Smiley
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re:Why Indiana is so conservative ? on: March 25, 2004, 01:11:19 am
Indiana is so conservative for one simple reason:

It's the south, without the African-Americans.

Admittedly the northern lake area counties are part of the North and thus make Indiana a little closer to the center than the deep south (Carolinas, Georgia minus Atlanta, ala. , miss. , etc. ) if they all of a sudden lost all their African Americans.

Ohio and Illinois is much the same but they have far larger areas where the white folk are northern white folk, rather than southern white folk. Sorry if that seems offensive, but there really isn't a better way to put it, each minority type varies somewhat by region but caucasians vary wildly by region, some whites are new england liberals, and some are bible belt conservatives and the midwest is where they mix .

My theory on the Klan being so strong in Indiana is that they found it to be a haven of like minded people without too many of the people they hated (er ... still hate) being around.

This sounds about right. There certainly are southern whites who live in the North, and visa versa. The suburbs of Chicago fit in with the North, but most of the state fits in with the South.

What I find interesting is why is the Fort Wayne area so conservative. I've never been there, but I didn't think it was at all southern.

I don't think Ill. (w/o Chicago) and Ind. are comparable politically. Gore would have still won Illinois without Chicago.

Indiana doesn't make much sense.  The guys who work at the factory in Elkhart county with my dad, are a bunch union workers a third of which are from WV. They seem like they should be rather democratic, They were pretty reasonably heavy Bush in '00. Now they seem to fall closer to the northern union worker average. They made fun of my dad for supporting the environut anti-gun Gore, now they tell him he was right all along.

Elkhart County used to be more dependent on factory jobs than any other county in the nation. It still voted 2 to 1 for Bush, its in the North, it borders Michigan and it was still more Republican than the state average.  The city of Ft. Wayne is a little more democratic, but Wayne county is much more conservative. I'm not sure what to say about it but the fact that the northern two/thirds of Indiana away from the lake and not in the city of indy proper is all staunchly Republican.

Gore would have lost Illinois if you took Cook county (Chicago's county) out of the state. Bush beat him by like 150,000 in the rest of the state. The reason the rest of Illinois would be more moderate than Indiana is because there are more Northern whites in Illinois.  Look at the counties on the Iowa border.
50  General Politics / Political Debate / Re:Abortion on: March 25, 2004, 12:25:57 am
I know.

Golly gee, maybe if I work really hard and eat all my veggies, I can develop the brain power of CTGuy. And then I too can be the most hated man on this forum...even among Democrats...

lol ....

Markdel I'll second you on that, even Democrats aren't too high on CTGuy these days ...

CTGuy,
Its not wise to attack with every post you make. Its guys like you who make me beam with pride for being rejected by Yale.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines