2004 Democrat primary

Posts you want to find years later go here.

Postby Jonathan » Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:35 pm

VLSmooth wrote:Er, so am I to conclude that the people should "Fuck the fucking fuckers"?
(note: I despise Lieberman as well, if not only for his strong support of censorship)


Your conclusions are correct. For my part, I too mainly dislike Lieberman for his stances on censorship.
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby Alan » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:35 am

I also dislike Lieberman because watching him speak pisses me off for no specific reason.
Image
Alan
Veteran Doodler
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Where I am

Postby quantus » Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:16 am

I dislike Lieberman because I don't like his name.
Have you clicked today? Check status, then: People, Jobs or Roads
User avatar
quantus
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:09 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby Peijen » Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:20 am

quantus wrote:I dislike Lieberman because I don't like his name.


I know, what kind of fucking lame ass stupid name is JOE
Peijen
Minion to the Exalted Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 2778
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:28 pm
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby quantus » Sat Feb 07, 2004 4:50 pm

exactly
Have you clicked today? Check status, then: People, Jobs or Roads
User avatar
quantus
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:09 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby Peijen » Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:31 pm

Bush said he supported his country during the Vietnam War, but called the conflict "a political war."

"I supported my government," he said. "I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way."

"The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was it was a political war," he said. "We had politicians making military decisions, and it is lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective."


does he even realize what he is saying? because it seems to describe what his administration did/is doing with the iraqi war.

from CNN
Peijen
Minion to the Exalted Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 2778
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:28 pm
Location: Irvine, CA

Postby Jonathan » Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:38 pm

Image
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby Jonathan » Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:41 pm

So I think this thread is almost done. Dean just announced he was no longer running for President. That leaves just two viable candidates, Kerry and Edwards.

Of the two, I am hoping Kerry will win. See this article about his proposed economic policies:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18561082.htm

He wants to reduce the deficit, not raise taxes on the middle class, and offer tax credits for companies employing more people to spur job growth. That seems like a reasonable and desirable course of action to me. In comparion, well:

Trade is proving another hot-button issue, egged on by rival Democrat Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina who has made protectionism his mantra.


I don't think protectionism is a good idea, nor do I think it will work out in the long term. The long term solution to white-collar jobs going overseas is to raise the standard of living everywhere so programmers in India aren't paid one third of what they would be paid here. If you look at history, I don't think there's been a situation in which protectionist government intervention helped an industry survive long-term contact with the global economy. Either you adjust or you exit the market.
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby Jonathan » Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:50 pm

What we need instead is relief and re-training for people who have lost their white-collar jobs. From what I've read, all the government assistance and programs are for people who worked in manufacturing and had their factory get moved overseas.
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby skanks » Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:16 am

So Russia has a Presidential election coming up soon, too. Theirs is actually just weeks away and its worth paying attention to if only for pedagogical reasons.

Current President Vladimir Putin has shut down critical media coverage, locked up political opponents, boosted the state enforcement apparatus, subverted legimate political activity, and used both carrot and stick tactics to ensure support from the Russian elites.

There are, of course, opposition parties in Russia. One of them is the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. This article http://exile.ru/183/183020000.html on the Russia Dems exposes the logical conclusion of political timidity and is a must-read for anybody who's been alarmed by the accomodating tactics of certain "opposition" party members here at home.

When Nezavisimaya Gazeta asked him what he didn't like about Putin he replied, “Who said I don't like Putin?”
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Postby Alan » Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:44 am

Hey, but Bush looked Putin in the eye, shook his hand, and knew immediately that he was a "good man".
Image
Alan
Veteran Doodler
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Where I am

Postby Alan » Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:33 pm

Why does Nader run? I get that he wants to raise certain issues, and that maybe people who vote for him usually wouldn't vote, but I'm sure he still takes votes away from the Democratic candidate.

http://www.comcast.net/News/GENERAL//XML/1131_Presidential/a2732f1f-f797-4b01-8346-f812beb6bd53.html
Image
Alan
Veteran Doodler
 
Posts: 2538
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Where I am

Postby skanks » Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:58 am

my brother-in-law (who's credible since he's a Fulbright scholar and a political science professor at Puget Sound) points out that polls consistently showed that those who voted for Nader (and Pat Buchanan) were people that otherwise wouldn't have voted.

Some Dems have been hyperventalating over Nader, but Nader's going to have serious difficulties being any competition.

a) he needs to get on the ballot (not going to happen without the greens)
b) people vote for him

a) is doubtful and more b) is more so. There's no competition to worry about. The left is more disciplined now than it has been since Kennedy. Everybody who's politically inclined and to left of John McCain can't stand Bush and are doing whatever they can to dislodge him. Given that Nader's one and only demographic (ie disgruntled college students) is avidly sworn to rid Bush, then I can't see Nader as a spoiler.

ON THE CONTRARY, Nader could be just the thing the Dems need. With the left so disciplined the Dems could use dialogue between Kerry and Nader to gain some press without risking defections to the Nader camp. In particular they could do this during the "dolldrums", the political gauntlet after the primaries and before the election when the encumbent candidate has tremendous influence over setting the agenda. This advantage is doubly true given the unparalled size of Bush's warchest. Whoever sets context is going to be have tremendous influence over many voters.

But If Kerry (or Edwards) is politicallly adroit he could use interplay between him and Nader to trump up a little bit (not a lot) of press. For instance, Kerry could invite both Nader and Bush to debate. Now Bush would avoid that like the plague since the last thing Bush is going to do is go up against somebody as wellspoken, knowledgable, and unapologetically to the left as Nader is. So Bush would bail. If it was only Kerry versus Bush then it wouldn't matter if Bush declined, but if Kerry and Nader still debate anyway then Bush is still going to look cowardly even after White House spin. (the debate organizers could emphasize Bush's absense up by leaving a third podium empty on the debate stage -- that'd be hilarious). And if the eventual debate is anything like the debates in the Democratic primaries, then its a win-win-lose for Kerry-Nader-Bush respectively.

But the most important quality about such an event is that it keeps the spotlight on Kerry and on criticisms of the presidency. It forces Bush to go on the defensive. It prevents a total media black-out of Kerry's policy initiatives. All of these benefits far outweight the risks of encouraging defections to Ralph Nader.

(In theory at least. This requires some amount of discipline from Nader and I don't think the Dems trust him enough.)

It seems to me that Nader's just going to have a run so he can take some potshots at Bush, gain a little time in the spotlight, and gain a progressive concession from Kerry. Nader will stick out until the election night, but I think deep down he knows this election needs to go to the Dems.
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Postby Jonathan » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:38 am

To conclude, Kerry has this thing pretty much locked up. Edwards would need to carry something like 70 percent of the vote from here on out to win, which just isn't going to happen. Now it's time to look forward to the presidential election.
Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby quantus » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:59 am

Oh, and Nader may be more likely to steal Republican votes this time because there are actually a decent number of Republicans that dislike Bush, but wouldn't vote for Kerry. It would be interesting to see more polling of the Republicans with questions about this possibility.
Have you clicked today? Check status, then: People, Jobs or Roads
User avatar
quantus
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
 
Posts: 4648
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:09 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby skanks » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:22 am

quantus wrote:Oh, and Nader may be more likely to steal Republican votes this time because there are actually a decent number of Republicans that dislike Bush, but wouldn't vote for Kerry. It would be interesting to see more polling of the Republicans with questions about this possibility.


http://salon.com/news/wire/2004/03/04/poll1/index.html

Contrary to what I had previously claimed, the latest poll shows Nader at a whopping 6% while Bush and Kerry are neck-and-neck. Apparently some people will support Nader. Judging by the recent trends in poll numbers where Kerry had a five point, it seems that the support for Nader will come from the support for John Kerry.

Who are the Naderites?
skanks
Poser
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:16 am

Previous

Return to The Vault

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron