Who Do You Think Will Win The Democrat And Republican Nominations?

[deadsox 891]

I agree that that is what it was intended to be, however over recent years it's been so ripped to shreds (metaphorically speaking) and had so many amendments made to it that anyone could find a loophole to justify what they want at the time.

 

The trouble with the Supreme Court is that the majority of those appointed have been done so by Republican presidents, it's a bit like the law lords in England. Once you reach a suitable level of senility,then you can be appointed to the High Court.

 

This election seems to be more on the issues than it was last time round. There was the big debate as to whether Bush (Born Again Christian) and Kerry (Catholic) should win. The whole mudslinging contest was fought out between two issues

1. The Presidential hopeful's military records

2. Their religion

 

Although the constitution is hardly perfect, it's still a better foundation for just rule than anything I can think of (I'm sure you'll help me). The elections are always about issues, it's only your perception that things like the candidate's religion is decisive. The Democrats lost the last two elections to an inferior candidate because they leaned so far to the left that people held their noses and voted for someone they didn't like that much. I'm hoping they'll do a better job assessing the electorate this time but I have my doubts.

[Godot 148]

The Democrats lost the last two elections to an inferior candidate because they leaned so far to the left that people held their noses and voted for someone they didn't like that much.

To put this in context for us Brits I should point out that "leaning so far to the left" in American politics would enable you to see Welsh tenor John Redwood's lips moving on a clear day. I don't think there is a left wing in US politics, just a right wing (Democrats) and a far right wing (Republicans) Outside these two main streams there are just commie bastards.

 

 

PS: looking for something to maintain the context of moderation in American politics I came across this snippet and it seemed strangely familiar. Is this the authentic voice of Banshees Scream? The cohesive argument , the razor sharp delivery and polished enunciation seem soooooo Banshees.

[Phantom 2,469]

I agree that that is what it was intended to be, however over recent years it's been so ripped to shreds (metaphorically speaking) and had so many amendments made to it that anyone could find a loophole to justify what they want at the time.

 

The trouble with the Supreme Court is that the majority of those appointed have been done so by Republican presidents, it's a bit like the law lords in England. Once you reach a suitable level of senility,then you can be appointed to the High Court.

 

This election seems to be more on the issues than it was last time round. There was the big debate as to whether Bush (Born Again Christian) and Kerry (Catholic) should win. The whole mudslinging contest was fought out between two issues

1. The Presidential hopeful's military records

2. Their religion

 

Although the constitution is hardly perfect, it's still a better foundation for just rule than anything I can think of (I'm sure you'll help me). The elections are always about issues, it's only your perception that things like the candidate's religion is decisive. The Democrats lost the last two elections to an inferior candidate because they leaned so far to the left that people held their noses and voted for someone they didn't like that much. I'm hoping they'll do a better job assessing the electorate this time but I have my doubts.

 

Luckily so far I've not seen many of the mudslinging commercials as there were last time around, but I'm sure that will change once there's a clear candidate on each side. It would be a refreshing change if the independant candidates can get together and rally under the same ticket. Even though there is a Liberatarian Party, it doesn't really have the same punch.

 

The constitution even though not being perfect does provide a good foundation for the basics of the law, I wouldn't say that the law in England is perfect either. There will always be someone who disagrees with different aspects of the laws that are set in place.

 

It's not my perception about the candidate's religion that made me think it was decisive, it was listening to people at work when they would express who they would vote for an why. Granted that it's not everyone who thinks along those lines, but to many people it does play a big part. My neighbours for example voted for Bush, not on any policies, but because he was a Christian and they weren't keen on having a Catholic running the country.

 

I've lived here for 4 years and I find a lot of things still very confusing. I could list them out and hopefully someone on here can help me clarify matters.

 

1. The difference in road traffic laws, ie why is it legal in some states to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet yet it's illegal in other states

The same also with use of cellphones while driving.

 

2. Education:- A degree taken at one university or college would not be the same if you were to take it at another one even if it's in the same state. Why not have a national syllabus where if you complete two years of a degree at one university, it's easier to continue at any other college or university in another part of the country or even in the same state without having to worry about whether your credits can be transferred.

 

3. Why not have everyone go to the polls on the same day, it would save a lot of money with the campaigning for the primaries? I couldn't work out why with the last primary, the parties said they were going to punish Michigan by removing some of the delegates from the ballot paper?

 

That's all I can think of at the moment

[Banshees Scream 107]

Is this the authentic voice of Banshees Scream?

 

Not authentic. I mean I'm serious and enthusiastic at the same time. I'm both seductive and comedic. (I only use certain words) Godot - I'm not elderly! It sounds like this man might have suffered a stroke.

 

Godot I'm almost offended.

[Dave to the Grave 11]

To put this in context for us Brits I should point out that "leaning so far to the left" in American politics would enable you to see Welsh tenor John Redwood's lips moving on a clear day. I don't think there is a left wing in US politics, just a right wing (Democrats) and a far right wing (Republicans) Outside these two main streams there are just commie bastards.

Are you trying to tell us that people will condone a political system that makes the rich, richer and subjugates the poor with fairy stories? Surely not.

Next someone will come on here and claim that 'the American dream', is nothing but a very successful recruitment slogan used by 'Corporate America' to attract cheap labour, and that there are more billionaires in Moscow than New York. Stuff of nonsense.

 

I have carried out my democratic right by not voting in this poll, mainly because I only vote for candidates that are bald and have bad teeth. Unfortunately for this reason I couldn't vote for Scruffy Doodle, no matter how worthy his policies.

[Windsor 2,143]

Hoi! deadsox!

 

Scroll down to the picture of Romney and read back what the caption says!

 

Link

 

I suppose that makes the BBC anti-Mormon aswell now does it?

[deadsox 891]

Hoi! deadsox!

 

Scroll down to the picture of Romney and read back what the caption says!

 

Link

 

I suppose that makes the BBC anti-Mormon aswell now does it?

 

W-

It's remarkable to me that you can zero in on one caption and miss the main point of the article. Romney WON the primary. Everything about everyone is a factor. My point was that most American voters (with the exception of Phantom's co-workers) do not make religion the main or even an important one. We have idiots and bigots here as I'm sure you have in the UK, but most Americans vote on issues. I don't understand Godot's allusion regarding the American Left but there are plenty of socialists, communists and other assorted left wing radicals here. It's just that most Americans understand that socialism is an inefficient system (see Soviet Union). Our brand of capitalism is far from perfect but we're trying to make it better.

[Windsor 2,143]

Hoi! deadsox!

 

Scroll down to the picture of Romney and read back what the caption says!

 

Link

 

I suppose that makes the BBC anti-Mormon aswell now does it?

 

W-

It's remarkable to me that you can zero in on one caption and miss the main point of the article. Romney WON the primary. Everything about everyone is a factor. My point was that most American voters (with the exception of Phantom's co-workers) do not make religion the main or even an important one. We have idiots and bigots here as I'm sure you have in the UK, but most Americans vote on issues.

 

That is not the point. The point is that the one drawback towards the Romney campaign is his religion. I think that is what I stated when I went through the candidates, just before you called me a bigot.

[Windsor 2,143]

Hoi! Deadsox!

This article also puts alot of emphasis on Romney's faith. He is apparently doing much better in Primaries where people share his faith.

 

I thought you said faith had nothing to do with it?

[themaninblack 2,112]

Hoi! Deadsox!

This article also puts alot of emphasis on Romney's faith. He is apparently doing much better in Primaries where people share his faith.

 

I thought you said faith had nothing to do with it?

 

Has there ever been a Mormon President?

[deadsox 891]

There has never been a Mormon president (unless he was in the closet). W, I don't care how many articles you produce. I never said that faith had nothing to do with it. You should re-read my posts. What I said to the point of tedium is that most Americans vote based on issues and not religion. Since I am an American and know more Americans than you, I think my opinion holds more weight than yours. Romney won the Michigan primary and was governor of Massachusetts, and neither state has enough Mormons to shake a stick at. I called you a bigot because your post seemed to say he was a bad candidate based only on the fact that he was a Mormon. You then went on about him having different wives for different functions. Since then you said that I misinterpreted your remarks and I'm prepared to accept that but you don't know as much about the United States as you think you do.

[deadsox 891]

Hoi! deadsox!

 

Scroll down to the picture of Romney and read back what the caption says!

 

Link

 

I suppose that makes the BBC anti-Mormon aswell now does it?

 

W-

It's remarkable to me that you can zero in on one caption and miss the main point of the article. Romney WON the primary. Everything about everyone is a factor. My point was that most American voters (with the exception of Phantom's co-workers) do not make religion the main or even an important one. We have idiots and bigots here as I'm sure you have in the UK, but most Americans vote on issues.

 

That is not the point. The point is that the one drawback towards the Romney campaign is his religion. I think that is what I stated when I went through the candidates, just before you called me a bigot.

 

Actually, W your point is wrong that the one drawback to the Romney campaign is that he's a Mormon. The biggest drawback on Mitt is that he's a flip-flopper (see John Kerry). When he ran for governor in strongly Democratic and left leaning Massachusetts, he said he was pro-choice on abortion. When he decided to run for national office in the Republican party, he had an epiphany and decided he was pro-life (anti-abortion). When pressed on this he claimed to have had an honest change of heart, but I would be more likely to believe that if both stances hadn't been to his advantage. This is much more likely to hurt his chances with American voters (like me). Although I am pro-choice, I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to sway my vote very far, but I do want a candidate who's a leader and not a poll taker.

[Windsor 2,143]

That's funny.

The only flip-flopper I can see in this picture is your good self. Honestly. Talk about splitting hairs.

 

I can't see why you don't just back down and admit the importance of religion.

 

Why is Mitt Romney doing better in areas where there is a higher Mormon electorate? Is it just that Mormons think he is not a flip-flopper whereas non-mormons think he is?

 

Given that you are not accepting what articles are saying - with opinions from political analysists - I can't see the point in continuing the argument.

[CarolAnn 924]

*snip*

1. The difference in road traffic laws, ie why is it legal in some states to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet yet it's illegal in other states

The same also with use of cellphones while driving.

 

2. Education:- A degree taken at one university or college would not be the same if you were to take it at another one even if it's in the same state. Why not have a national syllabus where if you complete two years of a degree at one university, it's easier to continue at any other college or university in another part of the country or even in the same state without having to worry about whether your credits can be transferred.

 

3. Why not have everyone go to the polls on the same day, it would save a lot of money with the campaigning for the primaries? I couldn't work out why with the last primary, the parties said they were going to punish Michigan by removing some of the delegates from the ballot paper?

 

That's all I can think of at the moment

 

1. 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

2. That would require a) getting all the state schools to cooperate then all the private schools to sign on. Over 4000 accredited universities agreeing on anything? Don't see it.

 

3a. Probably the media.

 

3b. From Wikipedia: Michigan Democrats moved their primary date to January 15 in an effort to increase the state's influence in the presidential candidate nominating process. They argued that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary unfairly dominated the selection process.^[3] Democratic Party rules prohibit any state, except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, from holding its primary before February 5. On December 1, 2007, the Democratic National Committee decided to strip Michigan of all of its delegates to the national convention. Michigan would normally send 156 delegates. A similar occurrence happened in Florida.^[4]

 

 

[Guest Guest]

*snip*

1. The difference in road traffic laws, ie why is it legal in some states to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet yet it's illegal in other states

The same also with use of cellphones while driving.

 

2. Education:- A degree taken at one university or college would not be the same if you were to take it at another one even if it's in the same state. Why not have a national syllabus where if you complete two years of a degree at one university, it's easier to continue at any other college or university in another part of the country or even in the same state without having to worry about whether your credits can be transferred.

 

3. Why not have everyone go to the polls on the same day, it would save a lot of money with the campaigning for the primaries? I couldn't work out why with the last primary, the parties said they were going to punish Michigan by removing some of the delegates from the ballot paper?

 

That's all I can think of at the moment

 

1. 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

2. That would require a) getting all the state schools to cooperate then all the private schools to sign on. Over 4000 accredited universities agreeing on anything? Don't see it.

 

3a. Probably the media.

 

3b. From Wikipedia: Michigan Democrats moved their primary date to January 15 in an effort to increase the state's influence in the presidential candidate nominating process. They argued that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary unfairly dominated the selection process.^[3] Democratic Party rules prohibit any state, except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, from holding its primary before February 5. On December 1, 2007, the Democratic National Committee decided to strip Michigan of all of its delegates to the national convention. Michigan would normally send 156 delegates. A similar occurrence happened in Florida.^[4]

 

 

Most boring thread of the year? No doubt.

[Windsor 2,143]

Most boring thread of the year? No doubt.

 

Haven't you read the Suharto thread recently?

[Godot 148]

What I said to the point of tedium is that most Americans vote.......

 

At last we have consensus.

 

Since I am an American and know more Americans than you, I think my opinion holds more weight than yours.

Never a good basis for argument: "I own the ball so I'm better at football, ya boo sucks."

[Banshees Scream 107]

If anybody watched the Democratic debate last night on CNN you might have seen somebody ask Barack 'was Bill Clinton the first black president!? Completely random by the way. His reply was something along the lines of ... 'Well .. I would have to check out his dancing abilities and a few other things ..

 

His next line would have been 'Well if he could slam dunk...

 

Anyway I see good things in Obama and as a debater he really owned Hillary last night just putting everything into context she threw at him. I think Johnathan Edwards was the most loud in what he was saying but 'besides the sick wife -who needs that' he just doesn't get enough recognition. Hillary went on talking about how in 60 days of her presidency she would be dismissing troops which was significant while Barack took a very conceited approach and just kept going back and fourth with Hillary while Edwards was getting sort of pissed off because at one point he couldn't even get a word in.

[Phantom 2,469]

Since I am an American and know more Americans than you, I think my opinion holds more weight than yours.

 

I have to say that is the most arrogant reply so far.

 

Just beause you're an American your opinion doesn't hold any more weight than anyone else who is watching coverage of the presidential campaign. You're more involved as you're entitled to vote, but that is all.

 

I live in the US and am surrounded by Americans. Does that mean my opinion is worthless because I'm not an American?

Windsor is entitled to his opinion as well. I guess in the constitition everyone is entitled to free speech, but prone to be shouted down at any given moment.

 

Some news channels and publications pretend to be impartial, however if you were to ever watch Fox News, which is clearly in support of the Republicans, they do tend to focus on the religious inclination of the candidates.

 

If most Americans that went out and voted on election day could put down their flags for one moment and think about which candidate would do best at mending diplomatic ties with other nations, then there might be hope further down the line.

[Guest Guest]

Can I ah offah you ah ride in my ah automobile, Senator Obama?

 

[Cowboy Ronnie 77]

Can I ah offah you ah ride in my ah automobile, Senator Obama?

 

 

The political equivalent of Michael kissing Fredo in Godfather Part II.

[Windsor 2,143]

Did Edward Kennedy ever run for president?

Third time lucky and all that...

[Cowboy Ronnie 77]

Did Edward Kennedy ever run for president?

Third time lucky and all that...

 

He did, in 1980. This line from Wiki sums up his campaign nicely:

 

"In addition, the Chappaquiddick incident still dogged the senator, and his opponents often invoked the highly recognizable melody of Simon & Garfunkel's 1970 hit song "Bridge Over Troubled Water" to remind voters of the tragedy and scandal."

[Phantom 2,469]

John Edwards to drop out of Presidential race

[football_fan 41]

Giuliani drops out Republican presidential race and endorses McCain