The DITL primaries

[Mikey]

Seems like a nice enough guy, but I personally think there is too much of a gulf between some of the ideals of his platform and actual practicability.

[sunnyside]

Like many Libertarians he looks good until you get to the crazy stuff. Or if you stop and think about some of it for a while.

It's the kind of party I'd like to see a couple congressional seats go to but never the presidency.

Huckabee was the "fairtax" guy, which is roughly designed so that the poorest in society shoulder the largest proportional tax burden and the richest the least.


Out of the two I'm Obama over Hillary. I'm not so sure about Obama vs McCain though. I want to like OBama. But he's full of promises and I seriously question his ability to deliver on all of them. Also some have shifted. He used to havea massive plain to send aid to Africa and I can't find it now (I don't think it was viable at all).

Really if he wanted if he can actually tax the rich enough to pay for his stuff. I'd love is he'd have some economists and accountants go thourhg his plans and demonstrate this.

But I think it's just so much fluffy stuff until he hits office.


And then I'm nervous about his foreign policy. Not sure about McCain, though I think he'd do better than Bush.

[Teaos]

I like Tsukiyumi like Ron Paul but would like to tweak a few of his ideas. But then again is there anybody out there who agrees with evrything the guy they support says?


But in the case of Obama Vs Clinton I'd go for Obama. But thats like saying I'll take Cancer over Ebola.

[stitch626]

Hillary and Obama are almost indistinguishable in "theory". What made the easy decision for me is that when you actually look at their voting record, instead of their spoken platforms, Hillary has basically enabled Bush on everything of any importance that deeply went against my beliefs regarding the Constitution, invasion of privacy, and this illegal war.

Just to let you know.
When Obama says that he did not vote for the Iraq war, he is being deceptive. He wasn't even a senator at the time, so he had no say in the matter.

[Aaron]

Just to let you know.
When Obama says that he did not vote for the Iraq war, he is being deceptive. He wasn't even a senator at the time, so he had no say in the matter.

And? What matters more is that he has been against it since he took up his position.

[Teaos]

But saying you are against something and going against your party to vote against somethign are two different issues. We'll never know how he would have voted.

[Aaron]

But saying you are against something and going against your party to vote against somethign are two different issues. We'll never know how he would have voted.

We can make an educated guess based on his voting record. And from here it looks like he wouldn't have, which is basically a moot point considering that Bush and cronies lied and outright fabricated evidence.

[sunnyside]

But saying you are against something and going against your party to vote against somethign are two different issues. We'll never know how he would have voted.

We can make an educated guess based on his voting record. And from here it looks like he wouldn't have, which is basically a moot point considering that Bush and cronies lied and outright fabricated evidence.

Actually that isn't a moot point since it's why the Democrats agreed at the time.

Personally on things like this Obamas lack of experience really help. Because he hasn't had to make a lot of hard calls. It's easy to criticize someone elses actions with the advantage of hindsight. I mean every couch has a better coach than Madden ever was right?

Also it means that he's had fewer instances where he had to make hard calls such as if a bill he supported got stuffed with pork. Or the classic case where a bill sounds good be really isn't. So later they say candidate X voted against the "We should support of kids" bill when in fact it had special man/boy love provisions. Stuff like that.

I bet it's also hard to find cases where he "flip flopped" simply because of his short tenure. Most of the time "flip flops" are just a sign a person is willing to adapt. Like I think they grilled Kerry on flip flopping for softening his position on Cuba. Never mind the Soviet Union sort of collapsed.

[Aaron]

Actually that isn't a moot point since it's why the Democrats agreed at the time.

That's what I said.

Personally on things like this Obamas lack of experience really help. Because he hasn't had to make a lot of hard calls. It's easy to criticize someone elses actions with the advantage of hindsight. I mean every couch has a better coach than Madden ever was right?

He doesn't have that much experiance, Clinton has a few years on him but most of that was spent sucking Bush cock and she hasn't changed much on that. Obama at least is consitant with his platform.

Also it means that he's had fewer instances where he had to make hard calls such as if a bill he supported got stuffed with pork. Or the classic case where a bill sounds good be really isn't. So later they say candidate X voted against the "We should support of kids" bill when in fact it had special man/boy love provisions. Stuff like that.

I believe most of his bills manage to get through without a load of BS attached or start that way.

I bet it's also hard to find cases where he "flip flopped" simply because of his short tenure. Most of the time "flip flops" are just a sign a person is willing to adapt. Like I think they grilled Kerry on flip flopping for softening his position on Cuba. Never mind the Soviet Union sort of collapsed.

I agree that changing your position isn't a big deal if it's a rational deal. Like Kerry with Cuba, there's no reason for the embargo to continue forty four years after the crisis, especially since the US now has relations with Vietnam. Unfortunatly the Cuban exiles vote in a bloc and Florida is a swing state.

[sunnyside]

He doesn't have that much experiance, Clinton has a few years on him but most of that was spent sucking Bush cock and she hasn't changed much on that. Obama at least is consitant with his platform.

He hasn't really had the time to not be consistent. Especially going into a presidential run he'd be foolish to not play it pretty tight.

I believe most of his bills manage to get through without a load of BS attached or start that way.

I don't know about that one way or another, but that isn't the point.

What I'm talking about would be things like when a bill comes through that raises taxes, but also supports children.

Vote for it, and in some commercial you'll be accused of raising taxes. Vote against it and you hate children.

Same deal if there is some bill "for the kids" but it's stuffed full of piles of pork.(such as if it came from Alaska). Do you screw over the kids to stop the pork or vote for the pork?

Or maybe the Republicans drafted a "save the environment" bill, and you can guess how that might go.

These are the sort of decisions Obama has been able to avoid having to make for the most part. And which are likely to hurt Clinton or McCain.



As for Obamas legislation I'm not an expert on it. But much of what I have seen him putting out are things that even Republicans would like, an immegration bill Bush likes, things for veterans.

Though I think he's been putting out a flurry of stuff as his presidential run approached. Now that's just good tactics. You don't have to worry about putting stuff in your bill to gain the favor of others.

Just put out a bill voters would like and throw it out there. It won't even hit the floor before you're voted in. Nothing to lose.

[Reliant121]

I'm going to drop my shields so to speak.

I voted.....

Clinton

[sunnyside]

I'm going to drop my shields so to speak.

I voted.....

Clinton

well fine. Just say why. Remember with the younger set Obama rules. But like 48% of democratic voters seem to like Hillary more.

[Reliant121]

Younger set...huh...13 year old. lol. Its not so much policies. I just cant stand Obama. Dont know why.

[Tsukiyumi]

...What I'm talking about would be things like when a bill comes through that raises taxes, but also supports children.

Vote for it, and in some commercial you'll be accused of raising taxes. Vote against it and you hate children.

Same deal if there is some bill "for the kids" but it's stuffed full of piles of pork.(such as if it came from Alaska). Do you screw over the kids to stop the pork or vote for the pork?...

I still can't understand how that's even allowed. "Let's vote on subject A. Oh, wait, the senator from *insert state name* wants to add subject B to the same vote... Uh, NO! We'll vote on subject B seperately, as it has no bearing or connection to subject A." Wow. That was hard.

They shouldn't be allowed to toss whatever crap they want onto an unrelated bill. Hell if they'd ever vote to make that a law, though...

[Duskofdead]

I'm going to drop my shields so to speak.

I voted.....

Clinton

well fine. Just say why. Remember with the younger set Obama rules. But like 48% of democratic voters seem to like Hillary more.

Some part of that is that people tend to assume "liberal" when they hear "Democrat." There are an awful lot of union or former-union workers in the U.S. who voted hardcore Democrat pretty much on labor issues alone; and a lot of these people are Midwestern or Southern white people who wouldn't exactly rub shoulders with black people.