OBAMA WINS (at last)

[Sum Guy]

The IL senator clinched the Democratic nomination this evening (May 3).
Am I the only one who was getting a little bored with it?

 

[CraigDolphin]

I'm not sure bored is the word I'd use: fatigued, maybe?

 

[statsman]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Is it possible that the nomination process was so exhausting, he may be a spent force during the actual campaign?

 

[CraigDolphin]

I don't think so. Clinton and Obama were so close on policy that, IMO, the nomination became a battle between people who were more obsessed with personality. Now that one is gone, the other gets to go up against a candidate with completely different policy and idealogical views.

I know for my part I'm vastly more interested in changing the direction of the policies, removing corruption, and ending the shocking social inequity of this country. When policies become central to the debate I think most democratic party voters will be galvanized and excited again. Getting a leader that inspires me is just a bonus.

 

[Fifty2One]

I hope for the sake of Obama's fellow Americans an equal amount of monies that was wasted on this political waste can be diverted into more important things like poverty, health and education.

 

[ColinEssex]

The IL senator clinched the Democratic nomination this evening (May 3).
Am I the only one who was getting a little bored with it?

In the UK, the date is June 4th - how come it's May 3rd where you are?, that's one hell of a time zone.

Yes we are bored with it, have no interest in it, couldn't care less - the only sad thing is that is he wins the Prez, the betting here is he'll be assassinated. I reckon it's worth a £10 bet, the CIA work in mysterious ways.

Col

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Getting a leader that inspires me is just a bonus.

Yes, he does give a great speech, almost mesmerizing. Too bad the things he says are terrifying.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I hope for the sake of Obama's fellow Americans an equal amount of monies that was wasted on this political waste can be diverted into more important things like poverty, health and education.

Unlikely..

 

[CraigDolphin]

Too bad the things he says are terrifying.

Only if you're a right-wing extremist

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Only if you're a right-wing extremist

Or understand basic economics.

 

[CraigDolphin]

You mean like the 'trickle-down' BS? Thanks but no thanks. Money only does its job when it is actually spent within the economy, not when it is hoarded in offshore accounts by the mega-rich.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

No macro-economics. We don't need trickle...we need a hose. I think Obama listened a little too closely to the ex-presidential candidate, Ross Perot.

 

[CraigDolphin]

A hose eh? Sounds great: let's fill that sucker with acid and aim it at the RNC/McCain. Best economic policy I've heard yet

I think democrats understand much better than republicans the concept of a balanced budget and not funding our present-day spending by borrowing against out grandchildren's earnings. Vote how you will and, if your side wins, God help America and your descendents (if you don't trigger WWIII and you actually have some that survive, that is).

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I think democrats understand much better than republicans the concept of a balanced budget and not funding our present-day spending by borrowing against out grandchildren's earnings. Vote how you will and, if your side wins, God help America and your descendents (if you don't trigger WWIII and you actually have some that survive, that is).

You actually believe that a balanced budget is a good thing in hard economic times? And you actually believe that your children have to pay for it? Wow.

Balanced budget means higher taxes and/or less government spending. Higher taxes means less money in the economy. Less government spending means less money in the economy. I know Perot said those were good things but I didn't think anyone actually believed him anymore, knowing he was just a crackpot. Certainly, neither of the Democratic candidates seemed to indicate they believed it, from their actions.

 

[CraigDolphin]

Balanced budget means higher taxes and/or less government spending.

Yep. I believe it it's a moral imperative that if a generation of voters wants to spend vast amounts of money on a pointless, unnecessary, misguided war...or any other policy, then they should be the ones who have to pay for it. It's a little concept called personal responsibility: or put another way: 'Put your money where your mouth is'

Higher taxes means less money in the economy.

Nonsense. You can't believe that do you?

Giving tax breaks to multinational corporations and multi-millionaires with foreign bank accounts means less money in the US economy. Increasing taxes means government spends that money on governmental employees who spend that money within the US buying groceries, tvs, etc. The money stays here and is recycled.

[Edit] In any case, we're straying off-topic here.

 

[Mike375]

The conclusion I came to several years ago was that there was no difference between the two mjaor parties in either Australia or America when it came to very large issues.

For example, I think if Al Gore had won the POTUS election in 2000 then America would still have invaded Iraq.

Social policy is where there will be a difference.

Very large business is now much bigger as a percentage of the show and dictates what happens.

For the last 12 years or so I have voted for whichever party is in opposition. I=So if Iw as American I would have voted Republican at the End of Clinton's term and Democrat for 2004 and 2008. If Obama won in 2008 I would vote Republican in 2012

 

[statsman]

The conclusion I came to several years ago was that there was no difference between the two mjaor parties in either Australia or America when it came to very large issues.

For example, I think if Al Gore had won the POTUS election in 2000 then America would still have invaded Iraq.

Social policy is where there will be a difference.

Very large business is now much bigger as a percentage of the show and dictates what happens.

For the last 12 years or so I have voted for whichever party is in opposition. I=So if Iw as American I would have voted Republican at the End of Clinton's term and Democrat for 2004 and 2008. If Obama won in 2008 I would vote Republican in 2012

I always thought that the US got into Iraq so that George W could prove to everyone that his father was a visionary and to correct his legacy that that he stopped short in the Gulf War.
Turns out Bush the Elder was correct in not trying to invade Iraq.
Yes I am putting forward the startling conjecture that a Bush may have been right.
Just not the current one.

I generally vote Conservative in the absence of any major issue during a Canadian election. Not because I'm a right wing reactionary but because they usually don' t stand a large chance of winning. That way you can't blame me when the whole place goes to hell.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I always thought that the US got into Iraq so that George W could prove to everyone that his father was a visionary and to correct his legacy that that he stopped short in the Gulf War.

Everybody seems to say that. I just wonder why Bill Clinton thought he had to attack Iraq (aka Operation Desert Fox). I'm sure he didn't care about Dubya's father, or his own for that matter. He just didn't have the resolve that George Dubya had/has. Nor did George H. W. Bush.

Actually, I don't wonder that, I know. I really just wonder why nobody who says Bush is avenging his father doesn't wonder that. I don't really care if people hate him or not, just wonder why they are selective about thier "facts".

Point is, you're right, Al Gore would've done it, Hillary would've done it, Obama would've done it, McCain would've done it, Congress would've done it (in fact, they had as much to do with it as W). Heck, if they had been in that position, even America's biggest critics might have done it (invitation for witty rebuttal from my US hating buddies on the forum). However, most of those other people would have been too wishy washy (including Bush Sr. and Congress) to see it to the end.

 

[Alc]

Heck, if they had been in that position, even America's biggest critics might have done it (invitation for witty rebuttal from my US hating buddies on the forum).

Not an attempt at criticism, a genuine question: What position are you talking about?

I honestly never saw the invasion of Iraq this time round as an attempt by GW to outdo Daddy, but as something that looked like it would succeed at a time when the actual threat (i.e. Bin Laden) was proving too difficult to catch. At least he knew the country coudn't go and hide anywhere. I figured he needed to look like he was doing something constructive after 9/11 and just saw the oil, etc. as a bonus. Unfortunately, the invasion proved a lot harder than expected, so he's now stuck whatever he does. Leave Iraq? He's a quitter, soldiers died in vain, etc, etc. Stay in Iraq? How many more soldiers will die, look at the cost, etc, etc.

 

[Alisa]

The IL senator clinched the Democratic nomination this evening (May 3).
Am I the only one who was getting a little bored with it?

The only thing I am bored with is Hillary. Even in his moment of victory, all anyone could talk about is what she would do, what she would say. She rudely refused to concede, although I hear she is planning to concede in secret this weekend when noone is around to see. Now, two days after his victory, all anyone can talk about is whether or not he should put her on the ticket! I wish she would just go away already. The way she is hanging around gives me the creepy feeling that she is waiting for the hit that she alluded to a couple of weeks ago to happen, so she can be right there to step into his place.