Politics U.S Presidential Primary Thread #2 (Read 14094 times)

  • Avatar of Ryan
  • thx ds k?
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2003
  • Posts: 4460
Presidential Primary Megathread

Things that belong in this topic: Post any shit here that's not really worthy of its own topic. Such as minute by minute results during a primary night or discussion on the candidates in general.

Things that DO NOT belong in this topic: Discussion of anything that does not pertain to the presidential primaries, or discussion of a particular event that warrants its own topic.

Ex:
What to do about Michigan and Florida
Health Care and the 2008 Election
Obama supporter pulls a Ferraro

Helpful sites with information:

On The Issues - Has detailed information on all of the candidates positions
Politico - Widely read political site with blogs by both liberal and conservative bloggers

Quick reference guide for the remaining candidates:

Hillary Clinton (D) - Official Campaign site



Positions on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc):

Abortion:
# Personally would never abort; but deeply values choice. (Jun 2007)
# Abortion is a sad, tragic choice to many women. (May 2007)
# Fought for years to get "Plan B" contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
# Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too. (Nov 2006)

Gay rights:
# Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007)
# Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits. (Aug 2007)
# Let states decide gay marriage; they're ahead of feds. (Aug 2007)

Positions on the economy:

# Government action to tackle recession, not tax cuts. (Mar 2008)
# The economy is not working for middle class families. (Jan 2008)
# Look back to 1990s to see how I'd be fiscally responsible. (Dec 2007)
# Help people facing foreclosure; don't just bail-out banks. (Aug 2007)
# Balanced budget replaced with rising costs & falling wages. (Jun 2007)
# Last six years were challenging; let's try a new direction. (Oct 2006)

Positions on Immigration:

# Guest workers only for farms, to address labor shortage. (Feb 2008)
# Don't turn local police into immigration enforcers. (Feb 2008)
# English unifies us; teach ESL but support other languages. (Dec 2007)
# Crack down on employers who exploit undocumented workers. (Dec 2007)
# Oppose granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)

Positions on the War in Iraq:

# Withdrawing troops is dangerous, including 100,000 civilians. (Jan 2008)
# No military solution in Iraq; this debate motivates solution. (Jan 2008)
# Hope to have nearly all troops out within a year. (Jan 2008)
# Demand Bush to explain to Congress on his plan on Iraq. (Jan 2008)
# No extension on surge; deadline is why Iraq is progressing. (Jan 2008)
# Bush's classified withdrawal plan is cursory; out in 60 days. (Jan 2008)

John McCain (R) Official Campaign site



Positions on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc):

Abortion:
# Abortion issue shows what kind of country we are. (Aug 2007)
# Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)
# Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
# Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)
# “Family Conference” if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
# Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
# Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)

Gay rights:
# Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it. (Jun 2007)
# Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)
# 1st Amend. not a shield for hate groups

Positions on the economy:

# Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000. (Jan 2008)
# I'm well-versed in economics; I was at the Reagan Revolution. (Jan 2008)
# FactCheck: Said--then denied--he needed economics education. (Jan 2008)
# Impose some fiscal discipline to revive the economy. (Jan 2008)
# Will be able to reduce war costs & have a stable Middle East. (Jan 2008)
# Reform insurance to cover violent weather patterns. (Jan 2008)
# To avoid recession, stop out-of-control spending. (Jan 2008)

Positions on Immigration:

# Other aspects only after consensus that borders are secure. (Feb 2008)
# Certify border is secure; only then allow guest workers. (Jan 2008)
# 2003 "amnesty" didn't mean rewarding illegal behavior. (Jan 2008)
# Round up and deport two million aliens who committed crimes. (Jan 2008)

Positions on the War in Iraq:

# Don't let enemy lay in the weeds until we leave. (Jan 2008)
# Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender. (Jan 2008)
# Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low. (Jan 2008)
# Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)
# FactCheck: Yes, criticized Rumsfeld, but not before invasion. (Jan 2008)
# Help Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible. (Nov 2007)

Barack Obama (D) Official campaign site



Positions on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc):

Abortion:
# GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
# Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
# Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
# Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
# Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
# Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Gay rights:
# Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
# Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
# Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
# Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
# Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
# We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)

Positions on the economy:
# Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights. (Feb 2008)
# More accountability in subprime mortgages. (Feb 2008)
# Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed. (Jan 2008)
# Voted against limiting credit to 30%, because 30% too high. (Jan 2008)
# Account for every single dollar for new proposed programs. (Jan 2008)
# Help the homeowners actually living in their homes. (Jan 2008)

Positions on Immigration:
# Immigration raids are ineffective. (Feb 2008)
# Health plan: not enough resources for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2008)
# Illegals shouldn't work; but should have path to citizenship. (Dec 2007)
# Don't deputize Americans to turn in illegal immigrants. (Dec 2007)
# OK to provide government services in Spanish. (Dec 2007)
# Comprehensive solution includes employers & borders. (Nov 2007)
# Undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive. (Nov 2007)
# Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)

Positions on the War in Iraq:
# Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)
# The surge is not working toward enduring peace. (Jan 2008)
# Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan. (Jan 2008)
# Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
# No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
# 2002: Iraq will require US occupation of undetermined length. (Jan 2008)
# Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)

so yeah gogoog. also give me suggestions for a witty topic subtitle and any info i should add/change
  • Insane teacher
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 8, 2002
  • Posts: 10515
Quote
Jean McIver, a former Ron Paul congressional assistant campaign manager, will be joining us as our Texas field coordinator. Together they will help direct our crucial Texas program.

from ronpaul2008.com



whoops

also found a formatted post on SA.

Ron Paul had several newsletters printed under his name over several decades that were pervasive with anti-semetic, homophobic, racist, and extreme right-wing paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings.  (The sheer number of craziness, filth, and crazy filth contained in these newletters is staggering; just read the article to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.) 

Despite denying any connection to these newletters that bore his name--and were published by "Ron Paul & Associates"--for decades, Ron Paul continues to make prejudice remarks, describing those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked," not to mention that he not too long ago voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and published his reasons for disaproval with the Act

It is not surprising that Ron Paul continues to make these types of remarks considering the newletters and his legislative past, where he sponsored a bill that would make it easier for private schools to discriminate, another that would weaken the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet another that would deny Iranian students federal aid, and finally one that would require unmarried minors to notify parents they requested an abortion or contraceptives, "[prohibit] the expenditure of federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle or which suggest that it can be an acceptable lifestyle," endorse "corporal punishment" against children, and repeal the estate tax--a tax which affects only the wealthiest of Americans

He has also recently published articles stating that he believes that the Left is waging a war on Christmas, that Churches should serve a role in society eclipsing that of the state, and that he opposes gay marriage .  Plus, Ron Paul has recently (6/6/07) introduced legislation that would define life as beginning at conception and legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like--a bill which he has repeated reintroduced.  (A list of all the ridiculous bills he has sponsored over the past few decades can be found here.)

Oh, there's more.  SO MUCH MORE!

He was the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan..  He wants to pull out of the U.N., disband NATO, abolish the federal reserve, reinstate the Gold Standard, believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control, and...

Aw hell, just take a look at his own website, where he advocates abolishing the Department of Education, the Food & Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration, and a ton of other agencies that provide vital public services.


the definitive paul rebuttal!!!
brian chemicals
  • Avatar of Wil
  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Dec 24, 2002
  • Posts: 394
you forget arguments against the coveted Gold Standard!!
Quote
The US converting to a gold standard would require them to re-issue all currency in circulation as a fixed amount of gold. Since the US government doesn't have a lot of gold, it would mean a lot less currency. Thus, they would need to purchase gold — as a result, the price of gold would skyrocket. The US government would have to sell assets in order to purchase the now absurdly expensive gold, or run a deficit. Taxes would be forced to rise to finance this.

However, this would be pointless, since approximately 1 trillion dollars of goods flows out of the US economy every year. Thus, the economy would literally bled gold bullion. The only way to balance out is a recession, so deep and crippling, that it would eliminate the US trade deficit.

Okay, the regulatory mechanism for the gold standard works like this. Suppose we have two countries, A and B.

Now, for whatever reason, country A is on the gold standard. It doesn't matter what country B is on. Now, A and B buy and sell goods to one another. In order to buy and sell goods, the people in these countries need to purchase currency from one another to buy them.

When an economy buys things from another economy, they need to purchase money from the other economy to buy goods. So, for instance, country A needs to buy country B's currency (call it B$) to buy goods from country B. And vice versa.

Now, as they buy and sell, there usually will be an imbalance been how much people buy and sell in a given country. For instance, country A may be buying more from country B than it is selling. This leads to an imbalance in the currencies, because people in country A will be buying up B$ and selling A$. When it all comes out in the wash, there is a surplus of A$ on the market -- that is, the demand for A$ is lower than the amount supplied.

Now, people will work to correct this surplus, because it's pointless for them to have A$ sitting around no one wants to own. In a quasi-fiat system of freely traded currencies, the exchange rate does this. Bankers and financial dealers adjust the relative values of the currencies to make the "price" of A$ optimal. Currencies wax and wane in value based on their economies and variety of other complex mumbo jumbo which doesn't really matter here.

However, in the gold standard this doesn't happen, because A$ are linked to a fixed amount of gold -- that is, a commodity. Instead, people who hold A$ start redeeming them for gold, in order to sell them as a useful commodity. As a result, Country A's stockpile of gold, which they use to back their currency on, dwindles. In turn, the supply of money for country A falls.

Not enough money is circulation causes the economy to constrict, since doing basic business becomes increasingly difficult. It also can cause deflation, and a host of other problems. In short, the only way for A's domestic economy to come into equillibrium is for it to crash. Businesses shut down, and domestic demand for goods slows as the economy stalls.

While this is a bad thing, it does do one very good thing. If you have no money, because the economy is in recession, you can't very well afford to buy items from country B. Thus, the supply of A$ on the market falls, and people stop redeeming the excess for gold. The process brings the two markets into equilibrium again, and all is well in the world of international commerce.

Of course, the side effects are not exactly pleasant for people in country A.
sorrow is the key that gets our tears out of eye jail.
  • Avatar of Jeff
  • Warning: Harsh
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 5, 2003
  • Posts: 1461
Okay so, since I voted for him in '04, I feel obligated to make an entry for him. I realize the quotes are old on some of the categories. I'll update them as I hear more, plus his views don't change all that much on many things. I figured I would add his page because his entry in this has possible implications on the primary.


Ralph Nader (I) - Official Campaign Site

I'll upload an image when the uploader gets back.

Positions on social issues (abortion and same-sex marriage):

Abortion:
# Threats to overturn Roe are “scare tactics”. (Nov 2000)
# No government role; let women privately decide. (May 2000)

Gay Rights:
# Equal gay rights, including civil union. (Oct 2000)
# Long history of fighting in sexual politics. (Feb 2000)

Positions on the economy:

# Half of federal budget is now military spending. This is a bad thing. (Jan 2008)
# 47 million full-time workers make less than $10 an hour. (Oct 2000)
# Top priorities: Infrastructure; poverty. (Jul 2000)
# GNP fails to measure quality of life. (Dec 1995)

Positions on Immigration:

# Address immigration as part of worldwide economic justice. (Feb 2008)
# H1B visas in US cause "brain drain" in Third World. (Feb 2008)
# Don’t criminalize the border; but no open border either. (Oct 2000)
# Guest workers OK, with labor standards. (Oct 2000)

Positions on the War in Iraq:

# Rapid and responsible withdrawal of US military from Iraq. (Feb 2008)
# Bush should never have invaded Iraq. (Nov 2006)
Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 03:19:27 am by Jeff
  • Avatar of The Truth
  • SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 15, 2003
  • Posts: 1204
wait i don't get it you voted for ralph nader but consider yourself a republican and a conservative can you explain this!!!?!
--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....
  • Avatar of Jeff
  • Warning: Harsh
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 5, 2003
  • Posts: 1461
wait i don't get it you voted for ralph nader but consider yourself a republican and a conservative can you explain this!!!?!
Hello protest candidate. Also I am a social liberal, so much of what Nader says is fine to me. The main reason is his message on breaking the two party system, which is not likely but would be nice. Considering I thought Kerry was terrible and Bush was just as terrible, I voted for a candidate whose ideas were at least decent. Oh and in 2004 I was not as right wing economically as I am now.
Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 05:04:07 am by Jeff
  • Avatar of The Truth
  • SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 15, 2003
  • Posts: 1204
Richardson endorses Obama.

http://www.charlotte.com/559/story/546349.html

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but, took you long enough bill!
--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....
  • Avatar of Wina
  • 777
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Nov 11, 2002
  • Posts: 33
believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control[/url

I think that's my favourite part right there. I took IB...so I was mind controlled...damn...yet, yet they made it seem like I was opening myself up and becoming independent...no way!  :fogetcry:

In all seriousness though, could someone just clarify for me what a rapid and responsible withdrawal from Iraq entails. I'm asking because (from an outsider's persepective) it seems that quite a few people talk about how America should have never gone into Iraq and should pull out, but I'm trying to wrap my head around how this could be done (as quickly as some have promised) without some major consequence - the last thing anyone wants is something tragic happening during the course of/due to the pull-out.

"I let my pants hang low...I'm from the hood and that's how shit go!"
  • Avatar of Ryan
  • thx ds k?
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2003
  • Posts: 4460
In all seriousness though, could someone just clarify for me what a rapid and responsible withdrawal from Iraq entails. I'm asking because (from an outsider's persepective) it seems that quite a few people talk about how America should have never gone into Iraq and should pull out, but I'm trying to wrap my head around how this could be done (as quickly as some have promised) without some major consequence - the last thing anyone wants is something tragic happening during the course of/due to the pull-out.

both obama and clinton want to leave a small peacekeeping presence in Iraq. mainly to protect american interests (oil heheheh). the vast majority of violence in Iraq is reactionary to the American occupation, so naturally if there is no occupation there won't be as much violence.
  • Firbolg Warrior
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Dec 9, 2002
  • Posts: 1201
Richardson endorses Obama.


I just saw this on the news a few minutes ago and practically geeked out at the announcement.  Richardson is the one that I want Obama to take as a running mate, so this endorsement might actually increase his chances at getting the VP slot.  Now if only Edwards will endorse Obama that would be the final nail in the coffin for Clinton.
Gaming World Mini City: Population, Industry, Transportation, Security Current rank 3950.
Click a different link each day.
  • Avatar of Jeff
  • Warning: Harsh
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 5, 2003
  • Posts: 1461
both obama and clinton want to leave a small peacekeeping presence in Iraq. mainly to protect american interests (oil heheheh). the vast majority of violence in Iraq is reactionary to the American occupation, so naturally if there is no occupation there won't be as much violence.
McCain has also said he is intending to withdraw the bulk of the troops there. He said in an interview that he wanted occupational forces similar to Korea and Japan on a long term basis but that, at least for the sake of cutting government spending, deployment in Iraq must be vastly reduced.
  • Avatar of Ryan
  • thx ds k?
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2003
  • Posts: 4460
McCain has also said he is intending to withdraw the bulk of the troops there. He said in an interview that he wanted occupational forces similar to Korea and Japan on a long term basis but that, at least for the sake of cutting government spending, deployment in Iraq must be vastly reduced.

Quote from: OnTheIssues
# Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender. (Jan 2008)
# Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low. (Jan 2008)
# Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)

# Democrats proposing failure in Iraq by withdrawing. (Sep 2007)
# Reducing military presence has never in history won a war. (Sep 2007)
# Bring troops home the right way: home with honor. (Sep 2007)
# Surge is working; let it continue until it succeeds. (Sep 2007)
# Tragic mistake of Iraq: no plan to deal with success. (Aug 2007)
# Support the surge even if benchmarks are not met. (Aug 2007)

i have never heard anything about mccain wanting to reduce troop levels!
  • Avatar of Jeff
  • Warning: Harsh
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 5, 2003
  • Posts: 1461
i have never heard anything about mccain wanting to reduce troop levels!
I'll try to find the stuff I found a couple weeks ago. It was essentially that he supported an initial increase in troops to keep things under control while the training of new iraqi government security forces finished up and then progressively handing off more and more control to them while moving American troops out until there are reasonable levels for a long term occupation what won't be extremely costly to the US in either lives or dollars. Similar to, like I said, Korea and Japan. I seem to recall him saying that he would not set a timetable for this, so I suppose for the case of this election term, we would likely not see much difference in the short term as you would with Obama, who intends to have the presence reduced quickly within his term. I think McCain's words were something like "pave the way for future reduction" or something like that; I remember "pave the way" though.
Last Edit: March 21, 2008, 08:05:21 pm by Jeff
  • Insane teacher
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 8, 2002
  • Posts: 10515
yeah Jeff, McCain saying that would be kind of suicide for many Republicans which is one of the reasons many people believe they can't win the election no matter what; people are so mad about Iraq but switching positions makes you lose the Republicans that would vote for you!
brian chemicals
  • Avatar of Jeff
  • Warning: Harsh
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 5, 2003
  • Posts: 1461
I can almost bet if he gets elected he will reduce troops anyway. I really don't see any person who gets into the White House, especially a moderate like McCain, increasing spending on Iraq when it is completely obvious to anyone except the radical conservatives that the 'War" is over for us. But okay, I guess I can bend on this point that McCain is not likely to come right out and say I'M GOING TO REDUCE TROOP LEVELS. I am almost positive, however, that that was the gist of the interview I saw on the tele. I can't find a youtube of it, however.
  • Avatar of Ryan
  • thx ds k?
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 22, 2003
  • Posts: 4460
If McCain ever wants a first/second term he won't. He would totally kill the support that he's been pandering to for the last few months.
  • Avatar of Cho
  • Comrade!
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jun 6, 2004
  • Posts: 438
I dunno, given recent happenings, I think the Republican party would probably blindly follow him if he became President. Look at how they've blindly followed Bush 2: Son of Hebert Walker. Alls he'd have to do is say "Mission Accomplished guys  :cool:​" and give a thumbs up.
  • Avatar of ase
  • It's A Short Eternity... live with it
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 23, 2003
  • Posts: 4526
Time magazine polls have shown that Obama has a higher chance of beating McCain but I'm becoming more and more paranoid as the days go by that the stupid fundamentalist fuckers are going to come out of the woodworks and mass-vote McCain in.

Quote from: TIME Poll
If the general election were being held today between John McCain(R) and Barack Obama (D), for whom would you vote?

Obama: 48%
McCain: 41%

If the general election were being held today between John McCain(R) and Hillary Clinton (D), for whom would you vote?

Clinton: 46%
McCain: 46%

This TIME poll was conducted Feb. 1-4 among 958 randomly selected registered voters, including people who were leaning toward a particular candidate. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
A while ago, CNN reported that Obama and McCain were virtually tied in such a poll. I've even had people ask me what I think about this! My answer's always the same: that was just one poll, and virtually every single other poll that has been held so far favored Obama. I guess CNN's poll was a fluke, as it the latest polls seem to be "normal" again.
  • Insane teacher
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Oct 8, 2002
  • Posts: 10515
honestly, at this point, the only way for Hillary Clinton to win, outside of a stunning upset (and I mean like several dozen percentage points) in the remaining states, is a superdelegate runoff. this is a very bad idea since the American people tend to HATE superdelegate runoffs and people might actually VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

so she reallllllllllly needs to drop out.
brian chemicals
Locked