has a presidence been set for this before? what i mean has any one asked and been aproved or denied on this kind of thing before.
i think it’s a good idea but some ground rules may need to be set before it’s started.
like no be littleing of people based on any reason expetally there views (canidents though are fair game).
some other “controls” would be good too.
Yea, in 1999 the Political Boards were created to discuss the election and aftermath of the election between George Bush and Algore
As I see it so far this is a current events discussion, I may be out voted, but I think as long as we can avoid discussing political oppinion it’s ok with me. Notice I haven’t mentioned who my favorite is or how he did…
I think the process in interesting, from a cultural stand point.
Jen, when I said “been to a caucus” I meant ever, as in previous years. It sounds like fun to me, but since I’ve never been to one I wouldn’t know.
i don’t think you can have this kind of talk with out it turnning political as it is a political race.
as for your (dezrtfish) edit of Jen’s statment above, i think she was meaning that it’s amazing that she got 3rd and not higher with all the media around her and the Clinton publicity machine behind her. i’m not saying my political view on this, just that it’s strange that she fell to 3rd and not 2nd at lowest… expetally with her being the Dem fav.
I gota say I would have loved to discuss a “caucus” with someone who has been to one, especialy a Democratic one.
if any thing this seams to me to be more political then Jen’s statment as you brought a perticular party up. is it because you would want to go to the Dem Caucus because you support the Dems or because you would get a good laugh out of it. ether interpritation would be political.
i don’t think you can have this kind of talk with out it turnning political as it is a political race.
as for your (dezrtfish) edit of Jen’s statment above, i think she was meaning that it’s amazing that she got 3rd and not higher with all the media around her and the Clinton publicity machine behind her. i’m not saying my political view on this, just that it’s strange that she fell to 3rd and not 2nd at lowest… expetally with her being the Dem fav.I gota say I would have loved to discuss a “caucus” with someone who has been to one, especialy a Democratic one.
if any thing this seams to me to be more political then Jen’s statment as you brought a perticular party up. is it because you would want to go to the Dem Caucus because you support the Dems or because you would get a good laugh out of it. ether interpritation would be political.
why does it matter? no one is going to die pervavita. the only reason political discussion was band was because it got out of hand and degenerated into name calling. We should be creatures of reason not of law. (bad things happen when people care more about what the law is than what is right) If we don’t degrade to insulting each other then this discussion should be fine. This is just my opinion though.
Dezrt didn’t edit anything out of my statement, he just pointed out that some may take my statement as “politically motivated” not what it is, amazement that after all the talk of her being inevitable and guaranteed to be on the ballot in November that she came in third place in the first primary. Not saying she’ll win or lose or that she should win or lose, just kinda shocked at how poor her results were given all the media hype.
How about a temporary board to discuss the election…just about everyone here is already talking about it.
I am running with DF on this one…
Major current event, discuss away. It is an important topic, and there is a lot of practical and worthwhile stuff to discuss regarding this mass of primaries that will effectively select the candidates by Feb 5.
However, if it becomes the type of worthless diatribe that pervaded the previous PD, it will be locked and sealed away hidden immediately (no name calling, none of the grandiose stereotype statements, etc.)
Good, then other then me, who else was utterly shocked that Hillary came in THIRD!?!? I mean, Obama in First or Hillary in First with the other in second I was expecting. But Hillary in Third? That was a major surprise and a huge upset for the Clintons.
Par for the course with the Clintons in Iowa. As I recall, Bill did terribly there in 92. Though Bill also did not actively campaign there. And Hillary does not have Bill’s charisma.
I am surprised that Obama beat Edwards in Iowa. Even though he narrowly edged Hillary for 2nd place, I think that just about finishes Edwards. Anything other than a solid win in New Hampshire and he is toast.
My honest opinion was that Edwards wasn’t going to place in the top two in any state, let alone the first one.
Dunno how well Billy did. I have been told that Ronald lost the Iowa caucus his first time out. Then again, even if that was true, Iowa’s not exactly known as a bastion for Republican glory, if you know what I mean.
i’ll chime in by saying this. i hope, i hope, i just freaking hope we have an election in
Nov 08 & a new president in Jan 09. thats not asking for too much is it?
Kinda depends on the personality of the loser and how close the election is. Not how close the VOTE is, how close the ELECTION is. There is a difference. It’s happened any number of times that the president lost the vote, but won the election.
i was simply pointing out that IMHO dezrtfish’s statment seamed to be more political then Jen’s and he was telling her to be careful, i didn’t say he edited in the way of taking out any thing.
it’s hard for you to talk about a political race and not talk politics, it’s just the nature of it.
with what Jen just said, i think we had it happen 3 times in the past. i could be remembering wrong though.
edwards needed a second place finish to be alive down the road. with him still in it, any suprises that destroy peoples electability can be spread through three people……him, clinton, and obama.
i think that pollsters at the very end(b/c hillary was beating him until the end) decided it would be better to have 3 people still able to be a candidate rather than 2, and switched 1% point.
but hey, thats just crazy talk.
other than this, why in the heck dont people like Mccain. he hasnt done anything bad…he’s a maverick in the senate, votes both ways, he isnt a loyal soldier for the republicans(IMHO a good thing), was right on the way all along(need more troops), has true social conservative values (not like romney the liar and guiliani the fake), and called southern evangelicals freakin’ nuts…what else to people want?
McCain isn’t liked by the Democrats because he has an “R” next to his name and by the far left because of his support of the millitary, so he can’t win or sway there votes.
he is disliked by the Republicans because he has had as you say “votes both ways”, he has voted for things that Republicans and the Right don’t agree with in the past and this hurts him a lot. you can’t vote against your base and expect your Base to support you.
i will say this, McCain and Guiliani are the best two on the war, but they hold values (for diffrent reasons) that are hard for the Conservatives to stand behind.
what values does he hold that conservatives dont like. he is a social conservative.
McCain-Feingold comes immediately to mind. As does his partnerships with Kennedy on several major issues. And then there is his support of what the Right called the “Amnesty Bill”
Also, Rush Limbaugh has been doing a hatchet job on McCain since before the South Carolina Primary in 2000, and has never let up. That is 10-20 million Conservative voters every week that hear an repeated and vehement anti-McCain message, and have been hearing it for 8 consecutive years now…
you said it your self with “votes both ways”, if you vote for say earned citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US, then you are voting against what conservatives want. you can’t argue that he hasn’t voted with the left when your own words not 2 post before said he has. that puts him as having views that are not in keeping with the conservatives that are his base.
i sooo dislike rush.
but that should prove his openness to others. i dont like amnesty, but reasonably, and i agree with him, we really cant round up mexicans and kick them across the border. what he wants and i want is the guard on the border and a huge wall and no new mexicans. the ones already here get to stay.
his agreements with any kennedy are loathsome but eh……i forget what their bill was about…wasnt it the immigration bill?
