NC has the same problem with Edwards. He has among the worst attendance and voting records of any Senator in the modern era…
:lol:
@Cmdr:
Yea, I’m rather miffed they moved Illinois’ primary date to Feb 5. We are usually like the second to last state to have a primary, thus, no candidate even bothers to campaign here leaving us in relative peace and quite. :P
Brought up another thing that pisses me off. What makes Iowa and NH so damn special?
Other states gets the shaft by these guys. Ever seen California, NY or Texas caucus? NO. And we never will. It’s like these Iowans get to dictate who runs based on the winner’s headlines. Pure bullsh!t.
Here is my hope and funny it’s something I find in common with the forum pessimist, Bung: I really hope it is Obama vs McCain. And if it happens that way, I will listen closely for I see potential in both of them.
Wow this thread is flowing fast…
@Pervavita:
i’m not an expert on how Caucus’ work, i’m sure most people arn’t, so with out knowing how they work exactly it looks like what you said was politically backed. now if what you say is true (i have no reason to doupt you, i’m just saying) then it’s not political in the way i thought it sounded before. but it dosn’t change that with out knowing how caucus’ work accuratlly it did look that way, and with that it did look wrong that you were asking another to tread carfully when it looked like you your self did other wise.
Well the jist is, I wasn’t sure how this thread would go over and I was tring to keep the political tone low. Jen is known for her political “out spokenness” and truth be told I am closely aligned with her politicaly :) Of course you are relatively new here and don’t know any of that…
true, i personaly didn’t see a problem with ether of what you said to begin with and sure don’t see a problem with it now as how this discusion has gone so far…. it seamed the more mild part of the discusion.
@Cmdr:
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.
It just means that while the US might not be as racist as it once was, it is still misogynistic.
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?
Uh…how could we not?
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?
I like him, but he still has some strikes against him.
In the 80’s, he had his rep tarnished with his connections/behavior concerning the Savings and Loan catastrophe.
Some people see his bipartisanship as a turnoff because that want a team player.
Some still see him as a warhawk.
Maybe even some find him weak because he didn’t stand up to being shot in the back by other republicans.
Couldn’t tell you exactly.
@Guerrilla:
My 2 cents right off the bat: I think that Guiliani’s “9/11” buzz has finally worn off.
GG
Yet he continues to utter the phrase. Over and over.
BTW, sorry making so many individual posts…I’m catching up on this thread and posting as I read.
@Cmdr:
I would, honestly, recommend picking a candidate that agrees with your stance on those issues because, unless Iran fires off a nuclear weapon, or the terrorists strike us on our home soil again, I just don’t see any further discussion on Iraq and, by extension, Afghanistan. The Surge is working too well, so much so we don’t even here body counts anymore.
The wars are still being discussed. I just saw an article that we are approaching 4,000 casualties in Iraq.
The bigger story is that while Iraq has gotten better, Afghanistan (and neighbor Pakistan) has gotten worse.
and for statements for being at war……well we are at war, a war declared on us some time ago by bad guys one president didnt do a damn thing about until our citizens one day had to chose to either burn to death or hold hands and jump together to their own deaths. yeah that right, i went there. we can say we arent at war if we dont have troops somewhere, but they will still be at war with us, and ever since we have been in their backyard, how many attacks have we had… thats right this policy has a good track record.
Reagan?
accually Clinton had all the intell leading up to the 9/11 attacks, Bush just came into office right before the attacks; he may have had the intell too, but it dosn’t change that Clinton did as well. before that i don’t know as i’m not that old.
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
Yea, I’m rather miffed they moved Illinois’ primary date to Feb 5. We are usually like the second to last state to have a primary, thus, no candidate even bothers to campaign here leaving us in relative peace and quite. :P
Brought up another thing that pisses me off. What makes Iowa and NH so damn special?
Other states gets the shaft by these guys. Ever seen California, NY or Texas caucus? NO. And we never will. It’s like these Iowans get to dictate who runs based on the winner’s headlines. Pure bullsh!t.
You just need to read up on State primaries because you obviously don’t understand it. Many states have moved theirs up in recent years.
Also, California, NY, and Texas don’t use caucuses, so you will never hear of them (there is a Texas straw poll, but all of those states primaries come after Iowa). Iowa is basically a preview of what other states might do, and is the first to do it, so it gets a lot of attention.
IMO, they should all go at the same time, or atleast in stages where a few states go, then a week latter some more go ext. Iowa has a small population and yet it gets a huge % of the campaighn money dumped into it as it’s to important to do well there as the desision made there effects other states desisions.
accually Clinton had all the intell leading up to the 9/11 attacks, Bush just came into office right before the attacks; he may have had the intell too, but it dosn’t change that Clinton did as well. before that i don’t know as i’m not that old.
Since Balung’s initial comment went unhindered, I will reply.
There is no way Clinton could know exactly what would happen 9 months after he left office. He knew of some intent to do SOMETHING, but why that blame goes to him and not Bush I’ll never understand (who received even more explicit & specific warnings months before 9/11), except that some people love to hate Clinton.
Clinton drove the antiterrorism initiatives like no other president had done before him. But it wasn’t reported except because people were focused on Monicagate, and dismissed them as “wag the dog” politics. He took all cues made by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to nab bin Laden and snub al Qaeda.
However, he was thwarted many times in being proactive on terrorism from a Republican controlled congress, but managed to push some things through.
Compare that to a reactive president who hasn’t done much of anything to thwart terrorism, created massive debt, and shows no interest in chasing the main perpetrator of 2001’s major event.
Lobbyists and the incoming administration also shot down many of the plans that were posed to go into effect that would have further stifled terrorist activity. Not to mention dismissed much of the info collected by the outgoing administration. But that’s all in the past now.
IMO, they should all go at the same time, or atleast in stages where a few states go, then a week latter some more go ext. Iowa has a small population and yet it gets a huge % of the campaighn money dumped into it as it’s to important to do well there as the desision made there effects other states desisions.
And how would you do that?
It’s a state’s right to decide how it proceeds, and when.
Besides these only give citizen consensus on a Party Nominee, it doesn’t decide it…
GG
i never heard much about Clinton warnning about attacks, his actions in many ways showed that he didn’t act enough, he down sized the millitary and cut millitary spending. not realy the actions of some one expecting an attack IMO. not that we can change that now, i’m just stating that all the blame can’t go on Bush for the attacks as has been seen.
yes it’s so much a states right to do it as they see fit that WY who decided to get in on the action was mostly ignored and you can’t say it wasn’t, or that it was due to a small population as Iowa dosn’t exactly have a huge pop. not only were they over looked but they also suffered a penelty in lossing half there delagets for going early so “there state would matter”. i’m not saying the federal government should step in, but i think that the parties need to find a better way along with the states. it’s stupid to have people who are viable canadents pushed out of the running because they don’t have the money to keep up the campaighn, and it’s stupid that you should have to spend so much money to get so few votes and then move on to a larger state and spend less money. it’s a broken and stupid system that should be fixed.
It seems to me that Iowa is like a big poll that allows many canidates to quit when they realize thier odds are slim. The majoraty of the canidates it seems are just trying to push thier pet issue in to the spot light. Iowa gives them the chance to do that then drop out and throw thier support toto the camp of someone who actualy has a chance of winning. I can’t wait to see who Ron Paul supports when he finaly admits that he can’t win…
I imagine he won’t support anyone if he loses… No one holds his views…
@Guerrilla:
I imagine he won’t support anyone if he loses… No one holds his views…
witch is too bad as for the most part he holds the views that are closest to what the founding fathers were. his only problem is that he sounds crazy and that he hasn’t made any adouptions of ideas to make the ideas fit with the modern world and situation going on now.
It seems to me that Iowa is like a big poll that allows many canidates to quit when they realize thier odds are slim. The majoraty of the canidates it seems are just trying to push thier pet issue in to the spot light. Iowa gives them the chance to do that then drop out and throw thier support toto the camp of someone who actualy has a chance of winning.
if you look at it like that, then it’s not so bad, but if you see it as the way i do then it’s broken IMO as lets say i’m a Paul supporter and he sticks it out to the end, but my state is one of the last to put it’s support out, now in my scenario lets say Paul can’t win by the time it gets to my state, even if he wins 100% of my state and all states voting at the time i do and after. so now when i go to vote my primary choice is a dead duck so i have to chose a viable caniadate. now that sounds good in the aspect of my vote will count, but that is not how it should work, my vote should go how i want and it should be able to count in the aspect of i don’t know that the guy i’m supporting dosn’t have a chance.
if Obama wins the next few states then it raises the chances that other voters will side with him over Edwerds or Clinton as well. not just that but if say it becomes prity even between Clinton and Obama then it may become evident that Edwerds supporters may not have any real say any more and then chose there secound pick when in fact Edwerds may still have enough support out there to pull it off but because he lost too much too soon he gets pushed out of the running.
