2008 U.S. Presidential Election - Primaries

[mr_pikachu]

I honestly disagree with the majority of your post, but I do see where you're coming from in some areas. I'd like to bring up a few specific things...

immigration is no longer the issue that was. Its a republican issue and will not be a national issue, it may be an issue in southern states but those typically go to the Republicans anyway and not democrats. [...] Immigration may well be an issue where you live, but its not a national issue.

I get Roy's point of view here, as we both do live in what would be considered the southern half of the country (fairly near Mexico). It does seem like you're right that it's no longer a Democratic issue, but I think that's largely because they've pushed the issue aside in order to quell the attention. If people aren't thinking about border security, they're not going to do change the current system, and that was the typical left side of the debate anyway. If a Republican gets into office and, more importantly, if that Republican can sway Congress a bit, this issue may be brought back up on the national level. That's the concern here, I think; will it be a future issue, or will it continue to be a non-priority?

I don't agree with anything the democratic party really says, my thoughts particularly on economic issues are more in line with the republicans. But of course republicans are so conservative and hardly could be called progressive.

This is precisely why some analysts describe fiscal conservatives/liberals and social conservatives/liberals. Fiscally, I personally lean way to the right. Socially... not really. For all I know, I may be a little to the left in that category. Anyway, I definitely get what you mean there.

But I want a Clinton win. Obama has enjoyed nothing but praise and good press, where are the people taking a look at what issues he wants to bring to the table, who are going to be his people in the white house and exactly what does this guy have that is so great? He is bound to burn at some stage. If its not in the democratic primary race, then its the national election, if its not that, it will be as President. Do you really want someone like him in the white house? I would think its scary.

It seems to me that his charisma is what's attracted people to Obama thus far rather than policies in and of themselves. That's part of the problem with the Clinton strategy; she's gotten so embroiled in fighting with Obama that she's not making him prove his "change" message. It's all an abstraction thus far, with few explicit plans. And by this point it's too late... anything Hillary does or says to challenge him now probably won't affect the polls until after Super Tuesday. I'm not sure the idea of him in office is quite as scary as you say, especially since Hillary in that seat is terrifying to me. But to each his own.

The Clintons are a machine but they've also been manufac tured as some dirty team that enjoys nothing more than dirty politics. Obama is playing the race card and the black community is playing the race car. Clinton was right about his win in South Carolina. 53% of all blacks voted Obama.

Only 53%? I assumed it was a lot more. How does this prove Hillary's point, then? I mean, she's been riding the female vote thus far (particularly in New Hampshire, where she was supposed to take a double-digit loss). How is that any different than Obama leading his demographic, or for that matter, than any politician having an advantage in his own race, gender, state, etc.?

Also, I think the "dirty tactics" are largely referring to the spread of rumors, such as Obama being a drug dealer. Now, let's be fair. I assume Obama's probably engaging in some underhanded moves as well; it seems like most politicians have to use some treachery at some point, for better or worse. But I think it says something that we haven't heard about anything like that from the Obama campaign but we get it all the time from his rival. There's something to be said for tact, and that's something the Clinton campaign has seriously lacked.

As for Rudy Guliani - If Rudy can't analyse the primary process in america, how the fuck is going to run as President? I mean what a fool, if he got third placements in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and then Michigan and Nevada, he'd be on the news and his poll numbers would be up and he would have won the Florida primary and he would have won Super Tuesday and he'd prolly make it to the whitehouse. But no he couldn't even run a Primary caucus.

Agreed. His strategy was more than insane, it was stupid. Even though he's probably the best candidate, Giuliani doesn't deserve to win the nomination.

Mike Huckabee is a christian running a godlike campaign, its disgusting and this guy doesn't seem to have any good skills whatsoever. Hes a loser.

I honestly don't have a problem with running a "godlike campaign." What worries me is, as I said before, he seems to be doing everything he can to avoid talking about the current and future issues. I don't want the president to be a guy who can't address anything without referencing the past. It's the "what have you done for me lately?" rule.

McCain - Now theres someone with conviction, I can't agree with ever going to Iraq it was a stupid mistake that Fox News and all media really liked to propogate until it all went wrong so they decided to go down the other extreme route. If you go into Iraq you really have to stay there, because the last thing anbyone needs is Chaos. And who had the conviction and the know-how even though some republicans were going down the path pulling out troops. McCain. And don't bring up that he wanted an amnesty bill or that he didn't vote for taxes. Thats just bullshit spin from the pathetic far-right, the conservative right. The right side of politics that no other country in the world likes.

McCain's views on the war are right on in my book. You're correct when you say that a sudden pull-out (like what has been proposed by some on the left) would blow up in our faces as well as everyone else's. Even a scaled withdraw would have to be done very cautiously and with great forethought. But fiscally, I disagree wholeheartedly with McCain. Like it or not, I do think he's screwed up quite a bit of stuff there; I just wish another Republican candidate looked as good as he did in terms of foreign policy.

it'll be a long process but that could be good for Clinton. Because Obama will one day crash.

I'm unsure about your situational analysis, but you're definitely right about this. The longer this goes on, the worse Obama's chances are. There's a reason they call it the Clinton machine.

Oh American politics how absolutely phoney, no wonder the rest of the world can't understand Americans you're so stuck on issues the rest of the world has forgotten.

Sorry, but this just demands a counter-comment. If it's so phony and irrelevant, why do you bother talking about it?

[Roy Karrde]

Just to set aside the Illegal Immigration debate as not a top issue. Here is a list of the Top 5 ranking issues in America by CNN as of last month.

1: The Economy
2: The War in Iraq
3: Health Care
4: Illegal Immigration
5: Terrorism

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/...der/index.html

[firepokemon]

Is that why it constantly polls in the top 3 - 10 issues for this country? How about getting you stop speaking out of your ass?

I never said it wasn't an issue, what I said is it wasn't the issue you tought it would be. Political pundits have been saying that it is a republican issue and will not be such an issue at the national elections. That was well before the economy came to the fore, so therefore I was right, you were wrong.

Besides if it was just a Republican issue, the Democrats would not have gone on Spansh Television to debate it.

Of course its an issue but you're making out everybody in the United States has immigration at the top of their mind, thats just fucking stupid.

And what experience would she have? Being First Lady is more than a full time job.

Shes just like literally all politicians. A fucking lawyer. And I was saying she would bring in a team with experience. The Clinton years were good economic years, its going to be the same.

Seeing how the issue right now is the economy, in which Romney has the most experience next to Guiliani, I think America is a bit more concerned about that.

Foreign policy will always be the issue, its ties right into any issues on economics, so you may well want to shut your mouth and sit down and listen. The economy is facing higher oil prices, oil is an economic issue but because the majority of oil is from international countries. Foreign policy matters. You want to have trade agreements and trade alliances you need to talk to other countries thats a foreign policy. Foreign policy matters most importantly and Romney doesn't have it. But yes he could well bring in a team of experts on foreign issues but do not think for one second it isn't an issue. Foreign policy runs America.

If Clinton is bringing up Blacks then I believe she is playing the race card as a scapegoat. Also I find it halarious you accuse Obama of playing the race card today, while Hillary is going after the Hispanic vote, trying to get them to turn on the Blacks and balance it out.

I never said she wasn't playing the race card, but I find it unfair that shes accused of so much and Obama nothing. And hispanics don't like blacks I would have thought you'd know that.

Compared to the dirt that Hillary has, Romney can run rings around her.

Romney isn't smart like she is.

-----

When immigration is listed as fourth I hardly call it a top issue.

[firepokemon]

I like your post Mr. Pikachu its a very good post. I mean't 53% of the democratic voters at the South Carolina primary were black. Which is a huge, huge number. Thats what Clinton was trying to say (Bill that is), unfortunately everyone took it out of context as somehow he was racist and everything. I like Clinton Hilary because she'll be pragmatic not so ideologically driven like some people.

[DarkTemplarZero]

XD sudden pull-out will blow up in your face. Sounds like last saturday night to me

But anyway, I'm going to jump on fp's post too. So first of all, I can see where you come from supporting Hillary, but right now she's just too divisive, and the last thing the US needs is another president who half the country will despise. Obama's appealing because he seems to be really good at unifying people here, so even if I don't agree with all his policies and even with the fact that he's barely been in the Senate for 3 years, I wouldn't be unhappy with him in office.

Your attack on Edwards, I don't even know what I can say to that. Edwards has a lot of good solid ideas for education and healthcare, and he seems to be the only candidate on either side with solid workable plans to back up his opinions. Plus, Edwards seems to be focused more on running his own race rather than shoveling shit in the other candidate's faces, which seems to be the campaign standby nowadays.

However, Roy, I don't see illegal immigration being a big issue in Iowa or New Hampshire. Outside of New York City, illegal immigration is not a big issue anywhere in the northeast, and I can't see it being an issue in the midwest. Face it, illegal immigration is primarily an issue in Texas. Not to say that it's not an important issue, just that it's not an issue that affects everyone.

[Roy Karrde]

I never said it wasn't an issue, what I said is it wasn't the issue you tought it would be.

Top 3 to 5 in issues pretty much ranks it as one of the major things Americans want to know about.

Political pundits have been saying that it is a republican issue and will not be such an issue at the national elections. That was well before the economy came to the fore, so therefore I was right, you were wrong.

And yet it still ranks up there in the top 5, which would be some of the top issues for America. So therefore I was right, you are wrong.

Of course its an issue but you're making out everybody in the United States has immigration at the top of their mind, thats just fucking stupid.

Not top of mind, but when it comes from choosing between say Clinton or Romney, one who has been very soft on Immigration and the other that takes a tough stance. It is enough to swing voters. And when it is between Romney and McCain in the primaries, it is enough to cause McCain to lose.

Shes just like literally all politicians. A fucking lawyer.

What has she run? What first hand experience has she had making decisions? Being in the Senate just means you play follow the leader.

And I was saying she would bring in a team with experience.

Yet in the end, it is her decision, not her team when it comes down to the big decisions. Not to mention Hillary isnt some one that listens to her team. She is very hot headed and emotional and when she wants to do something she will do it her way.

The Clinton years were good economic years, its going to be the same.

The Clinton years were only good becuase we cut back the Military spending and had a .Com Bubble. Unless we have another .Com Bubble, and Clinton decides to be a royal fuck up and cut our military during a time of war. Then it will not be the same.

Foreign policy will always be the issue, its ties right into any issues on economics, so you may well want to shut your mouth and sit down and listen.

And yet right now, no one is breaking it up. Even Iraq has become a silent issue on the campeign so how about getting your head out of your ass?

The economy is facing higher oil prices, oil is an economic issue but because the majority of oil is from international countries.

Which is nothing we can control right now, becuase OPEC refuses to raise production and the Democrats will not drill.

Foreign policy matters. You want to have trade agreements and trade alliances you need to talk to other countries thats a foreign policy. Foreign policy matters most importantly and Romney doesn't have it.

Neither does Obama, or any one else. Clinton's foreign policy consists of Rubber Chicken dinners with heads of state.

But yes he could well bring in a team of experts on foreign issues but do not think for one second it isn't an issue. Foreign policy runs America.

Right now the Economy runs America, who ever can step up and bring ideas to the table and experience to the table with the economy, is going to come out ahead.

I never said she wasn't playing the race card, but I find it unfair that shes accused of so much and Obama nothing.

Hillary brings the fire down upon herself, from having her people go out and try to accuse Obama of dealing drugs, to her automated calls targeting Obama, she just cannot run a clean enough campeign, then again that IS the Clintons.

And hispanics don't like blacks I would have thought you'd know that.

Which is why Hillary is running to them.

Romney isn't evil like she is.

Fixed for the truth.

Its confirmed you like morons.

I like people who bring ideas and experience to help this country. You on the other hand seem to like people who bring no experience, and no ideas that could help this country right now.

You are just dumb and pathetic Karrde you watch too much talk back radio and just suck at life. Sorry.

I love you too firepokemon, even though I kick your ass in debates.

[firepokemon]

I am not going to play a game of quote and post, quote and post.

You Karrde are spouting the whole entire bullshit every fucking media outlet has been spouting. Oh she has no experience. Oh she's emotional because she cried once. Shes a woman and woman are weak. To say that rather lacks credibility since you just quote and post more than likely off Fox News. I've heard all the arguments against Clinton and they're so typical and so what I would have expected. Do you think Tony Blair Prime Minister of Great Britain a rather great leader that rode an economic high and for a good number of years did very well had that much experience? Do you actually realise how much power a Prime Minister in a westminister system holds? Its much more than a President. The idea that someone needs experience to govern is quite rightly bullshit. Clinton had good years on economics, it didn't have to do with military cutbacks or the bubble boom it was good policies. Although I am of the opinion that government can only do so much for economics. They can influence fiscal policy but you have to rely on more than that to do well economically. The fact Romney had the balls to even say Michigan could have an automotive industry again just speaks of how much of a bullshitter he is. That shows right there how much credibility he lacks.

Oh and I could hardly call you or myself great debaters. Perhaps when The Rusted One was here or other such notable people (even though to me TRO just believed everything he had to say so you couldn't debate him, he was like some religious nutter that just believes he what they believe) then you could say they were good. But really I don't want to be great. I have my beliefs which are clearly Clinton is great and McCain is likeable. You have your opinions which are fine really though I completely disagree with them and your anologies don't make sense. But thats okay. Its good to believe in yourself, just realise one thing. At the end of the day, this is a pokemon forum. A pokemon forum where anybody can say many things, many things which are bullshit. I would hardly call it an achievement to be great at anything on what is a pokemon forum that barely has 50 active posters.

[Roy Karrde]

You Karrde are spouting the whole entire bullshit every fucking media outlet has been spouting.

I have? I don't have any time for the news with school and all.

Oh she's emotional because she cried once.

And if it was Bush people would be jumping over him for it. If a person cannot handle the stress of a primary. How the hell are they going to handle the stress of a Presidency?

Shes a woman and woman are weak.

Who the fuck says that?

To say that rather lacks credibility since you just quote and post more than likely off Fox News.

Please post where my writing appears on Fox News, I would love to see it on a International News Website!

Clinton had good years on economics, it didn't have to do with military cutbacks or the bubble boom it was good policies.

Any economist will tell you the only reason why we had a good economy in the 90s was becuase of the .net bubble. Besides, I should remind you that the Congress determines most of the Economic Policies and passes the budget. So really you are saying the Republican Congress is what created the Economy of the 90s?

The fact Romney had the balls to even say Michigan could have an automotive industry again just speaks of how much of a bullshitter he is. That shows right there how much credibility he lacks.

Michigan right now is starving for jobs, they are watching more and more go overseas and their entire state is falling into a Depression. Romney didn't say "Well I am going to bring back Automotive jobs." and then didn't explain why. He stood up and told how he was going to bring those jobs back, how he was going to pump money into creating Alternative Fuel cars, cars that would help the automotive industry in Michigan alot.

[firepokemon]

Some good points Karrde.
----


Ok well 5 mins to end of voting.

So my predictions for Florida primary

McCain by 5 over Romney. Guliani well back but will beat Huckabee.

Clinton over Obama by 10 probably 15 but Obama get black and youth votes. Edward does well with white males.

And good night leaving uni to watch primary.

[Roy Karrde]

Some good points Karrde.

So can you and I come to some sort of truse?

[homeofmew]

Ron Paul.

Why - Anti Abortion, Keep out illegals, end to war.

[Roy Karrde]

4% of the vote in, so far McCain and Romney are flip flopping back and forth. One moment one will have a 1,000 vote lead. The next the other will have a 4,000 vote lead, Clinton looks to be running away with it with already double the Obama votes.

Also Fox News is reporting that there is a voting machine problem happening in one of the counties in Florida.

[Toxicity]

But you have to note that the other odd 70-something percent remaining for Democratic ballots could change Clinton's lead. In fact, I was waiting in line to get my ballot today and overheard people complaining that they couldn't choose Obama because they were non-partisan or "misplaced as Republican," so it goes to show how much support he's really reeling in spite of the beauty pageant nature of the Primary.

But in terms of votes, I think my best friend voted for Huckabee out of faith; of course, I'd probably have to call him and ask him to see whether or not I'm surprised. My mom voted for Romney if I remember correctly, and I'm still dead sure that my dad selected Ron Paul. I didn't end up voting for a candidate only because my registration card read non-partisan.

I have no idea what to say after seeing these results so far. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think many of the Republicans are well-qualified for the job.

The cheese is superior. Only because the cake is a lie.

[Roy Karrde]

If it makes you feel better Toxicity, apparently many of the Clinton votes came from before this week, those voters that voted today and this week went overwhelmingly for Obama. So it should be interesting to see the final outcome.

As for right now, last time I checked, Romney and McCain are duking it out with McCain only having 9,000 more votes.

[Toxicity]

The absentee ballots were a joke, in my opinion.

In fact, my grandmother ended up having hers not count because she chose Thompson.

[mr_pikachu]

Giuliani to exit presidential race today

John Edwards to quit presidential race

The primary campaign has suddenly become very interesting. With Edwards throwing in the towel, the left now has a head-to-head matchup between Clinton and Obama that could easily go either way. And now that Giuliani's folding as well, the tangle on the right is down to McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Paul.

While Giuliani spoke out in support of McCain - a move that may deal a critical blow to Romney and the other challengers - Edwards did not voice immediate support for either Democratic candidate. One can only wonder what tactics we'll see in the coming days from each side as the remaining candidates vie for these disenfranchised voter bases.

[Roy Karrde]

Guiliani and Edwards was all they were talking about on the Mark Davis show as I was driving into school. So with Guiliani and Edwards making the smart decision to get out. It's now time for Huckabee to realize that he has absolutely no chance of winning, just like Guiliani and Edwards did, and make the smart choice to get out.

If Huckabee does then Romney wins, becuase 90% of Huckabee's voters will go immediatly to Romney. If Huckabee doesn't then McCain wins, thanks to many of the Guiliani voters going to him.

So Huckabee and Edwards are pretty much the king makers in the race now. Who ever they throw their support behind wins. So the question becomes, which nominee is going to offer the most insentives * Cough * The Vice Presidency * Cough *

[Toxicity]

Rumor now is Charlie Crist (Florida's governor) is going to attempt becoming McCain's running mate, given that McCain emerges as victor on Super Tuesday.

I still think that if Edwards does endorse a candidate within the week it will play a major role for the rest of campaign season. On the Republican side, we still have three candidates holding on, two teetering on dropping out.

My call for if the two I have in mind drop out, Paul goes to McCain and Huckabee goes to Romney.

Also, did anybody else listen to Hannity on the radio today?

[firepokemon]

Roy - A truce is fine.

Anyway heh was right about McCain over Romney and at 5% at that. Can't say I'm unhappy. Also right about Guliani over Huckabee though was very close.

Clinton 17% over Obama better than what I predicted I did though take note of voters who in the past week or so voted Obama and Clinton even even.

As for super tuesday. I think McCain has it unless he royally stuffs up somewhere, he's going to get the states with big delegate numbers and its mostly a winner take-all which is good for McCain.

I don't totally get the democratic primary, I guess they're all proportional delegates, so Obama just has to stay close. I do think Clinton will get there if the they don't go too negative. I do however not understand what happens if it goes to this caucus thing and how that works so I'll just wait and see.

[Houndoom_Lover]

Son of a gun! Since when did the election get so popular! It takes a single crap-tastic preident (sp?) to make us all pay attention ^_^!

I love it! Go everyone!

(But, heck, if cheese was running I'd vote for it!)

[firepokemon]

I just hope Nader doesn't run because computer geeks and internet geeks and people that thing they're cool but so are not are like vote for Nader. I like Nader.

[Toxicity]

Nader's Raiders. I might be one of those this year...

As right as you are, fp, it seems like this time, most of the Internet-addicted population seems to back Ron Paul. Certain sites have word filters that come up as "RON PAUL."

[Clark]

Well regardless of who wins, they all suck. The last person who I'd vote for Democratic(Edwards) dropped. The Republicans...well are not showing much promise. Hopefully someone fills the Independent slot thats worth voting for. If you thought Bush sucked, these next 4 years(maybe 8) are going to be even worse. None of these candidates have the experience to pull US out of any holes Bush dug.
Why are so many argue the economy sucks AND support candidates that will force us towards more unneeded war? You can't have both. This isn't ancient times where if you had tons of force you could rule everything(even then nothing ran perfect) so I don't see the point of much towards foreign policy in this election.
I personally would have loved to see a decent position on health care and education, but everyones too worried about "terrorists" and "war"
Why are we pushing to help everyone but ourselves. The education in this country is horrible. And "horrible" doesn't really even get close to how bad it is.
How many more idiots do we need in this country before people realize that this country is shit and always will be until they start caring. Yes, I do believe, my country, USA, is complete garbage. And we deserve anything enemies toss at us, because there is no limit to all the greed in the world.

[Blademaster]

How many more idiots do we need in this country before people realize that this country is shit and always will be until they start caring. Yes, I do believe, my country, USA, is complete garbage. And we deserve anything enemies toss at us, because there is no limit to all the greed in the world.

As my pals on GameFAQs would say...

(hands you a flame shield and then runs like Hell)

[Heald]

At least he realises it. Most people will blindly fly the stars and stripes and recite the national anthem like a bunch of fools, not realising they're being conditioned to blindly follow their country into oblivion.

[Blademaster]

Oh, no, I agree with THAT, but I'm just saying I know at least one or two people here are gonna dive on the guy for that 'This country deserves everything it gets.' line.

[Clark]

I wear flame-resistant clothes since 2000. Bring it on.

[Heald]

Well if he's gonna get flames, he's not gonna get them from me.

The US and the UK made their own bed by pissing off the entire Muslim world. I'm not surprised the UK counter-terrorism unit uncovers some new Muslim plot every month to either blow something up or behead some schlub. It's our fault for blindly following you simians across the Atlantic into a pointless war that will go down in the history books as one of the worst military exercises of the 21st century.

If countries were people, the Middle-East would be a petulant child, always kicking and screaming and yelling about some nonsense and throwing all its toys out of the pram. It never gets on with other children and hates being told off. It will bite and scratch and kick at you until you leave it alone or let it get its own way. Out of all the people we had to piss off, we just had to go upset those children in the Middle-East.

[Roy Karrde]

Well dont worry about me, I wont flame him, no matter how wrong his views are.

I do want to point out that this election isnt focusing on terrorism like say 2004 did. Instead we have people talking about Health Care Reform, Immigration Reform, The economy, Global Warming

Hell even Iraq has been taken off the table now that things are going amazing over there. So expect to see the next President tackle more Domestic issues than working on dismantling Al Qaeda seeing how they are now a reminant now of what they once were.

Truely I would rather have the next President that tackles those issues than work on Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of them are winding down and are only a wimper now, and I would love to see a Republican President take office and deal with the domestic issues our country is facing, than just hearing liberals whine about them * Glares at Boston Legal *

[Toxicity]

It's off the debate field now because every candidate promises to return all troops home towards the start of their term. (although some *cough*McCain*cough* are total liars)

Besides, a great majority of statements coming from Bush this term were about foreign policy. What we need for a president is somebody who can and will maintain a balance in concern, so because voters want to hear about domestic issues in public first, it will be domestic issues debated.

[Roy Karrde]

It's off the debate field now because every candidate promises to return all troops home towards the start of their term. (although some *cough*McCain*cough* are total liars)

They wont though, unless Iraq does a complete 180 from where it is now, then they will keep them there. Neither Hillary nor Obama wants to be known as the President that lost a winning war.

Besides, a great majority of statements coming from Bush this term were about foreign policy. What we need for a president is somebody who can and will maintain a balance in concern, so because voters want to hear about domestic issues in public first, it will be domestic issues debated.

Well mind you until the Economy went South, alot of focus was on the Foreign Issues. We had growth, we had jobs, we had a roaring stock marking. Things were feeling like the 90s again in a lot of ways. So no one cared about Domestic Issues, now with alot of the Foreign Policy nullified becuase nothing is happening, everyone is turning their eyes back to the problems at home now that the economy is in turmoil.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Anybody else find it hilarious that Bush said we needed an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the State of the Union address? I always knew he was senile.

Anyway, with Edwards out, my support's behind Obama. Hillary's far too divisive and she's too neo-conservative in her foreign policy for me to be able to support her.

And Roy, no offense, but 90% of the reason that the United States has issues, both foreign and domestic, is because of Bush and his diabolical lackies in Congress. Deficit? Bush. Health care problems? Bush has been chopping up medicare and medicaid to feed his war machine. Education? The No Child Left Behind act is the biggest crock of shit that Congress has ever managed to spawn and has done what many have thought to be impossible: make the public school system even more impotent. When Bush ran for president in 2000, he promised to raise government aid to college students, yet during his first four years he fought like all hell to both shoot down bills that would raise aid and instead pushed through a bill that cut it. If this is how Republicans deal with domestic issues, America cannot afford another Republican president, lest we become a western version of the middle east: waste all our money on torturing people and blowing shit up rather than using it to help the general population.

[Roy Karrde]

Anybody else find it hilarious that Bush said we needed an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the State of the Union address? I always knew he was senile.

I believe he was refering to the Kyoto Accords, a treaty that was unfair developed countries while helpful to undeveloped countries.

Anyway, with Edwards out, my support's behind Obama. Hillary's far too divisive and she's too neo-conservative in her foreign policy for me to be able to support her.

Deficit? Bush.

More like bloated spending by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

Education? The No Child Left Behind act is the biggest crock of shit that Congress has ever managed to spawn and has done what many have thought to be impossible: make the public school system even more impotent.

You know atleast it was something he tried, something that both sides thought would work, and in many ways it has, and in many ways it hasn't. Bitching about it wont get the job fixed.

When Bush ran for president in 2000, he promised to raise government aid to college students, yet during his first four years he fought like all hell to both shoot down bills that would raise aid and instead pushed through a bill that cut it.

Mind putting up issues on both bills. I would rather see facts to get the full picture.

If this is how Republicans deal with domestic issues, America cannot afford another Republican president, lest we become a western version of the middle east: waste all our money on torturing people and blowing shit up rather than using it to help the general population.

I would rather have a Republican in the White House dealing with issues than another Clinton. Look at what Bill said today on how we should combat Global Warming. Slowing down our Economy! Isn't that exactly the opposite of what we want to do right now?

[Toxicity]

Education needs a fix; that's for sure. I see the failure every day all because I live in the state that started the whole idea of NCLB. The schools that cannot show at least a good portion of success get their funds taken away, meaning students will literally go to school every day just to be coached to excel. In a lot of the cases, the schools will do even worse all because the students were tired for preparing for testing. Personally I don't see why you should just take away the government support because the students don't feel like testing; give them a reason to do well.

And while I agree with the rest of DTZ's post, I still don't see how it was entirely Bush's lackeys for the recent ruin we've seen; I blame 2006's Congress elections just because nothing has been going anywhere when majority of Senate and House disagree entirely with anything Bush proposes. A lot of bills drop dead and nobody's happy.

All I can say in regards to this are that if we don't see a change of pace in domestic policy soon, the present will seem like the "good ol' days."

[DarkTemplarZero]

Personally, I don't see how giving less money to struggling schools is a good idea. It seems to me like a richer get richer, poorer get poorer sort of thing, where the schools that need the money the most are exactly the ones that get their funding cut. It seems rather illogical to try to apply principles from free market capitalism to public education, no?

Roy, the deficit isn't due to bloated domestic spending; Bush's administration chopped down government spending on everything humanly imaginable, except for military spending of course.

Toxicity, I have to concede that point. The democratic congress hasn't done what I had hoped, which is unfortunate. There's a pretty bitter partisanship in congress right now, but hopefully, either McCain or Obama get elected and we get a president who's actually a unifier instead of someone who claims to be a unifier but really rips the country to pieces like Dubya. Maybe then the congress will be more effective.

[Roy Karrde]

Personally, I don't see how giving less money to struggling schools is a good idea.

It gives a insentive for the schools to perform well, if they do not perform well they will need to learn how to fix it or risk losing more money. Giving schools a free ride for underperforming doesn't seem right.

where the schools that need the money the most are exactly the ones that get their funding cut.

Then find ways to work on improving performance.

It seems rather illogical to try to apply principles from free market capitalism to public education, no?

Actually it seems very logical, it gives the schools something to push for, and punishes them when they don't. American Schools were on a down ward path in the 90s, something, anything had to be done.

Roy, the deficit isn't due to bloated domestic spending;

Bridge to no where?

Bush's administration chopped down government spending on everything humanly imaginable, except for military spending of course.

Well that kind of happens during a time of war, and when we were coming off a period in which bloated government projects filled the Government. But you fail to realize the massive amount of ear marks that were put in bills by Republicans which drove the deficit up.

The schools that cannot show at least a good portion of success get their funds taken away, meaning students will literally go to school every day just to be coached to excel. In a lot of the cases, the schools will do even worse all because the students were tired for preparing for testing. Personally I don't see why you should just take away the government support because the students don't feel like testing; give them a reason to do well.

Why shouldn't we push teachers and push students to excel? If there is a threat of punishment behind it, they will only work faster. Students in the United States are falling behind the rest in the world. We need to push them harder becuase no one will hold their hand and go "Oh Poor Baby" when they reach the real world. If we cannot make our students competative in the real world, then we as a nation are screwed.

[Clark]

If the schools are in a well populated city, chances are the education is horrible. Its a well known fact inner-city families are poor and usually unemployed. They need the extra funding to boost education so we can fight unemployment and more uneducated people roaming the streets.

[Roy Karrde]

If the schools are in a well populated city, chances are the education is horrible. Its a well known fact inner-city families are poor and usually unemployed. They need the extra funding to boost education so we can fight unemployment and more uneducated people roaming the streets.

Not to mention the well funded football team that they have.

And again I ask, why give them a pass, why go "Meh, they are poor give them the money". Where is the insentive for a better education? You are putting these people at a disadvantage at College, in the work place, and the over all world.

[Clark]

Its not the schools fault completely that the kids don't learn. Its their upbringing and parents. They should try to implement better ways to set better examples for the children, so they possibly could do more with their lives than sell drugs or whatever else poor people do other than cause global warming.

[Toxicity]

Why shouldn't we push teachers and push students to excel? If there is a threat of punishment behind it, they will only work faster. Students in the United States are falling behind the rest in the world. We need to push them harder becuase no one will hold their hand and go "Oh Poor Baby" when they reach the real world. If we cannot make our students competative in the real world, then we as a nation are screwed.

Then tell me why these schools that actually try to pick up still fall back.

It's because the students who are pushed don't care after being pushed long enough. Not trying to be prejudiced in any form, but the good majority of these trying schools are in areas where there is no sight to this "real world"; all the students know of is that any of them could turn up imprisoned or even dead at any point. It's the psychology behind it that leads them to that point of oblivion.

I see nothing wrong with trying to help those that are making clear attempts to improve their lives; if you're expecting handouts, enjoy waiting. At least, that's how I'd run both education and the welfare system.