Who will be the next US president?

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/02/2008 11:34:36 AM · #326

I'm still pissed off about DNC's handling of the state primaries in MI and FL.

I may have to vote for McCain.

FireBird

04/02/2008 11:45:03 AM · #327

Originally posted by Fromac:

Given all that's happened since the last post on this thread...I wondered if anyone had any new thoughts, had changed their mind, or had given up caring altogether!

So, who's going to be the next president of the US?

If Obama beats Hillary, he will squeak by McCain to be the first black President of the United States. My money is on him as both Hillary and McCain tend to self-destruct when the going gets rough. There is also a ground swell of support for Obama that transcends race. Which will be unfortunate because if the coming depression waits until he is in office, you know who will be blamed.
Yes. I said depression boys and girls.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

04/02/2008 12:34:24 PM · #328

Originally posted by fir3bird:

I said depression boys and girls.

I would have to agree with you here. I feel our country is headed beyond a recession. I also believe it's going to effect a lot of nations around the world.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

04/02/2008 12:41:21 PM · #329

I would have a very hard time voting for Obama since he has essentially said that my primary vote doesn't matter.

Canon EOS-60D

04/02/2008 12:45:44 PM · #330

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I may have to vote for McCain.

Originally posted by fir3bird:

I said depression boys and girls.

Originally posted by SDW:

I would have to agree with you here. I feel our country is headed beyond a recession. I also believe it's going to effect a lot of nations around the world.

Ditto to all the above.

04/02/2008 01:57:43 PM · #331

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I would have a very hard time voting for Obama since he has essentially said that my primary vote doesn't matter.

I think you are blaming the wrong people here. Maybe you should be looking to your own State legislature who knew the consequences of their actions when they defied the rules and moved their primaries. Look, I always told my kids and the people who worked for me that it you always have a choice when you decide to break a rule. You have to accept the fact that you may be caught or called on it and if so then be willing to accept the consequences of your action. The problem here is clearly that the people of those Sates suffer because of the actions of their elected officials.

Now the DNC and the candidates have to deal with the problem they did not create. Each candidate wants the people of those states to be represented but they differ on how to do it. Each wants what would appear to be the best option for them, as might be expected. Remember, no campaigning went on and in one case only one of the two top candidates was not even on the ballot.

My opinion is that they should seat the delegates from both States so they can participate in the process but split them 50/50. It would be silly to think that the elections held were representative of what would had happened if the candidates could have campaigned in those States or for that matter even been on the ballot.

My guess is that is exactly what will happen.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/02/2008 02:14:00 PM · #332

The primary race reminds me of an old joke:

When liberals form a firing squad they arrange themselves in a circle ... facing inwards ...

superdave

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

04/02/2008 02:18:49 PM · #333

I think Obama will be the next president. Any American citizen with half a brain should be so disgusted by Bush and his administration. How could anyone vote republican after what he has done? What a joke he is!

04/02/2008 02:19:20 PM · #334

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

...I may have to vote for McCain.

I'm just a naive Canadian, but how is it possible that a Democrat would vote for a Republican (McCain), if the values of each respective party are so clearly conflicting, and, especially, if that person was original inclined toward Obama (when one candidate's platform is so diametrically opposed to another's).

How could anyone be wavering between, say, Mahatma Ghandi and Mussolini (forgive the hyperbole)?

04/02/2008 02:51:22 PM · #335

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I would have a very hard time voting for Obama since he has essentially said that my primary vote doesn't matter.

I think you are blaming the wrong people here. Maybe you should be looking to your own State legislature who knew the consequences of their actions when they defied the rules and moved their primaries. Look, I always told my kids and the people who worked for me that it you always have a choice when you decide to break a rule. You have to accept the fact that you may be caught or called on it and if so then be willing to accept the consequences of your action. The problem here is clearly that the people of those Sates suffer because of the actions of their elected officials.

Now the DNC and the candidates have to deal with the problem they did not create. Each candidate wants the people of those states to be represented but they differ on how to do it. Each wants what would appear to be the best option for them, as might be expected. Remember, no campaigning went on and in one case only one of the two top candidates was not even on the ballot.

My opinion is that they should seat the delegates from both States so they can participate in the process but split them 50/50. It would be silly to think that the elections held were representative of what would had happened if the candidates could have campaigned in those States or for that matter even been on the ballot.

My guess is that is exactly what will happen.

The failure on the part of the DNC in the MI and FL primary cluster-duck goes back to well before the decision was made to pull up the primary. The DNC has failed to fairly address the issue of which states have the first primary. In other words: Why do Iowa and New Hampshire matter more than the other 48? The other states and their parties have long endorsed a fair and rotating system that would give each state a turn at having their primary be first. The DNC has repeatedly failed to act.

Do you teach your kids to take turns? Or do you teach them that some people are special and the rules of what's fair don't apply? Do you tell them that they should just obey rules that are not fair?

Don't get me wrong, I'm plenty upset with the state parties, legislature and governor on this, but the burr under the saddle is there thanks to the DNC.

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 15:01:39.

04/02/2008 03:00:02 PM · #336

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...I may have to vote for McCain.

I'm just a naive Canadian, but how is it possible that a Democrat would vote for a Republican (McCain), if the values of each respective party are so clearly conflicting, and, especially, if that person was original inclined toward Obama (when one candidate's platform is so diametrically opposed to another's).

How could anyone be wavering between, say, Mahatma Ghandi and Mussolini (forgive the hyperbole)?

Your error is in assuming that I am a Democrat. I am more of what might be termed a disillusioned Republican.

For me, it's more a choice between which candidate is going to be the slowest to max out the national credit card. The fact that there is a real risk that my vote will not count in the selection of the candidate I feel best represents me does nothing but anger me.

04/02/2008 03:02:04 PM · #337

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Hey, I'm from Washington and our primary has not counted for much in most elections either. I agree that some sort of rotating regional system would be best. But that is not the point here. The party as a whole, including Obama and Clinton and the States, agreed to the rules prior to the changes being made in Fl & MI. My references were to the fact that a rule was set. Now I agree that sometimes activism is needed. But if you decide on that path you must be willing to accept the fact that you may have to take a few knocks before you make the changes in the system that you want. Fl & Mi chose the route they took. The only salient point here is how we now fix it. Counting the elections that took place clearly is not the answer as they were obviously skewed. Changing your vote from Dem to Rep certainly wont solve it. I do understand your frustration and believe that a resolution will come and Fl & Wi will have delegates seated at the convention. It is just a matter of allocation. We are on the same side, I think.

04/02/2008 03:07:07 PM · #338

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The failure on the part of the DNC in the MI and FL primary cluster-duck goes back to well before the decision was made to pull up the primary. The DNC has failed to fairly address the issue of which states have the first primary. In other words: Why do Iowa and New Hampshire matter more than the other 48? The other states and their parties have long endorsed a fair and rotating system that would give each state a turn at having their primary be first. The DNC has repeatedly failed to act.

Do you teach your kids to take turns? Or do you teach them that some people are special and the rules of what's fair don't apply? Do you tell them that they should just obey rules that are not fair?

Hey, I'm from Washington and our primary has not counted for much in most elections either. I agree that some sort of rotating regional system would be best. But that is not the point here. The party as a whole, including Obama and Clinton and the States, agreed to the rules prior to the changes being made in Fl & MI. My references were to the fact that a rule was set. Now I agree that sometimes activism is needed. But if you decide on that path you must be willing to accept the fact that you may have to take a few knocks before you make the changes in the system that you want. Fl & Mi chose the route they took. The only salient point here is how we now fix it. Counting the elections that took place clearly is not the answer as they were obviously skewed. Changing your vote from Dem to Rep certainly wont solve it. I do understand your frustration and believe that a resolution will come and Fl & Wi will have delegates seated at the convention. It is just a matter of allocation. We are on the same side, I think.

My vote is, unfortunately, the only club I have. I cannot in good conscience, give that vote to a candidate for a party that de values my primary vote. It's that simple.

04/02/2008 03:12:25 PM · #339

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

My vote is, unfortunately, the only club I have. I cannot in good conscience, give that vote to a candidate for a party that de values my primary vote. It's that simple.

Fair enough. But I do hope you reconsider given the amount of time there is to go in the election process. There November is a long way off.

04/02/2008 03:40:08 PM · #340

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

...Your error is in assuming that I am a Democrat. I am more of what might be termed a disillusioned Republican.

For me, it's more a choice between which candidate is going to be the slowest to max out the national credit card. The fact that there is a real risk that my vote will not count in the selection of the candidate I feel best represents me does nothing but anger me.

Mea culpa, but, still, McCain? Considering what the present administration has done to the economy so far, how do you think his prolonged military spending is going to effect the national credit card?

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 15:40:29.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/02/2008 04:12:07 PM · #341

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Do you teach your kids to take turns? Or do you teach them that some people are special and the rules of what's fair don't apply?

They probably learn those things from the current administration ... :-(

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/02/2008 04:13:31 PM · #342

BTW: Out here in California, the most populous state, our vote hasn't counted in a primary for quite a while.

04/02/2008 04:46:10 PM · #343

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...Your error is in assuming that I am a Democrat. I am more of what might be termed a disillusioned Republican.

For me, it's more a choice between which candidate is going to be the slowest to max out the national credit card. The fact that there is a real risk that my vote will not count in the selection of the candidate I feel best represents me does nothing but anger me.

Mea culpa, but, still, McCain? Considering what the present administration has done to the economy so far, how do you think his prolonged military spending is going to effect the national credit card?

Sure, but Obama's "vision of hope" will not be cheap either. At least the war is a known expense.

My opinion on the Iraq war also differs from the typical liberal. I think the war was a HUGE mistake to begin and even greater mistakes were made once the initial invasion was complete. Mistakes that resonate even today. However, I also think it's unrealistic, irresponsible and immoral for the US to simply pack up and come home. We broke it, we have to fix it. Regardless of the cost.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/02/2008 05:11:05 PM · #344

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

... it's unrealistic, irresponsible and immoral for the US to simply pack up and come home. We broke it, we have to fix it. Regardless of the cost.

How about considering "fixing" it without blasting it into submission?

The population of Iraq (according to the CIA World Factbook) is:
27,499,638 (July 2007 est.) NOTE: I don't know if that includes expatriate refugees

At the $12 billion (borrowed) dollars we are currently spending each month that works out to

$436/capita/month

Iraq's Budget:

revenues: $42.3 billion NOTE: This is an annual figure, not monthly as above
expenditures: $48.4 billion (FY08 est.)

That calculates out to revenues of
$127/capita/month

If we're going to spend that kind of money for the foreseeable future, it seems to me that we could just give every Iraqi man, woman and child $250/month, and tell them to put down their guns and go back to their jobs* -- they'd immediately double their income, while we'd still have almost $200/month left over to give to our own kids, schools, and disadvantaged.

*Unemployment is 18% -- maybe some of them could use the stipend to create some.

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 17:12:47.

04/02/2008 05:27:33 PM · #345

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

...Obama's "vision of hope" will not be cheap either. At least the war is a known expense.

My opinion on the Iraq war also differs from the typical liberal. I think the war was a HUGE mistake to begin and even greater mistakes were made once the initial invasion was complete. Mistakes that resonate even today. However, I also think it's unrealistic, irresponsible and immoral for the US to simply pack up and come home. We broke it, we have to fix it. Regardless of the cost.

I'm not sure I know what the translation for typical liberal into CDN English would be, but it's probably someone more conservative than we would have a label for. :)
I share your take on the nature of withdrawal from Iraq, but I think we would find many, even outside the US, to agree with it. I just can't see how things could be fixed without a planned withdrawal within a reasonable time frame. Nor can I imagine a president with a military agenda being capable of finding support from her potential and once-allies.

04/02/2008 05:33:40 PM · #346

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

... Obama's "vision of hope" will not be cheap either....

Obama's "vision of hope" is likely a better investment than munitions and armory though. And If you take the money from those who have more than they need, it might hurt less overall.

04/02/2008 05:40:36 PM · #347

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... Obama's "vision of hope" will not be cheap either....

Obama's "vision of hope" is likely a better investment than munitions and armory though. And If you take the money from those who have more than they need, it might hurt less overall.

Exactly.

And of course you could probalby make an argument that the munitions and armory costs are worth it if they were making the US safer but we all know that is not the case. I'd feel much better about our country going into debt that my children will have to pay off if they at least were getting some social benefit from it.

Message edited by author 2008-04-02 17:41:16.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/02/2008 05:42:30 PM · #348

Hmmm ... didn't I already post some quotes from Eisenhower which pertained to this vein of the discussion?