off topic POLITICS

I like Obama, Clinton and McCain, obviously for different reasons. Obama has youth, vitality, Kennedy-like charisma ('the torch is passed') and would cause the whole world to view this ransacked kingdom in a much needed new light. In a fairy tale world he'd be my pick. But the Clinton machine will crush him-she's smart as a whip and would cut your balls off and hand them to you on a silver platter. Is this a bad thing in a hostile world? McCain's always been the real deal and is displaying more vigor than any seventy-two year old I know. Any repub hated by as many repub zealots JM is can't be all bad. And since the country's gone to hell in a hand basket the last eight years HRC shouldn't have too much trouble beating even a renegade of JM's quality.

If the last election is any indication, you're going to have at least half the population voting for change. I just hope it's not a change for the worse. Now that more troops seemed like the correct answer to stabalize regions in war, I just hope no one in office thinks we need a lot more and enact the draft. A draft increases the chances of war. It makes war cheaper. It confiscates the labor of all the young people involved and makes them do something they don't necessarily want to do. I guess I don't trust people in office or people running who say they want to fix everything or claim they want to help people. I'm thinking, yeah help themselves is what they'll do. Make government a lot bigger so we have no choices anymore. Pay all your money to the government. Who wants the government to provide everything, your home, your job, your food, your health care? Then all your money will also go to the government. Then the government will tell you that you don't need anything else and occasionally cut back services to save money, claiming budget problems. ahh sorry for the rant. Felt good to me though.

The only thing about me that leans right is my dick. OK, that and law and order issues. The main reason why I'm certain to vote Democratic this year (I consider myself independent) is that the party of the current president has to pay for his decisions. It can be Clinton or Obama, although lately Clinton is letting her husband speak for her, which is bad because 1) it reminds voters that even though you might get two presidents for one, you might give a chubby-chaser second dibs on the interns, and 2) I've seen him on the news, and he's kind of an asshole.

Maybe this will tie this back to TUSCL: Seems to me most of the members here are Republicans. I think they should be Democrats because of our common interest. Thoughts?

"...has to pay for his decisions."

Now that has to be a contender for # 1 spot on the "Dumb reason of The Year To Vote For Someone"!

Naw, dumb reason #1 is, that the Republicans are doing so well on the subjects of Iraq, Katrina, the economy, immigration, health care, Afghanistan, our international standing, the strength of the dollar, the stock market, the invasion of religious bigotry into the public sphere including the imposition of Biblical teaching on public school children, and other topics, that they deserve to be re-elected. THAT'S the dumb reason #1.

Amen and Ditto: the only thing scarier than some of our candidates (especially the last one we "elected" twice) is the electorate itself (the scared and stupid) which keeps picking transparent losers and stooges over far superior choices. The best men (thoughtful, semi-intelligent INDEPENDENT thinkers)almost never win-the whole three ring circus dog and pony show we call elections with the best candidates money can buy guarantees that. Beware Giuliani the chest-thumping god's gift to a scared nation, and Huckabee another born again true believer with a direct line to the Almighty. Haven't we had enough of this s**t?

I don't care for Obama myself, but he is right when he says that thousands of corporations dodge their tax obligations here by registering their companies abroad (in a P.O. Box in the Bahamas for example). That needs to stop IMO...we all have to pull our own weight. If they don't want to be American companies, that's their problem.

That's cool that you live in that "Fired up, ready to go" town...I've heard him tell that story before on the campaign trail.

I'm still very interested in whether or not this country is "ready for" (or maybe more "ready for") a black or a woman President. I personally think that a woman is more viable right now, but this woman is also a Clinton & a lot of people (mostly men I think) hate the Clintons still. It was interesting in the media's recent obession with race that I saw some polls from SC that said that more whites thought that the country was "ready for" a black President than blacks actually did. The numbers for a woman for President were more similar amongst whites and blacks. I don't know what the answer to this question is (and it's a shame that we have to ask it at all still), but I'm anxious to find out this fall.

A lot of countires object when their citizens get sentenced to the death penalty in this country. Italy has front page headlines whenever we execute someone here (regardless of whether that person is Italian or not). The rest of the world looks at our death penalty laws as barbaric, and I agree. Killing someone doesn't bring anyone back...I don't want to be a part of killing anyone, ever.

I like the Clintons & always have. I didn't have much a problem with the way they ran the country before, given that they had to deal with a GOP Congress that was out to crush them (and didn't). I figure since Bushy Boy's two basic things that he wanted to accomplish when becoming President in 2001 was:
1. undo everything that the Clintons did
2. not do anything like his father, Bush Sr., did
who better to undo all that mess than a Clinton...they've done it before. In order for her to win any political office though, she MUST win a majoirty of women in order to counteract the large number of men (that won't vote for a woman period) and people that hate the Clintons. When she does (and has done) that, she will win. It'll be interesting to watch...

I respect McCain on his stances in the past on taxes, immigration, and campaign finance reform, but he is all wrong on the War in Iraq and a whole host of other important issues. Don't let his "maverick" style fool you...he's a Republican through and through...just look at his voting record.

There's nothing wrong with voting against or for a particular political party IMO. Political parties matter, period. Anyone that tells you any different is mostly kidding themselves. Just look at what happened in 2006.

I too have been puzzled at the "conservative" bent of most TUSCL members that post here. I gotta get off my ass and do a thread on that sometime. Look for a blog about Hillary too sometime before Super-duper Tuesday.

Unfortunately, you are right that the sheep (85% of the voters) vote for a party, and they get the government they deserve. What really needs to be done is a total top to bottom revamp of the system - every political office from pres down to dog catcher is a 6-year term and you can never hold that office again, and you also can never hold more than 4 political offices in your life. The founders of this country would be going out of their minds if they saw what happens today - people spending their entire working lives in some political office or other instead of actually working for a living.

One excellent comment above. "The founders of this country would be going out of their minds if they saw what happens today - people spending their entire working lives in some political office or other instead of actually working for a living." And you can include, in that statement, most everything the government does these days, would keep them out of their minds!

I believe those who want to punish American corporations who incorporated overseas but still maintain a majority of their factories and operations here in the US have it all wrong. US companies are at a big disadvantage if they choose to stay here in the US compared to overseas companies. Many companies have moved overseas already. Politicians should be fixing this problem keeping jobs here instead of looking for ways to punish the companies that are still here. I happen to work for one that is still here so I am more aware of the situation than a majority of Americans I believe. To keep jobs here and make US companies more competitive with foreign companies, tax reform is needed along these lines here.


Excerpt below taken from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/B…

Making American-Based Companies More Competitive

Fundamental Reform. Policymakers should junk America's worldwide tax on corporate income and shift to territorial taxation. Such a step would be poetic justice. The EU filed the WTO cases against America in hopes of forcing lawmakers to increase the tax burden on U.S. companies. If lawmakers instead use the WTO rulings as an impetus to improve the tax code, American companies will become more effective competitors in the world economy, and the EU will regret its attack on U.S. fiscal sovereignty.

Basically a company operating out of say like Ireland or most other foreign countries have a lower tax rate. The company located in the foreign country may pay only a 12 percent tax rate for all of their global operations. Now a US company is forced due to our tax code to pay the US corporate tax rate for all income generated around the world. Therefore, if a US company is trying to sell for instance an expensive product costing 10,000 in Ireland, the Ireland company can undercut the US company since the US company will have to pay possibly a 35 percent tax rate compared to the company selling a similiar product in Ireland. I believe the same company may get a tax break on products sold here as well but I'm not an expert on the tax situation.

The US company is doing the right thing keeping operations here but selling overseas is something global companies do. Now if the US company really wanted to be more competitive and started from scratch, they wouldn't build factories at all here in the US. That's one reason why jobs have been leaving the US and here the Democrats sound like they want to punish the US companies that legally reincorporated to try to be on a fairer tax basis with foreign competitors. It's not fair to punish US companies. Punish the foreign companies. They don't necessarily employ 10's of thousands of US workers right here in the US.

I thought I heard 55 percent of American familes own mutual funds, 401k's or some stock. It just doesn't make sense to hurt ourselves when we need to keep jobs here and let our companies compete with foreign competitors.

By the way Obama should win the Democratic primary in South Carolina I believe. I think I saw where he was way ahead in the polls in South Carolina. In fact, word is getting around that Hillary decided to go campaign in other states. I see how much she really cares about the ordinary American. I have to hand it to the Clintons though, they are fantastic actors. They can look all emotional one moment and have a complete change of attitude when they think the camera is not on them. Hillary tried an emotional outburst by almost crying in another state and I heard it gained her votes. Some people are so easily fooled. I guess it's been working for her so far. To me, it makes it seem like she can't handle the job but I know she was putting on an act for those gullible enough to fall for it. I think she gave up on SC and went elsewhere. What is really sneaky though is attacking Obama in effect throwing mud, and then claiming he gave her dirty hands. If her husband can sneak interns into the White house behind her back and get BJ's in office, she must be just as clever and sneaky.

I figure the majority of Americans are going to make Bush pay for lying to them about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and the economy not doing so great and a number of other things.

What will be nice is having a president that can give a decent non rehearsed conversation without sounding like he/she is not that bright. No offense intended but some past video clips of our current president don't look good.

I saw a recent comparison between the Articles of Confederation (what this country's system of federal govt. was before the U.S. Constitution) & the Constitution, and there were term limits for Congress in the Articles. The Articles failed miserably BTW. I've always had mixed feelings about term limits myself. I tend to like them for Executive Branch postions, but pretty much nothing else. People need to really get together and vote out those that they don't want, and we desperately need campaign finance reform to even out the playing field.

How the heck do you "punish foreign companies"?? The Hertiage Foundation is nothing but a GOP "think tank" BTW.

If she's really going to lose SC, do you actually blame her for focusing her efforts elsewhere? That just sounds like good strategy to me. There are "ordinary Anmericans" all over the place BTW. Everyone knows that SC will never go for a Democrat in the general election. She "can't handle the job" just because she cried? Come on now...

I don't like either party - they both say one thing and do the opposite. Republicans say they stand for less government and less spending but spend more and make no effort to shrink government. Democrats say they care about the less fortunate and routinely support higher taxes on the less fortunate and oppose reforms that would actually help them.

I generally vote for Republicans because at least they pursue an aggressive foreign policy, which should be the primary focus of the federal government. They're willing to confront our enemies, while Democrats practice appeasement and generally ignore foreign threats. They focus on domestic issues and get the government in volved in too many domestic issues which should be the resopnsibility of state and local governments.

In terms of presidential politics, you should vote for the person who you think will do the best job in foreign policy, because that's really the only real power that the president has. Congress runs the domestic agenda and the president is pretty powerless to have much impact.

"while Democrats practice appeasement and generally ignore foreign threats."

Ever hear of WWII or Korea? I'm wondering who the GOP will be "agressively" conquering for no reason next...

"Congress runs the domestic agenda and the President is pretty powerless to have much impact."

Do you really think that Reagan or Bush had little to do with domestic policies?

FONDL,

I generally vote Republican as well, but do so because they generally are more conservative, and they generally do face the facts when dealing with the rest of the world.

That said, I do not see a true conservative running, and at least one listed as a Republican, is scarier than some democrats.

OK, that is it for this topic! Back to the strip clubs!

MisterGuy, Reagan had some impsct because he had clear majorities in both houses of congress, but even with that he was unable to shrink government, all he did was slow it's growth a little. Bush has had virtually no impact on domestic policies, just as Clinton had none.

"Reagan had some impact because he had clear majorities in both houses of Congress"

Are we rewriting history here? I agree that there were plenty of "Reagan Democrats" around then, but to say that he had a "clear majorities" in either or both house(s) of Congress is silly.

"Bush has had virtually no impact on domestic policies"

GWB?? Illegal domestic spying, tax cuts, no abortion rights for federal employees, No Child Left Behind, blocking federal stem cell research, the Hurricane Katrina response, weakening the Clean Air Act, the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys, his lifetime nominations to the Supreme Court...need I go on and on?

I agree with the Supreme Court point - that was certainly a positive impact. The rest of it exists only in the minds of the liberal media.

Used to think at one time that I had strange luck. Just found out today that Edwards was at the same college. He brought along "Cooter" from the Dukes of Hazard tv show and a few other people. I also found out the local college has the highest percentage of registered voters for any college in the nation. Now that seems impressive especially for a college here in South Carolina. I guess the people here actually care.

What I don't like or am very concerned about the democrats and Hillary in particular is her desire to have the government take care of what seems to be all our needs and turn this country to a more soviet style communist country where we just pay everything to the motherland and the government gives us what we need. I believe in free markets not in regulating everything to death. The web site I used above was one that I found to help describe how American companies are unfairly taxed compared to companies in foreign countries. That's the way it is. Our jobs have been leaving this country and that is one of the reasons. I do believe Hillary is not stupid and maybe she can fix that. However I don't want to solve or pay for all of her fixes by being taxed to death. I think I already pay enough taxes. I don't want to pay more tax to pay for more health care. I don't want to pay for more tax to pay for extra programs she wants. I don't want to pay more tax to protect ourselves. I want that extra money I make to enjoy strip clubs or whatever other hobby I enjoy. If she says she wants to fix Social Security, I don't want to pay extra taxes to save a fund that doesn't really even exist. I don't believe in a communist style of government.

That said, I'm not really happy so far with any of the candidates. I'm starting to think I would have liked to hear what Ron Paul had to say about less government, but he is already out of the race I believe.

Lol, my initial impression about Edwards appearing here with "Cooter", some bluegrass singers, etc. and him wearing bluejeans, he must think we're a bunch of hillbillies and he's trying to get out the hillbilly vote. Just my initial impression. I wouldn't be surprised if almost half the population of South Carolina now consisted of transplanted people from around the rest of the country. There is a large growing community of international students and people living here now as well. In fact some British folks just recently opened up a one of a kind restaurant (for the US) down the road from me serving English food, cooked and made the English way. I read the British residents were coming out of the wood work to go eat there. Edwards isn't going to win but he might help Hillary to lose in South Carolina taking away some votes she might have received. (just my opinion).

The only reason I said was that maybe Hillary can fix the above was because it appears Hillary is ahead in the polls in this country. If the majority of people in this country feel that way and go vote for her, I wouldn't be surprised if she was elected president. I just hope I don't pay for that result too much. Making us pay extra in payroll taxes (the companies you work for will just reduce your take home pay) to pay for higher social security taxes or just increasing the rate, will be a big tax bite for everyone. Maybe she'll be more inclined to help our economy grow to increase tax revenue and get us out of this mess we're in. Maybe she'll help businesses here be more competitive with companies overseas instead of encouraging them to move overseas. I guess I can only hope and go vote for whomever I think will do the best job. Good luck everyone with whomever wins.

This sounds like a conspiracy associated with some powerful groups here in the US but I find it odd that I read a few years ago about plans for the future. The article I read said Hillary would be president because the powers that be decided that already. I guess a few people are concerned about electronically fixing results.

Riiiight...the liberal media suggested cutting your taxes...that sure was nice of them.

The only people in modern politics that are actual communists in this country are the people that run under that party's ticket. Pretty much no one votes for them. You don't have to like or even trust the Clintons in my view, but to call them communists is ridiculous.

I'll ask again then...how the heck do you "punish foreign companies" then?? They are, by definition, outside the scope of our law. Globalization does not have to be a race to the bottom IMO. The jobs that have left this country are NEVER coming back. We need to better educate workers in this country so they can do the high-tech, well-paying jobs that will be left here. Either that...or soon everyone will be working for the govt. or the service industry.

"I think I already pay enough taxes...I don't want to pay more tax to protect ourselves."

No one likes to pay taxes, but it's one of the responsibilities that goes with being a citizen. I used to work with a guy that uttered almost this exact same phrase when discussing a local bond proposal in his town. The local fire dept. apparently needed a new fire truck, and the town wanted to float a bond to pay for it. He voted against it because, "my taxes are high enough". Did he really think that the firemen of his town were *lying* when they said they needed a new fire truck? Talk about voting against your own interests...the next time there's a fire in his neighborhood and the fire dept. only has crappy, old equipment to fight it...he'll wish he had voted differently I guess.

No one that I know of is planning on asking any low to middle income people to pay more taxes to make SS more solvent. The SS trust fund *is* there...it's full of govt. treasury securities. Govt. securities that are simply backed up by "the full faith and credit of the USA". If you think that's worthless, then the money that you love to hand your favorite stripper is just as worthless...it's just a "Federal Reserve Note"...backed up by the same "full faith and credit of the USA" and *nothing* else. It's worth a dollar (or whatever) merely because the govt. says it's worth a dollar. I understand that this is a difficult concept for a lot of people to grasp as it doesn't relate at all to the way we all have to live within a pretty fixed budget.

Ron Paul is still in the race I think...I saw him in a GOP debate the other day.

It's not the level of taxation that's important, it's the level of spending. It makes little different whether the government raises the money by borrowing or taxing, both have a negative impact on the economy.

And Misterguy, you raised the issue of Democrats and WWII and Korea - surely you don't think today's Democragtic Party bears any resemblance to what it was like in those days. There's no comparison.

I hear comparisons all the time between what Democrats want to do now and what was done very popularily during the time of the New Deal. Segements of the Right in this country routinely rail aginst portions of the New Deal all the time. One of Howard Dean's favorite Presidents is Harry Truman.

We all misspeak here, and everyone is entitled to their opinion about what issues matter to them in any election...but the idea that the President has little to do with domestic issues is ridiculous. Just because you take the "states rights" point of view (that's been defeated again and again in issues like slavery, civil rights, etc.) that the federal govt. should stay out of most domestic issues doesn't make it true.

Shadowcat 08

I believe no matter who wins, we'll all be screwed.

As far as not wanting to pay more taxes, we wouldn't need to if the government would cut spending instead of increasing it for unnecessary things. I think many of us do that (or at least I do). If I want something and don't have the money for it, I don't increase my spending and get it anyway, I cut back somewhere else. I just remembered many people don't act that way in this country, they are just used to spending more and more and go into debt.

Oh, wish to say Congrats to Obama and his fans. Another primary won. I may not agree with him on all the issues but he seems like an agreeable candidate as far as his personality is concerned. Now we'll see how good he does in the rest of the country.

and if I was sitting in a bar talking to Bill Clinton, I would ask him how he and Hillary plan to pay for universal health care coverage. and I would ask him if I was already covered at work with insurance, would I be required to pay more? Might not get an honest answer but was wondering what the response would be. I'm also wondering if the candidates would fix social security by raising taxes. I did hear Hillary say she wanted to fix a lot of things. This just means the government and/or new president thinks it's ok to take even more of our money away now so that they can give us a little something back when we're old and gray. If someone says they want to fix things, I want to know the details of how they plan on fixing things. That will tell me whether they deserve my vote or not.

aww forget about it. Expecting an honest answer from a politician about how they are going to pay for expanding social programs has about as much chance as a snowball in hell.

I agree...pay-as-you-go or get rid of the program. The Democrats are on board with that thinking as well BTW.

I think Hillary's current health care plan just involves everyone having access to, if they want (you can keep the plan you have now if you want to), the same extensive list of private health insurance plans that Congress and federal employees have access to now (the FEHBP). You can pretty much kiss those tax cuts that went to rich Americans earlier this decade goodbye IMO.

SS, IMO, can be fixed by raising taxes on the rich (raising the current cap on how much income gets taxed) and/or by increasing the retirement age gradually as people live longer and longer.

Misterguy, very few presidents of either party in the last half century have been leaders when it comes to domestic policy. They've all jumped in front of whatever was already happening anyway and tried to take credit for it. That's what I mean when I say they haven't had much effect on domestic policy, most of what was accomplished would have happened no matter who was president.

One could argue that's OK for the president to give people what they want, but that assumes that the public is well informed. Unfortunately in this age of advocacy journalism, that assumption is false. Advocacy journalism defines every issue as a choice between the extreme positions at either end of the spectrum, as a choice between good and evil, with no middle ground. Abortion is one obvious example. As a result, the courts rather than the president or the legislature are the only ones making any changes of any consequence in domestic policy.

Would we have had the across the board tax cuts that Bush gave everyone if Gore had been allowed to become President? No. Would we have had illegal domestic spying? I don't think so.

Do you really want me to list the Presidents from the last half century and all the things that they did domestically that their opponents would have *never* done?? That can be arranged, but I doubt you'd like reading it.

Vote however you want to...if your thing is foreign policy, great. But don't try and lead us all down the fairtale path that you're on. Who gets to nominate Supreme Court justices again? Do you think John Roberts would be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court if Kerry or Gore were President? Give me a break...I would think someone of your age would have more wisdom...

Do you not believe in democracy then? And don't give the usual GOP nonsense about this country being a Republic either (republic = representative democracy). If *you* can read thru the nonsense in the media, why assume that others can't?

Ron Paul discusses the economic crisis: "How can my fellow Klansmen afford lumber for burning crosses, at the current rates!? How can the guys down at the loading dock get decent steel re-bars to whack Hispanic migrant laborers in the head, without an end to excessive taxation? We need to DO something ..."

Dig around on that guy. He's hand-in-glove with the lunatic fringe.

I know Book Guy, there are a lot of people who like this wingnut and can't see through him. There's a saying, something to the effect of: "The only thing worse than ignorance is the misapplication of intelligence." For people who only *think* they're smarter than their fellow Americans, there's Ron Paul.

Sounds like my Dad...I always say that he's one of the most dangerous people in the world...one who really doesn't know what he's talking about, but he *thinks* strongly that he does know what he's talking about. It gets him in trouble all the time. :) Last time I checked, he was for Giuliani.

MisterGuy, none of those presidents did anything without Congressional and public approval. Their opponent couldn't have done the opposite because he wouldn't have had that approval. If he did he would have been elected. And very little of what any of the recent presidents initiated has had any significant impact on how you or I live. Which is my point. I can make a long list too, but none of it has really amounted to much, it's been all small potatoes. Inside the beltway stuff of little significance to most people. And to answer your earlier comment about the news, I don't attempt to figure out what's real and what isn't because I don't read or watch the news. It's a total waste of time.

Well, that explains a lot then. OK then, you really just don't understand the way the system works I guess...nor do you apparently want to. I'm done wasting time on a history lesson for someone who should know better by now. Go have a nap now...

MisterGuy, you're the one who doesn't understand how the system works. I worked in DC as a lobbyist for years and know it very well. The people who really have the power are the career beaurocrats who write all the regulations and manage all the programs. And most of them put their own personal interests first, which means that they do everything in their power to grow the programs that they manage. When elected officials try to make a change that will impact these beaurocrats negatively, they either ignore it or actively oppose it. And they do so by working with the nonprofit organizations that benefit frome the program. They funnel money to the nonprofit, who in turn lobbies for more money for that program. Which is why, for example, Republicans were unable to eliminate any programs even when they had control of the White House and both houses of Congress and strong public support to do so. One common tactic employed by beaurocrats, for example, is when they're directed to reduce spending, they sumit a budget request that cuts spending for the most popular part of their program. The news media predictably raises the roof and Congress backs down. Most of these beaurocrats are Democrats and are almost impossible to fire. Which is why government spending keeps increasing. And why it matters little who we elect.

And I worked for the federal govt. for years and I know. We were asked to do more with less by some politicans virtually every year that I worked there too. The rank and file of our govt. are people just like you and me...Democrats, Republicans, & independents. They are no different or more selfish than anyone else. You readily admitted that you don't even follow the news, which is your right...but don't bother trying to tell me that you know anything about this topic, period. If you really were a DC lobbist, then you were part of the problem. I'm glad you're retired...we're all better for it IMO. Go have that nap now old man...

I do follow the news, just not through newpapers or TV. How long did you work in DC? And for what agency and at what level?

I didn't work in DC...nothing of any importance gets done down in DC at the civilian, non-political, federal level as far as I could tell. I was a GS-12 when I got out. What agency? Guess...this is the Internet...I'm not silly enough to bare my entire soul here.

This is why don't like discussing politics. People throw around "facts" like legalized domestic spying, or torture being official policy, facts with no basis in fact, yet you can never disprove them. I prefer political philosophy, as some of you know, but for those of you who prefer politics here are a few facts. Politically Reagan was indistinguishable from JFK. Nixon was more liberal than JFK, LBJ, and some would argue, Carter. Bush is politically, in domestic terms (not rhetorically, politically, as in policy achieved) indistinguishable from Clinton.

"This is why don't like discussing politics."

I agree...based on what you just said...you shouldn't discuss politics.

Anyone ever notice how much "JFK, LBJ" looks like a description of the services a stripper might offer OTC?

Jejune fuck, lame blow job? The FK and BJ work, not sure about the rest. I suddenly want to talk about strippers and extras on a politics thread...weird.

Just French Kissing. Light Blow Job. And then finished with Full Double Rimming and, of course, a ride around both Bushes.

BG, damn, you perv, I'm humbled.