Real Dilemma

talk72000 wrote:

Their votes should have been delayed not cancelled.

OK, but even if one agrees with that, it's still no solution to just seat their delegations on the basis of the vote that took place. Seating a delegation on the basis of elections that included only one real candidate -- now there's something to remind you of communist countries...

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

In addition, high interest rates do not automatically equal a bad economy. I'm sure that investors loved those 20% returns they say on their savings.

No we didn't. The best I got was 15-16%, but high inflation ate a lot of that and home loans were at 10-12%, crushing the family budget. Because new home loans were so expensive, no one was willing to move and give up their old 5% loans. The result was a severe depression in housing. The car market felt it as well. I bought my first car with a 12% loan that my dad cosigned so I could get the "lower" rate.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

The high interest rates were during Reagan years. Many of the huge oil projects I was working on were cancelled as a result.

During the 4 years of the Carter administration, the prime rate went from 6.25% to 20%. Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt

Reagan inherited high interest rates from Carter.

It was 20% the day Reagan took office.

By the end of Reagan's administration, the prime rate was down to 10.5%

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt

Carter is now treated as some wise grandfatherly figure, one of the party elders, who should be listened to.

Please.

What on earth are Dems thinking?

They are on the verge on nominating a rookie senator with no foreign policy experience, and who dodged tough votes in the Illinois legislature, to be their Presidential candidate, and they want to listen to Jimmy Carter?

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

The high interest rates were during Reagan years. Many of the huge oil projects I was working on were cancelled as a result.

Which planet is it exactly that you live on?? In reading your posts it becomes more and more evident that you've been living in some alternate universe.

0 Replies

Reagan's Star Wars was certainly out of this world.

nimph:

As usual distortion and misinterpretation has been your forte. I am not in any way supporting Hillary on the name placing ballots but that the Michigan and Florida being denied their votes. Let them vote in the Democratic Convention. Why are you afraid of hearing democratic voices instead of Pravda interpretations?

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

I am not in any way supporting Hillary on the name placing ballots but that the Michigan and Florida being denied their votes. Let them vote in the Democratic Convention.

Huh? This is quite simple really. Are you in favour of seating their delegations on the basis of the results of the primaries that took place? If so, then you're the one who's favouring "Pravda interpretations". Because that would mean accepting the results of an election where only one candidate was on the balot (Michigan).

If that's not what you're proposing, can you make clear what kind of delegates you are proposing to seat? If you're proposing a 50/50 split of Obama and Hillary delegates for Michigan, for example, then yeah sure - fine.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What exactly are the Republicans going to hit Obama with, that Clinton didn't already do?

Cycloptichorn

His desire to ban our guns.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Obama WILL try to take our guns away.

Yep.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Obama WILL try to take our guns away.

That's about 10% or more of the vote. Many people vote the Constitution above all else. 2A is my litmus test.

He says that he won't.

I'll take his word over some anonymous idiot on a message board.

Cycloptichorn

Where has he said he won't?

Obama has taken a stance IN FAVOR of BANNING ALL semi automatic weapons.

This stance is a major reason why I, who's never voted for a republican, can not see myself supporting Obama. Not the only reason, but a major one.

He's said those very words: 'I'm not looking to take anyone's guns away.'

I know that you aren't referring to a 12-year old survey. Right?

Cycloptichorn

Unless he has convincingly repudiated his earlier views, there is no reason not to consider a 12-year-old survey.

But that said, let's consider Obama's 2004 call for a federal statute to outlaw state-issued CCW permits.

Or Obama's actual 2005 vote in the Senate in favor of a proposed ban on .30-30 deer hunting ammo.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Obama WILL try to take our guns away.

That's about 10% or more of the vote. Many people vote the Constitution above all else. 2A is my litmus test.

He says that he won't.

I'll take his word over some anonymous idiot on a message board.

Cycloptichorn

I'll take Obama's actual voting record over his word.

He wants to ban a bunch of guns.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
The Democratic leadership is an ass in denying these two states their votes for a minor infraction. It's like handing out a death penalty for shoplifting.

Obama wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary ran unopposed except for Kucinich. Remind me again how it's democratic to seat the delegates from that election.

It is democratic to count the results because everyone who wanted to run in the election, did run in the election.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
Let Democracy run its course and allow the Michigan and Florida delegations in the Convention floor to decide the fate of both Obama and Hillary. If these two states are denied their participation they will deny the Democratic nominee their votes in the General Election. The Democratic nominee is damaged. Either Obama or Hillary will lose if these two states are left out. The Democratic leadership is an ass in denying these two states their votes for a minor infraction. It's like handing out a death penalty for shoplifting.

No, more like handing out the West Virginia penalty for trying to turn Texas and Ohio into West Virginia. These states were trying to deny Texas, Ohio, Penn, NC, Indiana, etc their say by deciding the election early. By all means, make them sit it out to see how it feels.

Excuse me, but we already know how it feels. The reason we moved our primary forward was because it has been done to us for decades and we are challenging an unjust system.

The people who don't want to seat our delegates just hate democracy and want to keep Michigan from ever having a say in any election.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
What better way than to find out in the convention. That is the formal way to determine the nominee not all this backroom maneuvering and bullying tactics and finger in the air prognosis.

And here, again, is the question you're studiously avoiding all this time:

nimh wrote:
Obama wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary ran unopposed except for Kucinich. Remind me again how it's democratic to seat the delegates from that election.

Obama's name wasn't on the ballot because he took his name off the ballot.

Further, there was an attempt to have a re-vote later in the process, and Obama was free to participate in that re-vote as well. Obama deliberately blocked that re-vote from even happening.

In the general election, if McCain pulled his name from the ballot in states where he was sure to lose, would you favor not counting those states because McCain wasn't on the ballot?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
They will withhold their votes in the general election and the Democratic nominee will lose.

You can repeat this a dozen more times and it still wont be any more true. There is little evidence that these states will vote any differently in the general election than they would have otherwise.

Again, here's a data point to consider: in recent polling, Obama's actually done better than Hillary in Michigan when matched up against McCain. What's that tell you about the extent of righteous indignation in that state about Hillary's delegates not being seated?

I can only speak for one Michigan voter, but I can guarantee you there is at least one voter in Michigan who is going to remember this attempt to disenfranchise me in future elections.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
I am not in any way supporting Hillary on the name placing ballots but that the Michigan and Florida being denied their votes. Let them vote in the Democratic Convention.

Huh? This is quite simple really. Are you in favour of seating their delegations on the basis of the results of the primaries that took place? If so, then you're the one who's favouring "Pravda interpretations". Because that would mean accepting the results of an election where only one candidate was on the balot (Michigan).

If that's not what you're proposing, can you make clear what kind of delegates you are proposing to seat? If you're proposing a 50/50 split of Obama and Hillary delegates for Michigan, for example, then yeah sure - fine.

A 50/50 split is not fine. That is Obama trying to steal the election by seizing delegate slots that the voters awarded to someone else.

He had two opportunities to win delegate slots from the voters. He took his name off the ballot in time, and he intentionally prevented the second chance from even happening.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
Their votes should have been delayed not cancelled.

OK, but even if one agrees with that, it's still no solution to just seat their delegations on the basis of the vote that took place.

Sure it is. It's called democracy.

nimh wrote:

Seating a delegation on the basis of elections that included only one real candidate -- now there's something to remind you of communist countries...

No, in communist countries, rival candidates are prevented from running.

Michigan is a case of a candidate taking his name off the ballot to sabotage the election results, then sabotaging an attempt to hold a second vote, then claiming the results shouldn't count because he didn't get any votes.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
It's a matter of perception. There is still the convention. The Obama camp want to hurry things up going on the one minute drill while there are maybe 10 minutes left in the game. Lots happen in ten minutes. Two or three Hail Mary passes could turn the game around if the leading margin is small as in the case here. That is not to say Hillary will win but that Michigan and Florida should be given their voices or the Democratic nominee will be a damaged good. In a close race with McCain two big states like Michigan and Florida having their Democrats sitting out the presidential election is a bad move by the Democratic leadership.

I have noticed you bring up Michigan and Florida quite a few times. Do you not understand that they did this to themselves when they ignored the agreed upon rules and held their primaries ahead of schedule which is why hardly anyone participated in those states when they held those primaries except Hillary (and that other guy) in Michigan and no one campaigned in either state? The only way we could have Michigan and Florida's votes count fairly would be to have do overs. But that would simply cost way too much money. Money better spent on the general election rather than bailing out states who thought they could ignore the rules.

If I were a Republican, my party wouldn't be trying to disenfranchise me.

Food for thought.....

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

If I were a Republican, my party wouldn't be trying to disenfranchise me.

Food for thought.....

But you are a Republican, aren't you? If not in the sense of being a registered Republican, at least in the sense that that's your party of preference? The party you usually vote for?

I mean, which of the following candidates did you vote for? Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale. I can only guess, but on the basis of your posts here I'd say probably just 1, maybe.

I dont know, that kind of puts your lengthy treatises about how you feel disenfranchised by the Democratic National Committee's decision to strip Michigan of its delegates if it were to break the primary calendar rules in a slightly different light.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

engineer wrote:
talk72000 wrote:
Let Democracy run its course and allow the Michigan and Florida delegations in the Convention floor to decide the fate of both Obama and Hillary. If these two states are denied their participation they will deny the Democratic nominee their votes in the General Election. The Democratic nominee is damaged. Either Obama or Hillary will lose if these two states are left out. The Democratic leadership is an ass in denying these two states their votes for a minor infraction. It's like handing out a death penalty for shoplifting.

No, more like handing out the West Virginia penalty for trying to turn Texas and Ohio into West Virginia. These states were trying to deny Texas, Ohio, Penn, NC, Indiana, etc their say by deciding the election early. By all means, make them sit it out to see how it feels.

Excuse me, but we already know how it feels. The reason we moved our primary forward was because it has been done to us for decades and we are challenging an unjust system.

The people who don't want to seat our delegates just hate democracy and want to keep Michigan from ever having a say in any election.

You could have moved your primary to super Tuesday if you wanted an equal say. Instead you wanted everyone to suck up to you, to have more say than everyone else. You were told of the consequences and did it anyway. It seems like the folks who scheduled the Michigan primary early were the democracy haters.

0 Replies

Yeah...

And I don't know if this is the best place for it -- doesn't have anything directly to do with what Oralloy was saying -- but with all the MI/ FL delegate talk this has been on my mind...

What about the disenfranchisement of the voters who actually believed the MI/ FL vote wouldn't count?

I've mentioned my cousin in Florida who is a major Obama supporter, but who is also a very busy mom and who didn't vote because she believed the FL primary vote was meaningless. How is she represented if Hillary somehow manages to get the FL vote counted, as-is?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know