[mike777]

Gerben42, on Feb 7 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

I am as usual struck by the huge difference between my own environment and the USA. 

That things like gay marriage and abortion are topics for a PRESIDENTIAL campaign. I mean, being against these things affect only a relatively small group in a negative way, namely those who are gay and want to marry, and those who are pregnant and want an abortion. It does not affect anyone else in a positive way. Being against these things is not going to raise your paycheck, or cover your healthcare, or bring your sons home from Iraq.

You can be against it for yourself, but for me it is not acceptable to be against it for OTHERS. That is simply intolerance.

Of the democratic candidates, I hope Obama wins. He seems like a good leader.

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.
Many people vote on this one issue alone. Just imagine if Obama or Mrs. Clinton announced tomorrow they are Pro Life/against abortion. This would be so much bigger than all the other issues combined. BTW there are many issues such as appointment of judges that are affected by this debate.

This would change votes for millions of men and women. This would dominate the news or change votes much more than the war or the economy.

"You can be against it for yourself, but for me it is not acceptable to be against it for OTHERS. That is simply intolerance."



If you think being Pro LIfe or being for numerous restrictions on abortion here in the USA is intolerance you would get a firestorm of debate.

[Gerben42]

Quote

If you think being Pro LIfe or being for numerous restrictions on abortion here in the USA is intolerance you would get a firestorm of debate.

Because this is a sensitive theme let me make myself perfectly clear. My opinion is that being against gay marriage is intolerant. My opinion is also that rejecting abortion in principle is intolerant. I do not ask you to like me for that.

On the other hand, I do not think that abortion should become "normal" or "simple", and I think there should be some limit after how many weeks. But to take an extreme example: Making a woman who has been raped and does not want a baby she could never love into a criminal is intolerant to me.

And since I struggle to understand the motives of the moderately religious, I have little hope to understand extremely religious people. But it doesn't strike me as a particularly tolerant society for those who happen to have another belief, and it would not be a society I would want to live in.

Therefore I am happy to be living in Europe.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.
Many people vote on this one issue alone.

Alas, this is all too true.

People who don't blink an eye at invading another country and bombing children to hell go ballistic at the idea that a woman would end a pregnancy. People who applaud executing children and mentally handicapped people stop at nothing to prevent a woman from aborting an unwanted fetus.

The anti-abortion crowd in the US wants very much to give their own religious views the force of law.

Interestingly, the very politicians who pander to anti-abortion voters don't hesitate to bring their own wives, daughters, and girl friends in for abortions when expedient.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

That's silly. With the exception of abortion, I doubt you could tell the difference between Lieberman's and McCain's positions without a magnifying glass. I know that Lieberman is now technically an Independent, but he was (and is) a Democrat who was the VP candidate less than a decade ago.

If the Republican Party's official positions switched to a combination of Guilliani's and McCain's, then yeah, I might be a Republican. But the Republican Party positions are very different. It's not that I'm not a Democrat, it's just that McCain isn't a Republican, at least his positions aren't close to the Republican Mainstream's.

There are other issues as well. For example, while it's not an official position on either side, I can't stand our Supreme Court paying more attention to the Pope than the Consitution.

Luckily, Mitt "The Chickens***" just quit. This will end up giving the nomination to Obama, oddly enough. Here's why:

Up next are Washington State, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine. All Caucus states, where Obama has done well. He'll definitely take the first three, IMO.

After that come District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Obama will definitely win the first two.

Then Wisconsin, which will probably go Obama (the way Iowa and Minnesota did), and Hawaii, which will definitely go Obama.

And finally Little Tuesday (March 4): Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Nobody's going to care about the results of the latter two.

So for the next month, we get:
Definite Obama: Washington State, Louisiana, Nebraska, District of Columbia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Hawaii.
Up for grabs: Maine, Virginia, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont
Definite Hillary: None

But here's the trick. Virginia, Ohio, and Texas are all Open Primaries. Which means that all you need to do to vote in the Democratic Primary is to say you're a Democrat and not vote in the Republican Primary. And with the Republican Nomination already sewn up, guess what's going to happen? You guessed it, we're going to have lots of Independents and Republicans voting in those primaries. And those people vote very, very heavily Obama (about 67%). So move at least Virgina and Ohio into the Obama camp.

And that'll end it for her. She's having enormous trouble raising funds already, if the only state she wins in the next three weeks is Maine (if she even wins that), she'll need to get a home run on Little Tuesday, which won't happen any more.

From 3/05 until April 21st, there's only Wyoming and Mississippi. So reporting on the election's gonna take a breather. That's going to hurt her fundraising even more. So I expect her to quit some time in March, and never make it to late April and May, when Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, and Kentucky all vote, which could all potentially go for Hillary.

But if she doesn't win Virginia and Ohio, she won't make it that far. The momentum will have shifted, and it has six weeks to set.

[luke warm]

i'm not sure your scenario plays out... i know people who are going to insist that republicans cross over and vote for hillary because they think she's unelectable... if republicans in open primary states vote hillary for that reason, who knows what can happen

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Feb 7 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

I like McCain's policies better than I like Hillary's

Could this mean you aren't really a Democrat? Sure, you could be a registered Democrat, but if you like the Republican policies more, maybe you aren't really a Democrat.

That's silly. With the exception of abortion, I doubt you could tell the difference between Lieberman's and McCain's positions without a magnifying glass. I know that Lieberman is now technically an Independent, but he was (and is) a Democrat who was the VP candidate less than a decade ago.

Comment 1:

Historically McCain has always identified himself as a hard line conservative. There are a lot of significant policy differences between McCain and Lieberman. To the extent that the lines are blurring, this represents a significant movement by Lieberman to the right and not any kind of mellowing on the part of McCain.

Don't get me wrong. I've never liked Lieberman. Lowell Weicker is on of a very small number of Republicans that I ever voted for. Ned Lamont is the only candiate that I ever did much volunteer work for. I will rejoice when the Deocrats strip him of his Senate appointments in 2009.

However, its complete ingenuous to suggest that the two men vote the same way.

Comment 2:

Lieberman made it on to the Democratic ticket for two reasons. Neither of them had anything to do with his policy positions.

First: Liberman is (obviously) Jewish. The Gore campaign beleived (correctly) that this would put Florida into play

Second: Lieberman spent a lot of time scolding Clinton for his indiscretions. Gore made the mistake of running away from Clinton during the 2000 campaign cycle believing that the baggage associated with the Lewinski scandal outweighed the economic record. Nominating Lieberman seemed like a good way for Gore to insulate himself from Clinton.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Feb 6 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

I can't imagine that even a 1/4 of those voting in the Democratic primaries could accurately cite a single difference between the two candidates' proposals.

From watching any debate or speech by either candidate, especially Hillary, the difference clearly seems to be that Hillary mandates coverage for all whereas Barack makes it available but doesn't mandate it be purchased. The back and forth between them generally goes like this.

HC: Universal healthcare is a cornerstone of democratic belief and a moral imperitive! BO's plan is not universal and mine is.
BO: That is just another way of saying you force people to buy healthcare whereas I make it available to all but don't force anyone to buy it, although I believe if it's available and affordable they will buy it! What will you do if they can't afford it?
HC: We will send subsidies to people who couldn't otherwise afford it.
BO: And if they decide to spend the subsidy on other things they can't afford like rent or food then what?
HC: They won't, everyone wants and needs healthcare.
BO: In Massachusetts they have mandated coverage and many people choose not to buy it. Those people then receive fines. So how are you going to mandate the coverage on everyone, by fining them if they don't buy it? By garnishing their wages?

At this point as far as I can tell, Hillary never answers the question but merely reverts back to step one. I actually am not sure which plan I prefer, but I much prefer Barack's honest approach to explaining his plan. Hillary completely dodges the question of how she will enforce the mandate every time she is asked, all I want is an honest answer to that question from her.

I think on tv this past weekend that Mrs. Clinton said yes there would be an enforcement arm and people would have their wages garnished if they did not buy the Insurance. This might have been on ABC News.

I read somewhere that something like 40% of the uninisured make over 50,000$ a year and something close to 20% make over 75,000$. I think these numbers come from the census bureau.

As I guessed it will not matter whether you think it is affordable or higher quality or not. These issues or facts just will not matter in the debate.

[TimG]

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

As I guessed it will not matter whether you think it is affordable or higher quality or not. These issues or facts just will not matter in the debate.

What does it matter whether I think it is affordable? I'm supposed to simply believe:

mike777 said:

In any case the cornerstone of the Dems plan is that it is affordable so do not worry.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

However, its complete ingenuous  to suggest that the two men vote the same way.

Outside of abortion, would you care to name a significant issue that the two differ on? On the unimportant stuff, they do vote party line of course.

I don't mean to say that McCain is a Democrat. Just that his policies are very different from party-line Republicans.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Feb 7 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

I don't mean to say that McCain is a Democrat. Just that his policies are very different from party-line Republicans.

McCain on the issues (from johnmccain.com):

• John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned
  
• John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
  
• As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people.
  
• A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.
  
• John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

These views would seem to be rather different from party-line Democrats.

[mike777]

TimG, on Feb 7 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

As I guessed it will not matter whether you think it is affordable or higher quality or not. These issues or facts just will not matter in the debate.

What does it matter whether I think it is affordable? I'm supposed to simply believe:

mike777 said:

In any case the cornerstone of the Dems plan is that it is affordable so do not worry.

Yes, I think you finally got it.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Feb 7 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

These views would seem to be rather different from party-line Democrats.

Yes, but I didn't compare him to party-line Democrats. I compared him to Joe.

Both believe in limiting product liabiltiy, both believe in school vouchers, both are very pro-environmental, both are against same-sex marriage, both in favor of stem cell reasearch, both against the removal of the feeding tube from Terry Schiavo, both in favor of the Iraq war, both pro-Israel, both voted in favor of Don't Ask, Don't Tell....

Do I need to go on?

I am closer to the Lieberman positions than the Democratic positions. I am still waiting for the major differences (besides abortion) between Joe and John.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Feb 7 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

I am closer to the Lieberman positions than the Democratic positions. I am still waiting for the major differences (besides abortion) between Joe and John.

I don't know about Joe and John, but I can tell you one difference between Lieberman and jtfanclub: Joe seems to know he isn't a democrat!

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

Rumor had it that the ticket in 2004 was almost Kerry-McCain. A lot of people see McCain as more of a Lieberman Democrat/Independent than as a Republican.

Of course, as a Democrat, I think this is a good thing, but that's just me.

You might have said "as a Democrat who agrees with lots of Republican positions" or "as a centrist Democrat". I took your "as a Democrat" to mean something more along the lines of "as one who tends to agree with the Democratic party line".

[han]

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

[Winstonm]

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

Mostly, Han, it's because the world at large vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average American and underestimates the apathy. Much easier to be told how and what to think than to actually think for oneself - if you even care about such things.

[luke warm]

TimG, on Feb 7 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 7 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

I don't mean to say that McCain is a Democrat.  Just that his policies are very different from party-line Republicans.

McCain on the issues (from johnmccain.com):

• John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned
  
• John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
  
• As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people.
  
• A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.
  
• John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

These views would seem to be rather different from party-line Democrats.

i know abortion is very polarizing, so leave that one aside for now... concerning the rest of the list you provided, which do you disagree with? the marriage one? how do you personally define marriage?

how about the others... do you disagree with the (constitutionally sound) premise that all things not mandated to the federal gov't by the constitution should be reserved for the states?

with the 'surge' presumably working, would more troops do a better job?

do you think the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right that should not be infringed upon by the federal gov't? or that gun control has not worked, even in the places with the most onerous of controls?

i agree that the list you posted would not be championed by many democrats, but i'm not sure why

[Winstonm]

Whether or not the Iraq surge is working should not even be an issue - by evading the primary issue of what got us there, we silently condone the invasion and occupation.

I refuse to do that.

[han]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

han, on Feb 7 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 7 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

Mostly, Han, it's because the world at large vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average American and underestimates the apathy. Much easier to be told how and what to think than to actually think for oneself - if you even care about such things.

Sounds nice but I don't believe the intelligence of average Americans is much lower than that of the average worlder, if at all smaller.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2008, 06:51 PM, said:

Whether or not the Iraq surge is working is should not even be an issue - by evading the primary issue of what got us there, we silently condone the invasion and occupation.

I refuse to do that.

I agree with you. To put it another way, I can change the word Iraq to any number of other words and it will still be true. For example,

"A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Canada."

Isn't the first thought that enters your head "That's ridiculous, why would we invade Canada?"

...

Exactly