May 21, 2008
Politics – Remember, we’re all friends here!

Talk politics, any shape or size.  But let’s try not to be abusive and respect each other and blah blah blah blah.  In the end, we’re all Mets fans, right?

Note:  if you’re easily offended, you probably don’t want to be here.

128 Responses to “Politics – Remember, we’re all friends here!”

Pages: « 1 [2]

  1. Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on May 23, 2008 at 4:23 pm (#704198)

    True, if you REALLY want a true progressive candidate, that’s great. But right now we’re fighting against a right leaning society and, in order to win, we have to team up with the centrists or else we’ll be perpetually stuck in this evangelical, pro-business nightmare for the rest of our lives.

    I have no problem with Nader personally. He seems like a bright guy with good ideas. But he’s not going to win and now is NOT the time to make a statement about two party politics nor was 2000 or 2004. In fact, by CONTINUING to try to make that statement, he has helped lock us into this state we find ourselves in.

    Vote no on Nader.

  2. Comment posted by Turning Point #4 on May 23, 2008 at 5:19 pm (#704211)

    Ralph Nader is not getting elected president and his approach is not feasible. he represents the suburban ex-hippie who can’t let go. that why he built his platform on the enviroment a nice safe issue not to offend. he is as guilty of centrism as obama

    Where do you get the idea that Nader’s platform is predicated solely on the environment or that it is a “safe issue”. Maybe Al Gore’s stance on the environment is not a nice safe issue that doesn’t offend the typical suburbanite. Nader’s comprehensive stance on conservation offends big business and the American working class that consumes and spends too much money on overpriced automobiles and wastes an inordinate amount of household energy. Are you even familiar with his platform on the environment? Here are a few issues he’s brought out that neither Obama or Hillar would touch with a ten foot poll.

    Q: [Would you support] a national corporate law that could specify an entirely different corporation built around a principle that would have social welfare, human, and ecological criteria as opposed to the mere return on investment which corporations have today?
    A: If we had a national charter, we could say for example that in addition to a corporation going into bankruptcy for not paying its creditors, it can go into environmental bankruptcy for contaminating and poisoning the community in which it’s in through pollution. And if it does go into bankruptcy, that doesn’t mean the company closes down and unemploys the workers, it means that the leadership changes. It means that there’s a trustee in the environmental bankruptcy appointed by a judge, a new board of directors, and a new ethic to not inflict pollution violence on thousands or millions of innocent people — whether for air or water or food contamination.


    A carbon tax on factories and energy plants to discourage release of carbon emissions.
    A timed phase-out of fossil fuel over the next 25 years, beginning with the worst offenders, coal and oil.
    A movement away from the current trend of government funding for corn-based ethanol and nuclear development.
    No more funding of “clean coal” technology because, despite what Obama believes, Nader says there is no such thing as clean coal.
    A level playing field where oil and gas companies do not receive the lion’s share of tax subsidies and tax breaks.

    I can understand the contention that many people don’t want to vote for Nader because they are afraid that voting for his agenda is throwing a vote away. I don’t necessarily agree, but I don’t get where you say Nader isn’t progressive because of such stances. That makes *zero* sense to me.

  3. Comment posted by Turning Point #4 on May 23, 2008 at 5:28 pm (#704213)

    IMO, a progressive is someone who is willing to look at all points of view and pick the best that fits a particular situation

    Ed, what you seem to want is a candidate that triangulates between the right and left and chooses a compromised position so that he/she can get elected. The problem is that since the great Republicrat Bill Clinton decidedly moved to the right after the 1994 Congressional elections forced him to ammned some of his more progressive agendas (including comprehensive universal healtcare reform) true progressive change in line with the majority of American sentiment has failed to find any standing in the Democratic Party, particularly with the rise of the Democratic National Committee. I don’t see Obama as a deviation from this, in fact, his platform isn’t much different than Clinton’s during his first term in office. That isn’t progressive change, its an attempt to bring back the 1990s–which was far from a perfect decade for many Americans.

  4. Comment posted by DoctorK16 on May 23, 2008 at 5:59 pm (#704215)

    I can understand the contention that many people don’t want to vote for Nader because they are afraid that voting for his agenda is throwing a vote away. I don’t necessarily agree, but I don’t get where you say Nader isn’t progressive because of such stances. That makes *zero* sense to me.

    Fair enough, I probably was a bit harsh on Nader. His inadvertent role in getting GWB elected and his silly comments at time have me down on him. With that said I do stand by the later comment.

  5. Comment posted by NjMF on May 24, 2008 at 5:25 am (#705359)

    This is out of nowhere.
    She has lost it completely

    She needs to drop out NOW

  6. Comment posted by DoctorK16 on May 24, 2008 at 10:10 am (#705382)

    The assignation comments are so off the pale. Disgusting.

  7. Gravatar
  8. Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on May 24, 2008 at 2:41 pm (#705501)

    I do understand what she was TRYING to say though, that Kennedy was still in the process in June when he was assassinated…. but, yeah, very poor way to put it, Hillary. You’re only burying yourself now. Give up.

  9. Comment posted by MightyJoeOrsulak on May 25, 2008 at 7:14 pm (#705882)

    There is a very strong possibility that in this election cycle, each of us will vote into public office a man or woman more evil than anyone whom we will ever personally meet.

    And this is the person each of us will vote for, not the person we will collectively vote for or the various candidates we will not vote for.

  10. Gravatar
  11. Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on May 29, 2008 at 12:52 pm (#709481)

    So, this week’s political hot story:


    Disgruntled ex employee going postal?
    Or presidential whistle blower?

  12. Comment posted by Dave in Spain on May 30, 2008 at 4:01 am (#710089)

    Whistle blower! And the GWB kool-aid squad has already brought out the character assasination guns.

    Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
    GWB´s A: Well, I don´t care why. He´s either on our side or he´s not.

  13. Comment posted by NjMF on May 30, 2008 at 9:00 am (#710101)

    Thursday, May 29, 2008
    Email a Friend Email to a Friend

    Fifty percent (50%) of New York Democrats say it’s time for Senator Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race for the White House. Just 43% believe she should keep going. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that most New York Republicans—52%–want Clinton to keep striving for the nomination. Overall, among all Empire State voters, 45% believe she should drop out while 43% disagree. (See Video)

    Just 16% of New York Democrats think Obama should drop out of the race.

    Forty-seven percent (47%) of New York voters believe Obama is the stronger general election candidate. Forty-three percent (43%) believe Clinton would be better.

    The survey also found that Obama is now viewed more favorably than Clinton in New York. Sixty-two percent (62%) of New York voters have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama while 55% give Hillary Clinton such positive reviews. For Obama, those ratings are up four points from a month ago while Clinton’s are down three points. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is viewed positively by 44%. His ratings are down six points from the previous survey.

    In the race for the White House, both Democrats are safely ahead of McCain in New York. Clinton leads McCain 59% to 29% while Obama leads 52% to 33%. These figures are essentially unchanged from a month ago. Nationally, the race remains competitive in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

    Rasmussen Markets shows that Democrats are currently given a 92.0 % chance of winning the Empire State’s thirty-three Electoral College Votes this fall. John Kerry won the state for the Democrats in 2004 by eighteen points. Four years earlier, Al Gore won the state by twenty-five percentage points. Immediately prior to release of this poll, New York was rated as “Safely Democratic” in the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator.

    Sixty-five percent (65%) of New York voters believe that it is more important to get the troops home from Iraq than it is to win the war. Just 30% disagree and say winning the war is more important.

    If McCain is elected, 40% say it is at least somewhat likely that the U.S. will win the war in Iraq. Just 20% think victory is likely with a President Obama. However, 53% think that it’s likely that an Obama Administration would get the troops home within four years. Just 34% believe that would happen with a McCain Presidency.

    Just 22% of New York voters say that George W. Bush is doing a good or excellent job as President. Sixty-four percent (64%) say he is doing a poor job.

    The survey was conducted in partnership with Fox Television Stations, Inc.

    See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs available for Premium Members only.

  14. Gravatar
  15. Comment posted by Jessica on May 30, 2008 at 10:35 pm (#710886)

    Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus has been doing some number-crunching on the political side of things:

  16. Comment posted by NjMF on May 31, 2008 at 8:26 am (#710951)

    If Darth Hillary takes this fight to the convention you can forget a Dem in white house this year.
    I hope and pray she will just back down and say she lost fair and square but, I dont see her doing this as she is EVIL.
    She is all about her not about the party or this country.

    If she proves me wrong I will crap my pants

  17. Comment posted by Turning Point #4 on May 31, 2008 at 9:58 am (#710955)

    Obama camp’s strategy key to lead over Clinton
    By Associated Press
    Saturday, May 31, 2008 – Added 15h ago

    WASHINGTON – Unlike Hillary Clinton, rival Barack Obama planned for the long haul.

    Clinton hinged her whole campaign on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday, while Obama’s staff researched congressional districts in states with primaries that were months away.

    What they found were opportunities to win delegates, even in states they would eventually lose.

    Obama’s campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage – money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president.

    “Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not aligned with either candidate.

    “They understood the nuances of it and approached it at a strategic level that the Clinton campaign did not.”

    Careful planning is one reason Obama is emerging as the nominee of the Democratic Party.

    Obama used the Democrats’ system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries.

    For example, Obama’s victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.

    The research effort was headed by Jeffrey Berman, Obama’s press-shy national director of delegate operations. Berman, who also tracked delegates in former Rep. Dick Gephardt’s presidential bids, spent the better part of 2007 analyzing delegate opportunities for Obama.

    “The Clinton campaign thought this would be like previous campaigns, a battle of momentum,” said Thomas Mann, of the Brookings Institution. “They thought she would be the only one who could compete in such a momentous event as Super Tuesday.”

  18. Comment posted by NjMF on June 2, 2008 at 8:58 am (#712005)

    This is GREAT

    Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff

    Members of Hillary Clinton’s advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending, two Clinton staffers tell my colleague Amie Parnes.

    The advance staffers — most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana — are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed — at least — some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate’s events around the country.

    With the future of her campaign in doubt, Clinton hasn’t announced her plans for the final election night of the primary cycle or beyond, but the aides said she would stage her election night event in New York City. Her entourage is currently expected to wake up Tuesday in New York and to arrive in Washington, D.C. Tuesday night.

    Clinton’s senior aides didn’t respond to requests for comment on her Tuesday night plans.

  19. Comment posted by NjMF on June 3, 2008 at 9:01 am (#713745)


    Today we win and Hillary cries

  20. Gravatar
  21. Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on June 5, 2008 at 1:07 am (#716852)

    Thank God Hillary is finally calling it quits. I really hope they don’t cave and let her be the nominee. We need someone like Edwards to pull in the conservatives.

  22. Comment posted by Turning Point #4 on June 5, 2008 at 11:57 am (#716989)

    We need someone like Edwards to pull in the conservatives

    Edwards is more progressive than Hillary or Obama.

  23. Comment posted by NjMF on June 7, 2008 at 8:24 am (#719620)

    Edwards brings nothing to table
    he will be the attorney general

    Hill will be Senate Majority leader somehow. Obama will cut deals with others to make sure she gets this.

    I say Hagel, Clarke, Sebellius and Nunn are the top picks for VP

  24. Gravatar
  25. Comment posted by Simons on June 7, 2008 at 11:18 pm (#719805)

    Jim Webb maybe. Evan Baye is always a possibility but he’s more of a Clinton guy.

    As for McCain’s pick…. nobody cares.

  26. Gravatar
  27. Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on June 13, 2008 at 12:03 pm (#725951)

    Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is establishing a new fighting force to battle U.S.-led troops in Iraq, he said in a letter read in Iraqi mosques today. The letter said, “We will not stop resisting the occupation until liberation or martyrdom.

    Well, that about spells the end of it. If Al-Sadr declares war, it becomes a total no-win situation.

  28. Comment posted by NjMF on June 13, 2008 at 2:26 pm (#726066)

    Agreed Lunk. Its about Bush wanting US bases etc..

    Can we just elect Obama now and get rid of Bush???
    How have we survived this idiot for all these years?

  29. Gravatar
  30. Comment posted by Simons on June 14, 2008 at 3:22 pm (#727075)

    Make that change!

  31. Gravatar
  32. Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on June 16, 2008 at 1:37 pm (#727833)

    Bush 1,533,199
    American people 0

  33. Gravatar
  34. Comment posted by Lunkwill Fook on June 20, 2008 at 11:54 am (#734383)

    F### Bush, F### those pussies in congress. Seriously, they went ahead and gave immunity to the telcoms and they essentially gave Bush the right to tap anybody he feels like (the new warrant system is a crock of sh##). I can’t stand Democrats right now, those spineless turds.

  35. Comment posted by Lister on June 20, 2008 at 6:00 pm (#734972)

    F### Bush, F### those pussies in congress. Seriously, they went ahead and gave immunity to the telcoms and they essentially gave Bush the right to tap anybody he feels like (the new warrant system is a crock of sh##). I can’t stand Democrats right now, those spineless turds.

    Hasn’t passed through the Senate just yet, Fooker. Feingold will fight it tooth and nail, and the Kossacks will be all over every Senate Dems ass on this. Far from a done deal just bc Steny Hoyer decided to give in.

  36. Comment posted by Lister on July 1, 2008 at 11:54 am (#746808)

    The Obama that has emerged since the close of primary season has shown himself to be an almost completely ludicrous option for opposition to the GOP. What a disappointment.

  37. Comment posted by Ed in Westchester 2.0 is an optimistic yahoo on July 10, 2008 at 11:26 am (#758100)

    The only thing more frustrating than Alou’s “return setbacks” is Obama’s “seeming disavowal of an entire set of principles that he held until Hilary dropped out because he is a douchebag who shd get his nuts chopped off.”

    I have to respectfully disagree here Lister.

    He was always somewhat of a centrist. So was Hillary. Of course he might tailor the message a bit to the broader audience. He needs to do that to get the rest of the party to embrace him. But I think he still holds his core convictions strongly. He’s been for the faith based initiatives for a few years now.

    What I think happens is the media keys on the slightest little thing in the game of “gotcha”.

    He may not be perfect, but he’s better than Hillary or McCain.

    As for Jackson, what he said was reprehensible. I applaud his son for repudiating him strongly and quickly.

    I wonder what Jesse would have said had a republican made that comment.

Pages: « 1 [2]