US Presidential Elections

[~Di]

Uh... I see zero evidence that Hillary had anything to do with anything. Love the "automatically blame the opposition, evidence not required" crowd.

[Dark_Raven]

Yeah!

[Nick_i_am]

Again, whos Billary? Is this some joke on these forums?

 

It's a reference to the fact that she's married to Bill, and that he's pulling strings from the sidelines.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Walsingham]

Whatever the justification I must say it comes across as pretty childish name-calling.

[Guard Dog]

Sure, but is that always a good thing? A legislator who spends all of his time writing back to every nutball who sends him a letter isn't doing a whole lot of reasoned consideration of larger policy issues.

 

I thought is was self evident that such a letter should be substantive and concerning a policy issue the respective politicians are facing not some how-ya-doing friendly letter. Apparently I should have spelled that out.

 

There is a continuum between a totally responsive rulemaker with zero subject matter expertise, and a non-responsive expert rulemaker. Local and state governmental officials tend to be closer to the former, and federal bureaucrats delegated power via legislation tend to be closer to the latter.

 

I'm curious, do you have an actual reason to believe that or is it just a reflex response from the inside-the-beltway ivory tower? I have worked with politicians on the state and federal level and found one to be much the same as the other.

 

But on a theoretical level, I don't really think that entirely local control over educational standards and funding is a particularly good idea. Sure, it made sense a century ago, when geography determined a person's employment future to a great extent, but nowadays, the educational needs of children don't differ a whole lot based on their location. And education is a vitally important part of ensuring the future of America's international economic competitiveness , so I don't see much wrong with federal legislators and bureaucrats having the authority of prevent local elected officials from sabotaging this by retaining lousy teachers, overcrowding classrooms, or indulging in the periodic curricular lunacy of the Kansas School Board. Also by drawing on a national or state-wide source of funding, communities can avoid the vicious cycle of bad schools --> low land values --> low tax income --> bad schools.

 

By local you mean state because all states decide the educational curriculum for that state, not the local school board. Prior to federal curricular guidelines most states (I'd think all but have no evidence to prove it) formed their education curriculum based on what the state universities and colleges expected incoming students to know. I really don't see how that process can be improved upon especially since college admissions, the SAT and ACT are not taken into consideration under current guidelines of Clintons Goals 2000, and Bush

[Sand]

Intelligent Design is not science so it shouldn't be taught in a science class, however it is an extension of creationist view which several religions share so it should, if taught, be taught in social studies class. I don't mind ID being taught, just not taught as science.

[Guard Dog]

Intelligent Design is not science so it shouldn't be taught in a science class, however it is an extension of creationist view which several religions share so it should, if taught, be taught in social studies class. I don't mind ID being taught, just not taught as science.

ARGH! This is exactly what I was afraid would happen. That was just an example. Please please do NOT open that can of worms! This thread is about govennment not science or religion.

[Sand]

[Guard Dog]

Here is a "Tempest in a Teapot"

 

McCain

[taks]

definite eggheads. "natural born american" does not require birth on US soil, though american bases are considered US soil anyway as you note. simply being born to a US citizen also makes one a natural born, even if born on foreign soil.

 

taks

[taks]

Whatever the justification I must say it comes across as pretty childish name-calling.

nah, no different than bennifer or branjelina... and i'd counter the billary term is actually meant to imply not that one is in control over the other, but with the two, you get one voice. i've heard a lot more comments that hillary was actually running bill's show, not vice versa.

 

taks

[Enoch]

The canal-zone thing makes for an amusing theoretical legal argument,* but in a practical sense, there no way that a federal court would disqualify a duly elected President because he or she had been born on an American base outside the U.S. Nor should they.

 

 

 

 

* Playing devil's advocate, here's the theory: The 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship added some depth to the meaning of Article II's "natural born Citizen" language. Section 1 of the 14th Am. says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State in which they reside." It could be argued that a child born on an overseas base is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., but is not born in the U.S. Thus, the statutes providing that such children are citizens effectively naturalizes them, but they are not "natural born Citizens."

Edited February 28, 2008 by Enoch

[Pop]

HAROOOOA

Edited February 28, 2008 by Pop

[walkerguy]

CNN Election Center Results (2/28/08 03:30 US/EST)

CNN 2008 Election Center

 

Delegate Definitions TOTAL DELEGATES

Democrats

[walkerguy]

CNN Election Center Results (3/4/08 10:00 US/EST)

CNN 2008 Election Center

 

Delegate Definitions TOTAL DELEGATES

Democrats

[Azarkon]

It's looking dangerous for the Democrats. A McCain victory seems very likely now that Obama and Hillary is tearing each other apart.

[Walsingham]

I must say that it isn't doing Hillary any favours. The coverage over here has made Obama look gracious at each tussle, while she looks more and more desperate.

[Sand]

Clinton is more aggressive in her tactics but it seems the Democratic portion of the elctions is not quite over yet since such aggressive behavior won her 3 out of the 4 states holding their caucus yesterday. It is very much up in the air right now, but as I stated before if Clinton is the nominee for the Democrats I will be voting for McCain instead. If no Obama, then no vote for the Democrats.

[Enoch]

Clinton is more aggressive in her tactics but it seems the Democratic portion of the elctions is not quite over yet since such aggressive behavior won her 3 out of the 4 states holding their caucus yesterday. It is very much up in the air right now, but as I stated before if Clinton is the nominee for the Democrats I will be voting for McCain instead. If no Obama, then no vote for the Democrats.

Really, it's been effectively over since the MD/VA/DC primaries. Clinton pulled out a few narrow wins yesterday, but the proportional nature of delegate assignment on the Democratic side means that she has virtually no hope of having the lead in pledged delegates going into the convention. She'd need to win all the remaining contests by better-than 65-35 margins, which ain't happening. Yes, there's still the superdelegates to consider, but they're all reasonably shrewd professional politicians who all want very much for a Democratic candidate to win the White House in November. They're not dumb enough to nominate someone who failed to get even a plurality of the votes over the preceding months.

[Walsingham]

How is the Democrat infighting playing out over there? Do you think t would be wiser to bury the differences and get behind Bam?

[Dark_Raven]

Nah Bam sucks. Go go Clinton.

 

If not her, go go McCain.

[Tale]

God damnit, Texas. I had hope for you this year.

[Enoch]

How is the Democrat infighting playing out over there? Do you think t would be wiser to bury the differences and get behind Bam?

Sure it would. Normally, lack of funds (which, in U.S. elections, are donated from the public at large) drives candidates with little-to-no chance of winning out of the race. The problem is that, although Hillary has been essentially DOA for weeks, she still has a hard-core of supporters-- mostly either loyalists to her husbands administration or ardent feminists-- who continue to fund her campaign. (And, of course, she lacks the magnanimousness* to step aside of her own volition.)

 

As for the general election, the elephant in the room that nobody's talking about now is still Iraq. If the temporary "surge" of troop levels ends (as it's scheduled to in a couple months) without achieving it's stated goal of fostering compromise among Iraqi politicians, the war moves right back to being a front-burner issue. Look for an endless stream of DNC ads emphasizing how McCain has been every bit as pro-war as Bush has. And if the end of the surge also brings an increase in violence back to pre-surge levels, the McCain campaign is absolutely dead in the water.

 

 

 

* Yes, that's actually the noun form of "magnanimous." What an odd word-- I thought it would be something like "magnaninity."

Edited March 5, 2008 by Enoch

[Sand]

The Democratic race is going to run to the bitter end and at the result of it half the Democratic party will be pissed off at the other half. It would be interesting to see if whoever doesn't get the nomination decides to run anyway as an independent. I am wondering if the Republicans could fracture as well if Huckabee decides to make a run on his own.

[walkerguy]

The Democratic race is going to run to the bitter end and at the result of it half the Democratic party will be pissed off at the other half. It would be interesting to see if whoever doesn't get the nomination decides to run anyway as an independent. I am wondering if the Republicans could fracture as well if Huckabee decides to make a run on his own.

 

Well Huckabee is out of the race, so...