[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
OK, well, if Obama becomes President, I will be eagerly awaiting my smaller tax bill. I could really use the break, let me tell you.
[/QUOTE]
As I’m sure you know, your tax bill will be determined by whatever the Congress (controlled by Democrats) and the President hammer out as a compromise.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
So you’ll be voting for him, then?
[/QUOTE]
As I said, if I believed this tax cut would happen, I’d be a lot more motivated to do so.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
As I’m sure you know, your tax bill will be determined by whatever the Congress (controlled by Democrats) and the President hammer out as a compromise.
[/QUOTE]
Of course. We’ll be lucky to even get a compromise, IMO.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
As I said, if I believed this tax cut would happen, I’d be a lot more motivated to do so.
Of course. We’ll be lucky to even get a compromise, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
You don’t think that a Democratic president promising what amounts to no net change in taxes is more likely to get that done than a Republican president promising a net tax reduction while stuck with massive spending, and who has to deal with a Democratic Congress?
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
First of all, it’s not your business at all why people vote the way they do. I can’t believe that while breathlessly screaming, “It’s nobody’s business” regarding Edwards, you have the gall to say you have rights in this situtation because, “They want to fuck up my country.”
Talk about irrational ideology and political interest.
Second of all, just because you disagree, and that’s the gist of your argument, it doesn’t make their concerns any less valid.
[/QUOTE]
When did I say they don’t have a right to vote however they want? I still have a right to say they’re being irrational. I’m not prying into their “business.” These are political activists trying to sway other voters. What’s wrong with telling them that their arguments are bullshit?
And their “concerns” are completely phony. Only a mental defective would sincerely think that something like his pastor or the hippie in his neighborhood are “valid concerns.”
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
You don’t think that a Democratic president promising what amounts to no net change in taxes is more likely to get that done than a Republican president promising a net tax reduction while stuck with massive spending, and who has to deal with a Democratic Congress?
[/QUOTE]
Let’s make it clear that “no net change” means no net change in total revenue. Obama is proposing an honest attempt to shift the burden.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
You don’t think that a Democratic president promising what amounts to no net change in taxes is more likely to get that done than a Republican president promising a net tax reduction while stuck with massive spending, and who has to deal with a Democratic Congress?
[/QUOTE]
I think that regardless of who wins this election, my tax bill will not be reduced.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Polling is not an exact science. It seems to be close enough to be iffy. But Repub die hards are too few to carry the day. They augment their numbers by appealing to people who vote on one theme. Gun lovers are one group. They claim the dems want to take your guns. A stupid theme and not true. But it works.
Then they claim the repubs are big on defense of marriage. Its the evil gays threatening your marriage. A BS theme if I ever heard one. But it works.
Then They suppress voters in districts that are likely dems. The claim is to protect the integrity of the elections. It actually does the opposite.
The pro war die hard repubs are still about 30 percent. That will not win. The bigots add to these numbers. How many are there. I do not know but it is a problem for Obama that he can not do any thing about. My experience shows it is substantial and makes this election close.
[/QUOTE]
You’re getting more convoluted and stupid by the post. You started off talking about overt racists. Now you’re throwing in gun ownership, defense, gay marriage – none of those are relevant.
You still haven’t explained why this huge effect you know so much from your vast experience wouldn’t show up in polls. I repeat the question, either (a) you’re wrong about them being out in the open, or (b) you’re wrong that there’s enough of them. Which one?
[QUOTE=muttrox]
You’re getting more convoluted and stupid by the post. You started off talking about overt racists. Now you’re throwing in gun ownership, defense, gay marriage – none of those are relevant.
You still haven’t explained why this huge effect you know so much from your vast experience wouldn’t show up in polls. I repeat the question, either (a) you’re wrong about them being out in the open, or (b) you’re wrong that there’s enough of them. Which one?
[/QUOTE]
That was a lousy response. What do you mean.? That response was to Sarahfeena ,another who sees politics as a one issue problem. I feel that there are a lot of issues that trump taxes . Even though taxes is not even an issue because her taxes would not go up.
Can you read? The OP was that McCain will win. Explain why these topics are irrelevant. All those are germane to the discussion.
In response th your meddling answer, The fact that the election is supposedly close ,even though the repubs have fucked so many things up is a testimony to racism. That answer fits. The repubs should be getting slaughtered.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
That was a lousy response. What do you mean.? That response was to Sarahfeena ,another who sees politics as a one issue problem. I feel that there are a lot of issues that trump taxes . Even though taxes is not even an issue because her taxes would not go up.
[/QUOTE]
It was an example I was using to make a point. Please do not extrapolate anything further from this regarding my personal voting choices.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
When did I say they don’t have a right to vote however they want? I still have a right to say they’re being irrational. I’m not prying into their “business.” These are political activists trying to sway other voters. What’s wrong with telling them that their arguments are bullshit?
[/quote]
And where did I say that you said they didn’t have a right to vote? I said you had no business regarding their reasons for voting. But I forgot, when it comes to what’s someone’s business, IOKIDioDI.
Since your view on racism essentially amounts to “Dio’s choice,” you don’t get to tell other people they’re mentally deficient when it comes to their views on what makes a racist.
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
And where did I say that you said they didn’t have a right to vote? I said you had no business regarding their reasons for voting. But I forgot, when it comes to what’s someone’s business, IOKIDioDI.
[/quote]
I’m not prying into anyone’s private business, dipshit, I’m responding to political activists trying to tell others how to vote. Do you understand the difference?
I get to tell people whatever the fuck I feel like. This is America. And if I feel like a political activist group has a latently racist motivation, I’ll fucking say so. Trying to twist criticism of a political activist group into some kind of “privacy” issue is asinine beyond words.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Is it ok to be unapologetically Irish or Italian?
[/QUOTE]
:mad: HELL, NO!
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Clothahump’s to the right of Attila the Hun, so everyone looks socialist to him.
“Sharing?! Compassion?! CHAAAAANGE?! Must be socialists! Dirty fucking hippies! And that Jesus fella looks a little pink, too!”
[/QUOTE]
I love it when people make assumptions about me, especially when they are that fucking wrong. It provides me with some cheap humor.
I am considered a moderate by most conservatives that I know.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
I am considered a moderate by most conservatives that I know.
[/QUOTE]
Say hi to John Birch for me.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
I love it when people make assumptions about me, especially when they are that fucking wrong. It provides me with some cheap humor.
I am considered a moderate by most conservatives that I know.
[/QUOTE]
You know some seriously brutal right-wingers, then. I’ve been reading your posts on here for years and you’ve never seemed particularly moderate to me. Of course, you’ll claim that’s because I’m slightly to the left of Lenin, regardless of the accuracy of the claim.
ETA: Heh…I forgot. You’re in Houston. You’re right…you probably ARE a moderate there.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’m not prying into anyone’s private business, dipshit, I’m responding to political activists trying to tell others how to vote. Do you understand the difference?
[/QUOTE]
They aren’t trying to tell anyone else how to vote, and it has very little to do with misogyny. What they are doing is providing a place for those who do not feel that Obama is the best candidate to express their views without death threats and other harrassment from Obama supporters. They are also working to pay down Hillary’s debt and to have her delegates recognized at the convention. There are many who, while they support Hillary, don’t believe it has anything to do with her now; they are concerned with the future of the party that they believe has been hijacked by party leadership.
Some despise Obama; others merely see him as too inexperienced at the moment for the role of President. Some do believe that Hillary can be nominated at the convention and win the nomination. Most believe that allowing her name to be put into nomination and allowing the normal process of voting would at least make it clear that the process is and not the product of backroom deals; for some it might even reconcile them enough to the party that they could vote for Obama.
The DNC has screwed the primary season up badly, in my opinion. Pressure for Hillary to end her candidacy started as early as February and continued throughout the spring with Dean, Brazile, and Pelosi pressuring the superdelegates to endorse a candidate (after Brazile had declared that she would resign if the superdelegates decided the nomination), when other candidates in previous primaries have been allowed to take the fight to the convention. Donna Brazile indicated, as paraphrased by Paul Begala on their joint CNN appearance, that the DNC didn’t need to worry about the votes of the party regulars; that it was more important to attract the shiny new voters and the undecided voters. PUMAs and those who share their views felt that not only their candidate was being disrespected, so were they. And on the internet, in personal encounters, and in caucuses, they often were.
They still feel that way. These are the people - men and women of all ages, races, educational backgrounds, and income levels - who have worked for the party for many years. They have been the ones who made calls, knocked on doors, and stuffed envelopes. They deserve to have their concerns addressed respectfully instead of being told they are all old crazy women who need to sit down and shut up. When the issue of dropping caucuses came before the party while the platform was being discussed, the DNC leadership refused to discuss it.
They feel that they didn’t leave the party but the party left them. Some are going to McCain; they don’t believe he’s evil and figure if they handled 8 years of Bush they can do 4 of McCain standing on their heads. Some are planning not to vote, or to write in a candidate - Cynthia McKinney is a popular option. Some may even vote for Obama if the DNC can demonstrate to them that the nominating process is fair and that their concerns about the primaries are being listened to and addressed. What shouldn’t happen is for them to be ignored and derided as being only unhappy that their candidate lost, and to have the party leadership and Obama supporters tell them they have no choice - they have to vote for Obama.
I understand their concerns and have spent a lot of time reading their sites, even though I was an Obama voter in the primary. What resonates with me is the DNC’s willingness to take their base for granted in order to win over the newly registered voter, the independent voter, or the Republican voter. When the next shiny new candidate with another message of change comes along and those voters all run the other way, who will the Democratic party turn to then?
I don’t expect to convince any fervent Obama supporter of anything but I get tired of not having the viewpoint of nearly half the party voters represented as accurately as I possibly can. Anyone who is willing to read with an open mind can find these sites; look them up for yourselves.
I’ve still never heard a coherent answer as to exactly how these nutjobs think they were wronged. They lost fair and square, and now, out of either pure, stupid spite, racism or both, they’re agitating to destroy their own party, sabotage their own convention, politically ruin their own favored candidate (who is no saint herself, by the way), and most irrationally of all, villify and demonize a candidate who has done nothing his whole life but represent the interests they say they care about. Where did they get this idea that Hillary was entitled to the nomination just because she’s a woman and that Obama is some kind of asshole for running against her and winning fair and square? It’s completely lost on these bitches that Obama represents a historical achievement just as significant as Hillary’s would have been.
I’ve never heard a single rational reason from the PUMA idiots why voting for McCain is better for the issues they say they care about than voting for Obama. They’re children. They’re trying to do the equivalent of taking their ball and going home. Their villification of Obama is despicable.
By the way, what’s so unfair about the caucus system? IObama did better at them, therefore it’s unfair? That’s the kind of snivelling, crybaby bullshit that makes them lose all credibility.
[QUOTE=Suse]
… Cynthia McKinney is a popular option.
[/quote]
They are crazy.
Well, it’s not accurate that this is the viewpoint of nearly half the party voters. Most of them will go along with Obama. As to the rest - for starters - the next President will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices and if it’s McCain that gives the conservatives control of the court for a generation. A more clear case of cutting off your nose to spite your face I cannot imagine. They don’t want their concerns addressed, they want Hillary to be the nominee or they will take their ball and go home.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I’ve still never heard a coherent answer as to exactly how these nutjobs think they were wronged. They lost fair and square, and now, out of either pure, stupid spite, racism or both, they’re agitating to destroy their own party, sabotage their own convention, politically ruin their own favored candidate (who is no saint herself, by the way), and most irrationally of all, villify and demonize a candidate who has done nothing his whole life but represent the interests they say they care about. Where did they get this idea that Hillary was entitled to the nomination just because she’s a woman and that Obama is some kind of asshole for running against her and winning fair and square? It’s completely lost on these bitches that Obama represents a historical achievement just as significant as Hillary’s would have been.
I’ve never heard a single rational reason from the PUMA idiots why voting for McCain is better for the issues they say they care about than voting for Obama. They’re children. They’re trying to do the equivalent of taking their ball and going home. Their villification of Obama is despicable.
By the way, what’s so unfair about the caucus system? IObama did better at them, therefore it’s unfair? That’s the kind of snivelling, crybaby bullshit that makes them lose all credibility.
[/QUOTE]
Lots of them will say that they don’t agree with McCain on the issues, but they believe that if they don’t make a stand sometime (meaning now), their concerns will never be addressed by the party. And what’s wrong with caucuses? Nothing, if you are able-bodied, live in or near a city where one is held, have childcare available, don’t have to work the evening shift, and can afford the expense to travel to the caucus and stay until it’s done. And that’s assuming that the organizers (who are supposed to be neutral) actually are, and are not wearing t-shirts of any particular candidate, and take down the information for both candidates’ supporters instead of just the one they support, and verify that participants are legal voters in that district. There are many stories of caucus irregularities from both sides and since the process discriminates against those who cannot get there and stay there to cast their votes, why in the world would the party be so hell-bent on keeping them?
As for your first paragraph, it’s full of the same thing you’ve been saying all along. If I were remotely on the fence, you’d be the sort of person driving me to the other side. “Pure, stupid spite or racism”, “these bitches”, “Hillary was entitled to the nomination because she’s a woman” - those sorts of quotes just show me that you don’t get it. I’ve given you examples and you believe what you choose to believe instead of reading what these people have to say. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Most of the board will be with you. Have fun with your election.
[QUOTE=Frank]
They are crazy.
Well, it’s not accurate that this is the viewpoint of nearly half the party voters. Most of them will go along with Obama. As to the rest - for starters - the next President will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices and if it’s McCain that gives the conservatives control of the court for a generation. A more clear case of cutting off your nose to spite your face I cannot imagine. They don’t want their concerns addressed, they want Hillary to be the nominee or they will take their ball and go home.
[/QUOTE]
Not all want Hillary to be the nominee; I’ve read some who think that the country is so screwed up that whoever wins won’t be able to fix the problems and they would just as soon have Hillary nowhere near the mess.
And as for it not being nearly half the voters, it might not behalf , but many have the same concerns and intend to vote for Obama. Are their concerns more entitled to be heard because they’re doing as they’re told? I thought protest when you believe a wrong is being committed was the patriotic thing to do?