[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Fuck the will of the people! it is not in the Constitution so we cannot allow it!
Wrong. If it’s the will of the people, they can petition their representatives to amend the Constitution.
You simply follow the rule of law…
[/quote]
Yo do not need a Constitutional amendment for everything. That is what bills/laws and the courts are for.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
It’s funny, I think Rudy needs hillary far more than she needs him.
JeffR
But Jeff, what you’re failing to see is that Hillary will not unite the religious right against her if Rudy is the nominee. You first need a candidate that you can rally around before you vote down Hillary. And you seem to be thinking that the RR will be saying “anyone but Hillary”. And there is where you are making a mistake.
While they’d love Hillary to lose they won’t vote for someone THEY perceive to be as bad as Hillary (worse in some areas)in order to stop Hillary. This group looks at themselves as standing on principal (true or not). And that spells trouble for the GOP if Rudy is the nominee.
That’s why Rudy needs Huckabee…badly. And quite honestly I don’t even think that Rudy can pull it off even then.
There’s also one more issue very evident that has not been discussed. That is Hillary will have tons of money left over from an easy nomination process with in her own party. She’s so far out in front of Obama Rama right now that she has no worries.
Add to that the slick campaign staff that is battle hardened from two winning White House bids and you’ve got someone who is just about unbeatable.
And those facts make me very sick![/quote]
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
It’s funny, I think Rudy needs hillary far more than she needs him.
JeffR
But Jeff, what you’re failing to see is that Hillary will not unite the religious right against her if Rudy is the nominee. You first need a candidate that you can rally around before you vote down Hillary. And you seem to be thinking that the RR will be saying “anyone but Hillary”. And there is where you are making a mistake.
While they’d love Hillary to lose they won’t vote for someone THEY perceive to be as bad as Hillary (worse in some areas)in order to stop Hillary. This group looks at themselves as standing on principal (true or not). And that spells trouble for the GOP if Rudy is the nominee.
That’s why Rudy needs Huckabee…badly. And quite honestly I don’t even think that Rudy can pull it off even then.
There’s also one more issue very evident that has not been discussed. That is Hillary will have tons of money left over from an easy nomination process with in her own party. She’s so far out in front of Obama Rama right now that she has no worries.
Add to that the slick campaign staff that is battle hardened from two winning White House bids and you’ve got someone who is just about unbeatable.
And those facts make me very sick![/quote]
Mick,
We’ll just have to disagree on the power of the disgust and hatred that clinton incites.
However, I think there are other issues that Rudy stands firm on: Crime/terrorism that is very attractive to the core of the Republican party. Add to that fiscal responsibility/tax cuts and I think they could support him.
I thought about you when I heard Rudy make fun of himself about cell phones. Did you catch that at the debate?
This guy is serious and learns from his gaffes. I think he’s made the majority of his mistakes PRIOR to the real election season. He is also 100% fearless when it comes to taking down rodham.
The more I see, the more I hear, the more excited I am by his candidacy.
As far as money goes, just wait until the primary season is over. The Good Guys will unite. People will pay attention. Rudy will be all over the airwaves promoting his ideas and it will be TWENTY FOUR SEVEN rodham bashing.
There is so much material, so many quotes, so much ill will, so many eyewitnesses to bad behavior, so many things that are terrifying to the mainstream from hillary that it boggles the mind.
I seriously think I could run Rudy’s campaign and be successful.
I say again, what Southern state can she win?
None.
Add to that Rudy picking off some blue states and the map doesn’t look good for her.
Throw in a stabilizing Iraq (sans the Kurd/Turkish border) and things start to look pretty damn good.
JeffR
Jeffy, what you don’t seem to understand though is in the end even if Giuliani gets nominated the majority of this country thinks:
Giuliani = Bush
If you believe “scientific” polls Bush’s rating is in the upper-end of the 20’s in satisfaction. Not sure I would risk the nomination if I were worried about Hillary winning. Not sure where you fall in that category.
Ron Paul on the other hand would beat Hillary hands down.
Mick, maybe you could enlighten us and tell us who you think has a better chance against Hill-Dog and why.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
My friend Lift has a good point. As long as the war is raging in Iraq most people will want to switch parties.
Who has the best chance of beating Hillary? I don’t think either of them have a chance.
I wish it were different.[/quote]
As long as people can be persuaded otherwise there is still a chance…albeit small. I will not accept the notion that Hillary is unbeatable. She has major flaws – the memory of her husband in the White House and the thought of him returning being one of them.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
There is so much material, so many quotes, so much ill will, so many eyewitnesses to bad behavior, so many things that are terrifying to the mainstream from hillary that it boggles the mind.
I don’t see Vince Foster, Whitewater etc. being such a big negative, it’s all old news. And what makes you think that a mostly liberal press will want to be any part of sinking the first woman to become President?
I seriously think I could run Rudy’s campaign and be successful.
A rival consulting firm is making gobs of money from the Clinton campaign. So far my firm has not been asked to enter at any level. And I’m actually happy about that.
I say again, what Southern state can she win?
Add to that Rudy picking off some blue states and the map doesn’t look good for her.
I hope you’re not counting on New York as being one of those states that will be voting against Hillary. I think she’ll win NY hands down.
Throw in a stabilizing Iraq (sans the Kurd/Turkish border) and things start to look pretty damn good.
JeffR
I’ve always thought that it’s a new ball game if we could ever turn that mess around.
I belong to “ABH” club, “Anybody But Hillary”. I just hope there are more out there who feel as we do. But I’m beginning to doubt it. Her numbers just went up to 53% a couple of weeks ago. And that was the first time she ever cleared the 50% mark.
Scary.
[/quote]
Mick,
My friend IT IS A NEW BALLGAME. Even joe klein (see time magazine) had to admit progress is being made.
Iraqi and American deaths are approaching record lows. The head of one of the two most powerful shiite familes met recently with the head Sunni’s.
That’s a big deal.
When you get down to it, Americans like to win. Even the pusillanimous democrats would probably rather win.
Further, I’m not talking about vince foster or whitewater. Hell, I think I could beat hillary just on the comments she’s made since she announced her candidacy.
It’s unbelievable how much material there is.
JeffR
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Jeffy, what you don’t seem to understand though is in the end even if Giuliani gets nominated the majority of this country thinks:
Giuliani = Bush
If you believe “scientific” polls Bush’s rating is in the upper-end of the 20’s in satisfaction. Not sure I would risk the nomination if I were worried about Hillary winning. Not sure where you fall in that category.
Ron Paul on the other hand would beat Hillary hands down.
Mick, maybe you could enlighten us and tell us who you think has a better chance against Hill-Dog and why.[/quote]
lifty,
I have to take into consideration your lack of political savvy when I respond to your Rudy=Bush comment.
I’ll be gentle.
There really aren’t many apt comparisons. From training, to family, to experiences, to physical appearance, to command of the language, etc.
Agreeing with the Iraq invasion doesn’t make them the same. Hell, by your criteria most politicians (including rodham) are equal to Bush.
When I see you write things like, “Ron Paul on the other hand would beat Hillary hands down,” I question not only your political knowledge, but, your sanity.
How exactly could he beat hillary? He won’t come within a country mile of his own party’s nomination. Do you think every, or even a majority of democrats would support him?
Really, lifty, I’m worried about you. Your delusions are becoming quite frightening.
I liked you better when you were arguing about communism. These days, unless you are in north korea/china, that talk is so ridiculous as to make it completely harmless.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Agreeing with the Iraq invasion doesn’t make them the same. Hell, by your criteria most politicians (including rodham) are equal to Bush.
When I see you write things like, “Ron Paul on the other hand would beat Hillary hands down,” I question not only your political knowledge, but, your sanity.
How exactly could he beat hillary? He won’t come within a country mile of his own party’s nomination. Do you think every, or even a majority of democrats would support him?
Really, lifty, I’m worried about you. Your delusions are becoming quite frightening.
I liked you better when you were arguing about communism. These days, unless you are in north korea/china, that talk is so ridiculous as to make it completely harmless.
JeffR
[/quote]
I dunno, there may be something to that. In the primaries he’s dealing with a much more hostile crowd. If he made it to the generals he would get the votes of many republicans because most people would just vote for the (R) without even knowing who the hell he is. Then you’d have the idiot libs who would vote for him because he’s more anti-Iraq than Hillary. Those are the ones that think he’s awesome for that stance, not being smart enough to recognize that he’d blow the lid off the little commie nanny state we’ve become. So here’s my question. I don’t think Paul is getting the nod, but would YOU vote for Paul if he did get the nomination?
mike
[quote]JeffR wrote:
How exactly could he beat hillary? He won’t come within a country mile of his own party’s nomination. Do you think every, or even a majority of democrats would support him?
[/quote]
I think you are wrong. I think he will take the nomination because I honestly believe all the “scientific” polls are flawed. Once Paul is on the same stage as Hillary debating her the public will see exactly the neocon she is. She has an unclean record with regard to Iraq and she is gunning for Iran too. She has no knowledge of economics (or even budget financing for that matter). She is a statist politician. People do not want more war. Peace will win hands down.
Hey, being able to discuss ideas with smart people such as yourself here on the Nation exposed me to new possibilities and better ways of thinking about the world. The ability to rationalize has its benefits. Does this make me 100% right about my ideas? I sure hope so but I’ve been wrong before. No harm, no foul.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Agreeing with the Iraq invasion doesn’t make them the same. Hell, by your criteria most politicians (including rodham) are equal to Bush.
When I see you write things like, “Ron Paul on the other hand would beat Hillary hands down,” I question not only your political knowledge, but, your sanity.
How exactly could he beat hillary? He won’t come within a country mile of his own party’s nomination. Do you think every, or even a majority of democrats would support him?
Really, lifty, I’m worried about you. Your delusions are becoming quite frightening.
I liked you better when you were arguing about communism. These days, unless you are in north korea/china, that talk is so ridiculous as to make it completely harmless.
JeffR
I dunno, there may be something to that. In the primaries he’s dealing with a much more hostile crowd. If he made it to the generals he would get the votes of many republicans because most people would just vote for the (R) without even knowing who the hell he is. Then you’d have the idiot libs who would vote for him because he’s more anti-Iraq than Hillary. Those are the ones that think he’s awesome for that stance, not being smart enough to recognize that he’d blow the lid off the little commie nanny state we’ve become. So here’s my question. I don’t think Paul is getting the nod, but would YOU vote for Paul if he did get the nomination?
mike[/quote]
Mike,
I don’t think there are enough vote straight Republicans to make paul’s candidacy work.
The answer to your question is this: If paul was the nominee versus hillary, I’d be up the creek without a paddle.
I always vote and have nothing but scorn for those who don’t.
I would vote for paul on this basis: He could do the least amount of damage.
His ideas are every bit as dangerous (in the case of Fortress America–more so) but, he’d be unable to forge compromises to institute his ideas.
rodham would have scared democrats following along in the short term. She might be able to jack the taxes sky high long enough to do some damage.
That’s my honest answer to your question.
I have to admit, that is one of the most difficult questions I’ve been asked on this forum.
JeffR
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
How exactly could he beat hillary? He won’t come within a country mile of his own party’s nomination. Do you think every, or even a majority of democrats would support him?
I think you are wrong. I think he will take the nomination because I honestly believe all the “scientific” polls are flawed. Once Paul is on the same stage as Hillary debating her the public will see exactly the neocon she is. She has an unclean record with regard to Iraq and she is gunning for Iran too. She has no knowledge of economics (or even budget financing for that matter). She is a statist politician. People do not want more war. Peace will win hands down.
I liked you better when you were arguing about communism. These days, unless you are in north korea/china, that talk is so ridiculous as to make it completely harmless.
Hey, being able to discuss ideas with smart people such as yourself here on the Nation exposed me to new possibilities and better ways of thinking about the world. The ability to rationalize has its benefits. Does this make me 100% right about my ideas? I sure hope so but I’ve been wrong before. No harm, no foul.[/quote]
lifty,
The last paragraph makes you seem reasonable. Stop it, please or I’ll have to reevaluate.
As far as paul, he won’t be on the stage with hillary.
But, without giving away some of my post rodham nomination ammo, she certainly isn’t the peacenik the left thinks she is.
In fact, I’ll wager she’d be more aggressive than others because she will want to be seen as tough.
You can see hints of it in her recent vote on iran.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Agreeing with the Iraq invasion doesn’t make them the same. Hell, by your criteria most politicians (including rodham) are equal to Bush.
When I see you write things like, “Ron Paul on the other hand would beat Hillary hands down,” I question not only your political knowledge, but, your sanity.
How exactly could he beat hillary? He won’t come within a country mile of his own party’s nomination. Do you think every, or even a majority of democrats would support him?
Really, lifty, I’m worried about you. Your delusions are becoming quite frightening.
I liked you better when you were arguing about communism. These days, unless you are in north korea/china, that talk is so ridiculous as to make it completely harmless.
JeffR
I dunno, there may be something to that. In the primaries he’s dealing with a much more hostile crowd. If he made it to the generals he would get the votes of many republicans because most people would just vote for the (R) without even knowing who the hell he is. Then you’d have the idiot libs who would vote for him because he’s more anti-Iraq than Hillary. Those are the ones that think he’s awesome for that stance, not being smart enough to recognize that he’d blow the lid off the little commie nanny state we’ve become. So here’s my question. I don’t think Paul is getting the nod, but would YOU vote for Paul if he did get the nomination?
mike
Mike,
I don’t think there are enough vote straight Republicans to make paul’s candidacy work.
The answer to your question is this: If paul was the nominee versus hillary, I’d be up the creek without a paddle.
I always vote and have nothing but scorn for those who don’t.
I would vote for paul on this basis: He could do the least amount of damage.
His ideas are every bit as dangerous (in the case of Fortress America–more so) but, he’d be unable to forge compromises to institute his ideas.
rodham would have scared democrats following along in the short term. She might be able to jack the taxes sky high long enough to do some damage.
That’s my honest answer to your question.
I have to admit, that is one of the most difficult questions I’ve been asked on this forum.
JeffR
[/quote]
That’s a completely valid position. Thanks for answering the question like a man. That’s hard to find these days. That’s why I keep working on you. I don’t think you’re a lost cause.
mike
[quote]JeffR wrote:
ryanjm wrote:
I hope Ron Paul wins. He’s completely right about foreign policy issues, and right about what the Republican party used to be about: smaller government, less spending, non-interventionist. Now it’s all corporate and both sides spend big, they only differ on what they spend it on.
The thing is, there are a lot of people out there that like the ideas Paul talks about, and when they hear him speak they remember what “Republican” used to mean. That’s how my parents voted, and that’s what I defined myself as when I was younger.
And with regard to his comments on the founding fathers being non-interventionist, I believe what he is referring to is the fact that only Congress can declare war, and that they had good reason not to vest that power in one man who could go off and start wars willy-nilly.
In any event, I think if every american were forced to listen to a 15 minute speach by each candidate instead of 30 second sound-bites, Paul would win. It’s just that Faux News rigs the debates by asking Paul questions meant to marginalize him from the “major” candidates like “You want the troops home, and so does Hillary Clinton, how are you guys any different?”.
And if you noticed on his info/stats they listed his education, and then “background info” only said he was a congressman, and libertarian–no mention of his military service or background as doctor.
I also think his public speaking skills aren’t as good as they could be, because he often gets bogged down in the kind of fiscal analysis that only a person who studies the stuff can understand, which doesn’t play well to the general populace. However, that kind of understanding would serve him well as president.
An interesting tidbit that I think is pretty telling: Paul has received more money from the troops than all other candidates combined. Should give you an idea what they think of the war.
ryan,
paul is a nutjob who doesn’t function within the basic confines of a democracy. He’s a ross perot type demagogue. He basically whips the Rage Against the Machiners into a froth.
However, no one can honestly suppose that this guy is capable or willing to forge compromise on an issue.
Therefore, he is not fit to govern in a democracy.
[/quote]
Hahahaha, this is coming from the guy who loves Rudy Giuliani, a man who defines demagogue, tried to bump an election back, and has as expansive a view of executive power as Bush. That’s rich.
[quote]gDollars37 wrote:
Hahahaha, this is coming from the guy who loves Rudy Giuliani, a man who defines demagogue, tried to bump an election back, and has as expansive a view of executive power as Bush. That’s rich.[/quote]
Hey, g dol, thanks for the important input.
On second thought, you might want to go to another site as you have no objectivity or credibility.
Further, your incredible predictability makes you quite a bore.
This is what will happen: you’ll pull the straight democratic lever again in 2008. You’ll justify your pure partisan (aka…not independent stance) by claiming that you are “trying to teach the Republicans a lesson.”
You won’t be able to process the fact that this democratic Congress is EASILY the least effectual and some say, dangerous Congress in the history of the Republic. You’ll look past how expensive and nonsensical a rodham Presidency will be.
In summary, I challenge you to take a hard look at yourself before criticizing others. If you do an honest self-appraisal, I think you’ll be stunned by how little substance you find.
Good luck.
JeffR