2016 Election
Quote: boymimboHilary's problem is connecting with "the American people". Her campaign folks including hubbub Bill will figure this out before it really matters.
Quote: AZDuffmanShe has been in the public eye for 25 years now and this is her second campaign, yet they still have to figure it out? You don't "figure out" how to connect. Some people got it and some ain't got it. She ain't got it.
I don't see how Bill and his people are going to fix this issue except for just plain running it over so it gets ignored--make her speeches short and sweet and use Bill and perhaps Chelsea (and others) to do the connecting. I just don't see how ANYONE can make a large enough change to make a difference when they have been this way so long. To me, it would look fake.
Of course, I don't like her anyway...so you can discount my position on her, but changing spots is tough...ask any leopard...
Quote: AZDuffmanShe has been in the public eye for 25 years now and this is her second campaign, yet they still have to figure it out? You don't "figure out" how to connect. Some people got it and some ain't got it. She ain't got it.
She's one up on Carly
Hill won a senate election
Carly lost a senate election. Has Carly ever won an election in her life? Trump? Carson?
Just watched a Muslim on Morning Joe
What a wonderful guy. Salt of the Earth. Been a fan of this peaceful Muslim all my Life
You go Kareem Abdul Jabbar
A poll was quoted where the Muslim faith believed in the Q'aran "word for word". 28% of Americans (not just Christians), or about 90 million, believe the same is true of the Bible. You quoted verses from the Q'aran that would inspire violence without context . I am taking words from the bible that would inspire the same.
Islamic teaching is just not the Q'aran. It is also teaching about the Prophet and the first Khalifa who were the prime examples of Islamic faith. It is these teaching which gives context to the Q'aran and tones down the violent rhetoric in the book, just as the teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles (incorporated into the new Testament) do the same for the Bible.
We must be vigilant about people doing bad things. Right now, and for quite some time to come, fundamentalism Islam is doing bad things. It doesn't mean that the 93% of other Muslims without extremist views needs to be vilified with them.
Quote: RonCI don't see how Bill and his people are going to fix this issue except for just plain running it over so it gets ignored--make her speeches short and sweet and use Bill and perhaps Chelsea (and others) to do the connecting. I just don't see how ANYONE can make a large enough change to make a difference when they have been this way so long. To me, it would look fake.
Of course, I don't like her anyway...so you can discount my position on her, but changing spots is tough...ask any leopard...
None of this really matters. Sanders support by non-whites is negligible and won't grow. This thing will be over by March 6. Hampshire and Iowa will probably go with Sanders and raise eyebrows. South Carolina will go Clinton as will most of the SuperTuesday states. Clinton and the Dem machine understands this.
And all Democrats are still playing the game of attacking the Republicans, together, rather than attacking each other. The first Debate is next month, with the first primary 4+ months away. Too early.
Quote: terapinedShe's one up on Carly
Hill won a senate election
Carly lost a senate election. Has Carly ever won an election in her life? Trump? Carson?
She won an election in a deep blue state as the wife of a Democrat Party POTUS for an open seat. The GPO candidate, Lazio, was put in at the last minute when Rudy pulled out for health reasons.
Carly ran in the bluest of states against a sitting Democrat senator.
NY is 2:1 registered Democrats to Republicans. Nearly 50% registered Democrat. Hillary got 55% of the total vote,
CA is about 1.5:1 registered Democrats to Republicans. 29% registered Republicans. Carly got 42% of the vote.
Hillary pulled 5% outside her party, Carly pulled 13%, or nearly 3Xs as much.
Hillary does not have a personality for politics. She should avoid any job that involves working with people at all.
And don't forget that one time she stiffed a waitress on a tip! I still can't get over that...
Quote: ams288If Hillary is such a bad candidate, shouldn't you righties be fully endorsing her? Seems like youd want someone who'd be easy to beat...
More fun watching Bernie have all the energy and her get upset the thing isn't being handed to her,
Quote:And don't forget that one time she stiffed a waitress on a tip! I still can't get over that...
I can't either. The woman who says the GOP is "waging a war on women" and wants more income equality is too greedy and cheap to leave a poor waitress a few dollar tip. Hard to believe we agree on this!
Quote: ams288If Hillary is such a bad candidate, shouldn't you righties be fully endorsing her? Seems like youd want someone who'd be easy to beat...
And don't forget that one time she stiffed a waitress on a tip! I still can't get over that...
Truth? The truth is lefties can't handle the truth but the jump all over it when it comes to righties...
My honest take? I don't know if anyone has shined as a great, or even very, good candidate that is now in a position to lead the race and take it home. Perhaps some will move to the front, but so far I am not impressed all that much by any of them. Good candidates? Yes, a few. I'd prefer very good or great; we've had okay and less than okay (R/L will flip flop which is which) for 16 years come inauguration day.
I like some of the "R" candidates, but none has made me want to make a donation to them so far. My wife wants to donate some to Ben Carson at this point.
Hillary? She'll win unless scandals overtake her, which is unlikely because she is as Teflon as Reagan was, or so it seems. Nothing has stuck so far...
Quote: AZDuffmanShe won an election in a deep blue state as the wife of a Democrat Party POTUS for an open seat. The GPO candidate, Lazio, was put in at the last minute when Rudy pulled out for health reasons.
Carly ran in the bluest of states against a sitting Democrat senator.
NY is 2:1 registered Democrats to Republicans. Nearly 50% registered Democrat. Hillary got 55% of the total vote,
CA is about 1.5:1 registered Democrats to Republicans. 29% registered Republicans. Carly got 42% of the vote.
Hillary pulled 5% outside her party, Carly pulled 13%, or nearly 3Xs as much.
Hillary does not have a personality for politics. She should avoid any job that involves working with people at all.
Hilary then got 67% of the total vote in 2006, after 6 years of public life as a senator.
Quote: boymimboHilary then got 67% of the total vote in 2006, after 6 years of public life as a senator.
In a Democrat state during the biggest Democrat wave election in 30+ years? Against a complete nobody? While spending more than any other Senate candidate that year?
*YAWN*
Quote: boymimboCorrect. However, it does not prevent Christians who don't understand this message from using the messages in the OT to exalt violence. Just like the Q'aran versus about homosexuality pertain mainly to the city of Lot well before Mohammed came along. Most Muslim governments do not recognize homosexual acts as a crime.
Yes they do.
In several it is still a capital offense, and it's actively enforced.
Islam can teach the Westboro Baptists a few things about homophobia.
Quote: boymimboCorrect. However, .
(Edited for brevity )
Most Muslim governments do not recognize homosexual acts as a crime.
"Muslim governments", interesting term.
I don't hear a lot about "Hindu Governments" or "Christian Governments" or fill in the blank religious governments. Most of the advanced human population has moved beyond their religion running their government. I think that is best. We seem to have some problems with some countries that have some educational issues, some evolutionary issues. Those countries seem to endanger the rest of the world that has moved past and beyond the times those countries still live in.
I got no problem shooting rabid dogs, they are dangerous.
Quote: AZDuffmanIn a Democrat state during the biggest Democrat wave election in 30+ years? Against a complete nobody? While spending more than any other Senate candidate that year?
*YAWN*
Funny you feel the need to point out Hilary won during one of the biggest Democratic wave election in the past 30 years, but didn't at all mention the fact Carly ran in one of the biggest Republican wave elections and still lost.
Quote: TwoFeathersATL"Muslim governments", interesting term.
I don't hear a lot about "Hindu Governments" or "Christian Governments" or fill in the blank religious governments. Most of the advanced human population has moved beyond their religion running their government. I think that is best. We seem to have some problems with some countries that have some educational issues, some evolutionary issues. Those countries seem to endanger the rest of the world that has moved past and beyond the times those countries still live in.
I got no problem shooting rabid dogs, they are dangerous.
List of countries with a state religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries . Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the countries laws are dictated by that religion, but they are in many of the countries. For instance you'd be a moron to not admit Vatican City is clearly a Christian country and the Pope the head of this Christian nation commands a certain amount of respect in the world at large.
Also plenty on the right wing in this country demand special privileges and places for their religion and out right shout this is a Christian nation. Look how many jumped to defend Davis for not doing her job because of religious freedom, even though she is an elected member of state imposing her religious convictions on others who do not share them.
Certain people are suing so not only will they not be forced to provide birth control for their employees but it would bar the federal government from providing it http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/09/20/3703316/your-bosss-ability-to-take-away-your-birth-control-coverage-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court-again/ .
They fight to defund Planned Parenthood, because of doctored videos, even though if you ignore all the other goods they do all they are doing is providing a legal service abortion, but abortion is against their religion so they fight to make it illegal. Hell we have people from the US meddling in other countries issues and getting bills like Ugandas anti gay bill passed.
Many Muslim countries are horrible places that have massive human rights violations, but don't pretend that it is isolated to countries that are either officially or majority Muslim.
Quote: TwirdmanFunny you feel the need to point out Hilary won during one of the biggest Democratic wave election in the past 30 years, but didn't at all mention the fact Carly ran in one of the biggest Republican wave elections and still lost.
Carly was still running in more hostile territory against a strong incumbent. Hillary was running in friendly territory as an incumbent.
Say anything you like, Hillary had a way easier election.
Quote: TwirdmanList of countries with a state religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries . Now that doesn't necessarily mean that the countries laws are dictated by that religion, but they are in many of the countries. For instance you'd be a moron to not admit Vatican City is clearly a Christian country and the Pope the head of this Christian nation commands a certain amount of respect in the world at large.
Also plenty on the right wing in this country demand special privileges and places for their religion and out right shout this is a Christian nation. Look how many jumped to defend Davis for not doing her job because of religious freedom, even though she is an elected member of state imposing her religious convictions on others who do not share them.
Certain people are suing so not only will they not be forced to provide birth control for their employees but it would bar the federal government from providing it http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/09/20/3703316/your-bosss-ability-to-take-away-your-birth-control-coverage-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court-again/ .
They fight to defund Planned Parenthood, because of doctored videos, even though if you ignore all the other goods they do all they are doing is providing a legal service abortion, but abortion is against their religion so they fight to make it illegal. Hell we have people from the US meddling in other countries issues and getting bills like Ugandas anti gay bill passed.
Many Muslim countries are horrible places that have massive human rights violations, but don't pretend that it is isolated to countries that are either officially or majority Muslim.
You started out correctly when you said that doesn't necessarily mean the Laws are dictated by the predominant religion. Which was my point. I almost mentioned the Vatican in my post, decided that from a country size measurement it wasn't worth it.
I didn't use the term "Muslim Governments", I quoted the use by another poster.
Also, I think my points are still valid. Most of the 'states or countries' in the world are not 'run' by their religious organization. I didn't mention whether, right or wrong, there wasn't considerable influence by the majority religion. I was speaking about the 'High Priest' running the show while claiming the religious beliefs make it not only right, but also "Holy".
I say "Holy Crap".
(Edit) should have said wholly crap
Jeb! makes for a great punching bag for Trump. But Fiorina? So long as she stays calm & cool, Trump's antics look childish and pathetic.
On the other hand... my predictions of Trump's downfall have repeatedly been proven wrong. I thought his menstrual blood comment against Megyn would backfire spectacularly, and obviously his poll numbers only went up, not down.
Quote: EvenBobIf 40% admit they think he's a Muslim,
at least 30% more think he is too and
just don't say it. I 100% think he is,
always have. It's obvious.
Evenbob, do you believe his claim he was born in Hawaii?
Quote: AZDuffmanCarly was still running in more hostile territory against a strong incumbent. Hillary was running in friendly territory as an incumbent.
Say anything you like, Hillary had a way easier election.
Okay, Hillary made a good bet, and longshot odds is a bad bet.
Quote: renoThis is all hypothetical, but I could see a scenario where Carly could really cause Trump to stumble. She doesn't even need to do much, just hand Trump the microphone and let him blast her with his insults. He can't control himself, and I could see that if his insults get too mean-spirited against Carly, they could backfire, and make him look cruel.
Jeb! makes for a great punching bag for Trump. But Fiorina? So long as she stays calm & cool, Trump's antics look childish and pathetic.
On the other hand... my predictions of Trump's downfall have repeatedly been proven wrong. I thought his menstrual blood comment against Megyn would backfire spectacularly, and obviously his poll numbers only went up, not down.
That's why her response to his comments at the debate was so perfect. She didn't even have to hit him hard, she just said people heard what he said and they understood what he truly meant. His backtracking about it being about her "persona" was total B.S. and she called him out on it.
The thing people need to realize about Trump is that his "gaffes" have not hurt him - with Republican primary voters. A small portion of the electorate....
In a general election, these gaffes will be fatal. He will be decimated. In 2016, no one can be elected President while alienating 70% of the Hispanic vote and saying awful things about women...
This is why liberals truly don't fear him.
Quote: renoEvenbob, do you believe his claim he was born in Hawaii?
Reno, are you aware that a large percentage of Hawaiins don't like the islands to be considered part of the USA. They are still fighting colonialism, and maybe rightfully so.
Which comes back to Obama. I look forward to the day when I no longer have to think about Obama. Of course I may have bigger problems by then, but hey, I'm an optimist.
Told ya he didn't have what it takes...
Quote: ams288Scott Walker dropped out!
Told ya he didn't have what it takes...
His percentages are so low that him dropping out won't help any other candidate....all of his supporters had already left the building...
Quote: RonCHis percentages are so low that him dropping out won't help any other candidate....all of his supporters had already left the building...
Yes. I was going to make a joke about wondering which candidate his 0.5% of support will move to.
He was a candidate who needed to do well in Iowa and it just wasn't panning out for him there.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot worried much, Dems have Sharpton and Lee, GOP gets Trump. He may be in the debates but I predict he will not put a ground team together. The GOP this time will hopefully not be stupid and let openly hostile organizations moderate. Then in 2017 POTUS Walker will take the stage and start to fix the mess Obama is leaving behind.
Quote: AZDuffman
America is starved for leadership. Right now we have a guy who wants to delay any decision he does not want to make. Trump is a breath of fresh air, even if I am voting for Walker.
Care to amend the above remarks :-)
Quote: terapinedCare to amend the above remark :-)
Sad to see the most qualified guy on either side pull out but life goes on.
I have also wondered if Trump will get the same offer [that can't be refused] as did Ron Paul, or Ross Perot? If Trump were to win it, the fact that he didn't get "Kennedy'd" will speak to his intentions.
I am just surprised he didn't stay in longer and see what happens. He supposedly has money. Unofficially he had the backing of the Koch brothers, although they publically claim not to be backing anyone yet. But the rumor was that support was much stronger from one Koch brother than the other. I am wondering if Walker didn't lose favor with the Koch brother that was his stronger supporter and they are the ones that REALLY made this decision, telling him they are going with someone else.
Quote: kewljI think Walker dropping out helps Kasich. Walker, Jeb, and Kasich were sort of the establishment candidates. Walkers support will likely go to another 'establishment' candidate and if they were going for Walker in the first place, they probably had already rejected the better known, supposed front runner (at least at one time) Jeb Bush. So they probably will take a look at Kasich, possible even Christie.
It might help someone in the long run--if the "current logic" of some pundits that Trump, Fiorina, and Carson will drop badly at some point comes true, then it is back to establishment candidates and he isn't there, so people who would have supported him will go elsewhere. That is a good way down the road...I don't see those three being gone any time soon.
Right now, it helps no one. Even if someone took the whole .5%, that is not much help...
Quote: kewljI am actually a little surprises at the walker decision coming this early. Yes, he has slipped dramatically in the polls. Slipped down to the levels of some of the candidates that really have no chance. But it really is still early. Most people think the three outsiders, Trump, Fiorina and the good doctor, will fizzle, when the electorate gets a little more serious. The repubs usually settle on an establishment candidate, that infuriates the far right, but supposedly gives them a better chance in the election. Walker was supposed to be one of those establishment type guys.
I am just surprised he didn't stay in longer and see what happens. He supposedly has money. Unofficially he had the backing of the Koch brothers, although they publically claim not to be backing anyone yet. But the rumor was that support was much stronger from one Koch brother than the other. I am wondering if Walker didn't lose favor with the Koch brother that was his stronger supporter and they are the ones that REALLY made this decision, telling him they are going with someone else.
I'm very sure it was the Kochs withdrawing their support that dictated Walker's withdrawal. He also had dismal numbers in Iowa after leading there immediately when he announced. But if the Kochs wanted to make the big money talk, he could have recovered unless he lost them.
He was very much the Tea Party candidate, not the mainstream wing, so his supporters were not particularly interested in Jeb! or Kasich or Christie. I don't know where his support goes; maybe to Carly Fiorina, but more likely to Marco Rubio. Barely possible it will be Trump because of the immigration stance, but too many differences otherwise. Immigration was supposed to be his signature issue, but Trump drowned him out from the start on that.
Oh, and good riddance! :)
Until the GOP is willing to give answers on what they can do for the people we used to call losers and hippies, they cannot win a major election. Unless you are physically or mentally disabled, you got out of life what you earned based on your actions. But who wants to hear that? Not a winning message. Decided to not wear a condom and had to skip college? Not your fault. Liked weed? Not your fault. Spent $3752 a year on Newports? Again, not your fault.
And until they stop talking about abortion, God and who sleeps with who they will not win.
But tell people they are victims....wins every time.
Quote: kewljUnofficially he had the backing of the Koch brothers, although they publically claim not to be backing anyone yet. But the rumor was that support was much stronger from one Koch brother than the other. I am wondering if Walker didn't lose favor with the Koch brother that was his stronger supporter and they are the ones that REALLY made this decision, telling him they are going with someone else.
Something about this makes me want to hurt people. Like, you're just stating fact. But the fact you are stating, and that everyone seems to already know, is that the presidential pool we have to choose from, which is already extremely heterogeneous, is further depleted and picked through by one or two people before we are given a *ahem* "choice".
Just a man, maybe two, who almost unilaterally gets to decide who one of the maybe 3 people out of 330mm we get to choose from. And we just gloss over it. Nothing to see here, business as usual.
It really inflames and irritates the 1776 in me, to the point you could almost set a line on how many days until I'm on the 6 o'clock news.
Quote: FaceIt really inflames and irritates the 1776 in me, to the point you could almost set a line on how many days until I'm on the 6 o'clock news.
Maybe you should run for office.
never smiled even once. But it's more than that.
5 years ago she was majorly sick with breast
cancer and had a double mastectomy and
all her hair fell out from the chemo. Have
we ever had a president with such a recent
history of health problems? Stress is something
to be avoided in former cancer patients, why
would you want the most stressful job in
the world. She's on TV right now crying over
a poem. Not very presidential.
She also doesn't seem to have been a very
good CEO. I don't see what the appeal is.
Quote: FaceSomething about this makes me want to hurt people. Like, you're just stating fact. But the fact you are stating, and that everyone seems to already know, is that the presidential pool we have to choose from, which is already extremely heterogeneous, is further depleted and picked through by one or two people before we are given a *ahem* "choice".
Just a man, maybe two, who almost unilaterally gets to decide who one of the maybe 3 people out of 330mm we get to choose from. And we just gloss over it. Nothing to see here, business as usual.
It really inflames and irritates the 1776 in me, to the point you could almost set a line on how many days until I'm on the 6 o'clock news.
You and I have divergent ideas on governance, but we are smack-on about this. As are tens of millions of other Americans. There's a reason Dodd-Frank campaign reform was bi-partisan. And the issue is a long way from being dead, because there's a hell of a lot of us who resent the hell out of the Koch/Adelson/Soros/billionaire interference in our democracy, professional lobbyists, and any office being for sale, now more than ever. I'm afraid it's one of those things that's going to have to reach its ridiculous, out-of-control excess point before it gets fixed, at least that's how it looks to me right now.
But I live in the Huffington Post world still believing Uncle Bernie has a shot at winning.
Quote: rxwineMaybe you should run for office.
There's no way I could play the game. I get compromise, but some things are unacceptable. The entire process is rife with things I cannot accept. Hence why I'm going the coup route. Be patient, relief is coming =)
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm afraid it's one of those things that's going to have to reach its ridiculous, out-of-control excess point before it gets fixed, at least that's how it looks to me right now.
I can see no other way. People don't relinquish power without force, and we've given them or have let them take far too much to fix it now. "Ridiculous, out of control excess" is probably spot on. There's certainly not going to be some magnanimous epiphany happening between them anytime soon.
Fortunately, it looks like this situation is in an accelerated increase and we may reach that point sooner than expected. I hope so, at least. The row it will cause is a key part of my plan =)
Quote: Face
Fortunately, it looks like this situation is in an accelerated increase and we may reach that point sooner than expected. I hope so, at least. The row it will cause is a key part of my plan =)
Starting to agree with me on where the USA is headed?
I really think he's in it, not to win it, but to get his issues heard, especially about the banking industry and all the wrongs they have perpetuated over the last 25 or so years. And I'm one who thinks he should be heard, and that he might be able to influence the dialog and force some changes. I just don't see him going the distance. But I won't vote for him if he does, even though I think he's right about several major policy issues.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm afraid it's one of those things that's going to have to reach its ridiculous, out-of-control excess point before it gets fixed, at least that's how it looks to me right now.
It isn't there yet? Trump has as much as admitted to buying politicians. We know so many that are bought and paid for, both legally and illegally. We get lots of rules on direct contributions, but a much looser system for PACs and other things. If EVERYONE considered a "person"--be it a union or a corporation--had the same $2,700 per election (primary and general) and the same amount to their party, then it would be harder to "own" politicians.
"Under new FEC limits, which are adjusted for inflation in odd-numbered years, individuals can give up to $5,400 to candidates—$2,700 for their primary campaigns, and another $2,700 for the general election—and up to $33,400 per year to national party committees in the 2016 cycle."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/02/fec-raises-contribution-caps-for-2016/
There are many ways for them to top even those numbers legally and that is what gives corporations, wealthy individuals, and unions the ability to give almost without limits depending on what sort of rules cover them.
Of course, there comes that pesky first amendment right that everyone brings up when you want to limit contributions--somehow money is equaled to speech.
It is a problem, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the answer.
Quote: beachbumbabsBernie can't win. He's too far left, and socialist is an accurate but deadly label for him. Somebody said above he has no appeal to people of color, and I think that's correct. He's also too old-looking (at 74, 7 years older than Hillary) for people to vote for him, with him being 80 at the end of a first term. If he's the nominee, the center will go to the Republican.
I really think he's in it, not to win it, but to get his issues heard, especially about the banking industry and all the wrongs they have perpetuated over the last 25 or so years. And I'm one who thinks he should be heard, and that he might be able to influence the dialog and force some changes. I just don't see him going the distance. But I won't vote for him if he does, even though I think he's right about several major policy issues.
Everyone thought that we were going to the next generation by electing a 47 year-old to the office, but it appears that the three top Dems are all of an older generation (the President in waiting, Sanders, and Biden). The talk back then was that leadership was moving to the next generation, but the Dems have no candidate with major appeal from that generation. The Republican front runners are all older than President Obama. Some may be on the edge of his generation, but it almost seems like we are moving back a generation...instead of the other direction...
We've been lucky with age and health for a good while; I guess we will just hope for a healthy President. I may not like whoever gets elected, but there are certain ways I don't want any of them to leave office!!
Quote: RonCIt isn't there yet? Trump has as much as admitted to buying politicians. We know so many that are bought and paid for, both legally and illegally. We get lots of rules on direct contributions, but a much looser system for PACs and other things. If EVERYONE considered a "person"--be it a union or a corporation--had the same $2,700 per election (primary and general) and the same amount to their party, then it would be harder to "own" politicians.
It would not help anything. Unions could give the $2,700 but lend an army of foot soldiers to help out. You cannot get money out of politics anymore than you will get water out of the oceans.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt would not help anything. Unions could give the $2,700 but lend an army of foot soldiers to help out. You cannot get money out of politics anymore than you will get water out of the oceans.
That's the spirit...we're screwed and we are going to stay screwed.
The politician on either side beholden to special interests is why nothing every seems to get better. Illegal Immigrant Aliens are just one of those groups that many "real" people really don't want around, but bought and paid for politicians do nothing about based on how they are useful to their party.
Really? The best we can do is...nothing?
I'm sorry. We didn't become great by saying there is nothing that we can do. I don't have the answers and this thread might not get to the answers (nor do we want it to) but I sure am willing to say that there is an answer and it can be found.
Okay...maybe an army of people can be raised by the unions. How about the unions being allowed to spend $0 in support of them if they have reached their spending limits? The people walking still have "free speech" but the union can't feed, bathe, and clothe them to assist the campaign.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLYou started out correctly when you said that doesn't necessarily mean the Laws are dictated by the predominant religion. Which was my point. I almost mentioned the Vatican in my post, decided that from a country size measurement it wasn't worth it.
I didn't use the term "Muslim Governments", I quoted the use by another poster.
Also, I think my points are still valid. Most of the 'states or countries' in the world are not 'run' by their religious organization. I didn't mention whether, right or wrong, there wasn't considerable influence by the majority religion. I was speaking about the 'High Priest' running the show while claiming the religious beliefs make it not only right, but also "Holy".
I say "Holy Crap".
(Edit) should have said wholly crap
There are 26 countries where a form of Islam is the state religion. Dbjouti, Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine (not a country), Afghanistan, Algeria, Brunei, Comoros, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Maldives, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, UAE, Iran, Oman, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain.
There are 19 Christian countries where a form of Christianity is the state religion: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, England, Greece, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Spain, Costa Rica, Liectenstein, Malta, Monaco, Vatican City, Andorra, Sweden (to some extent), Finland (to some extent), Tonga, Tuvalu, Scotland (to some extent), part of France.
Quote: RonCThat's the spirit...we're screwed and we are going to stay screwed.
The politician on either side beholden to special interests is why nothing every seems to get better. Illegal Immigrant Aliens are just one of those groups that many "real" people really don't want around, but bought and paid for politicians do nothing about based on how they are useful to their party.
Here is the problem, EVERYONE is a "special interest." I want more natural gas drilling, it is my livelyhood. Does that make me a "special interest?" I have a teacher in my family, is her wanting more education a "special interest?" The ownership here promotes online casinos. Are they a "special interest?" Are we all for wanting the online gambling to keep the site free? Who here wants online poker? How far can we go with this?
Quote:Okay...maybe an army of people can be raised by the unions. How about the unions being allowed to spend $0 in support of them if they have reached their spending limits? The people walking still have "free speech" but the union can't feed, bathe, and clothe them to assist the campaign.
This still leaves holes in the bucket. Lets say the media is in the tank for the nominee of one side. What is the other side to do? A week of feature stories on Hillary and her life, all positive. Hey, it is not a contribution, it's "news."
I will break it to the board. Picking what happens is done by an exclusive club, and none of you are in it. The best you can do is to make your life such that politicians cannot own you.
Quote: FaceBut the fact you are stating, and that everyone seems to already know, is that the presidential pool we have to choose from, which is already extremely heterogeneous, is further depleted and picked through by one or two people before we are given a *ahem* "choice".
And to make matters worse, just a handful of states are actually important during the primaries. Nine months later, just a handful of swing states are actually important on election night.
My vote literally doesn't matter for president.
Quote: renoAnd to make matters worse, just a handful of states are actually important during the primaries. Nine months later, just a handful of swing states are actually important on election night.
My vote literally doesn't matter for president.
This is something that really bothers me as well. The electoral college is severely outdated and it creates a situation where no republican presidential candidate is campaigning in New York, Massachusetts or California and no Democratic presidential candidate is campaigning in Texas, or the southern states or the plain states.
I think we should elect president by popular vote. For one, I think we look stupid as the world's leading democracy to have an election where we elect someone president that got a million fewer votes that the other guy, as George W did. I am not saying this just because I didn't support George Bush. It could happen again just the other way and it just doesn't seem very democratic to me and makes us look stupid.
Secondly, by popular vote, every vote does count. If you are a republican in New York or a democrat in Texas, you don't feel like your vote doesn't count. And there is incentive for the candidates to still go to these states to campaign. Every vote a republican candidate picks up in New York counts. Every vote a democratic candidate picks up in Alabama, counts.
