"The hope rises again and the dream lives on . . . ." DNC chat

[David]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I know this is a few days old, and it could change after the DNC.. but.. WOW! The Dems still seem very split to me. Would Hillary have made the better candidate? (Don't get me wrong, I don't like any of them.. but I still wonder)

They're all tyrants. And these conventions are treated like celebratory sporting events -- when they should be considered days of national mourning.

[ajmccarrell]

I agree with you, David. This is more of a mega-Rotary meeting where they hand out awards for being Rotarians. In any of the speeches, especially Kucinich, I haven't heard anything worth hearing. I laughed so hard I had to pull over at Kucinich saying that the national debt was due to oil companies. Again, when he said that Wall Street was run by speculators. Duh! Wall Street is speculation?! Is he against people saving for retirements, buying homes, buying commodities in the futures markets, earning interest, etc? All of that is "speculation", which is how most people fund their retirements and make money besides from wages. Like most political discourse today, being against "speculators" sounds good to people who don't understand the term and are paralyzed from class envy, but it curbing it would overburden the government in future when people can't save enough for retirement. I mean, statistics show that over 50% of the country is currently invested in a 401(k), which is speculation. Where do these people come from? Then again, this is the guy who claims to see UFOs.

Clinton went on about how her husband presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity. (conveniently not mentioning the run up to 9/11, the first WTC bombing, the numerous attacks on our embassies, the short Iraq war and missile strikes, the war in Bosnia and Kosovo, Haiti, and Somolia. As well as the recession of 2000, the dot-com bust, the lead up to the housing mess, etc. Granted none of that was Clinton's fault, but her description was a mischaracterization of her husband's presidency). I thought one phrase from her speech summed up the entire democratic party platform, "will you please help take care of me?"

No one has really addressed the experience deficit here. I mean, Biden or any other pick has a far superior resume. Seriously, this ticket should be reversed. I could live with Clinton, but I think Obama is dangerous because it seems he actually believes the redistributionist ideas he throws around. Clinton, at least, has been around long enough that she knows she has to compromise.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I could live with Clinton, but I think Obama is dangerous because it seems he actually believes the redistributionist ideas he throws around.

Conservative's fear of Obama only makes me want to support him more.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Conservative's fear of Obama only makes me want to support him more.

Moreover, his "redistributionist ideas" are hardly the ogre the right makes them out to be. But, the suggestion of that idea (blacks and poor people on the public tit for generations on end without any care or regard for getting off when Johnny lunch box works hard at the local mill) is enough to rile the general sheep like American populace who work every day. The reality is, as mentioned earlier, Obama's tax "increase" will not have any effect on anyone making less than $200,000 a year and the proposed "increase" for those making over $200,000 a year pretty much is to take the tax rate back to the Clinton levels, during which the US had a trillion plus dollar surplus, that the R's spent and then borrowed What utter cr*p as usual from the R party

[TrueFaith77]

How do people feel about the delegate voting process being predetermined and orchestrated? Because I'm weird, I thought the Democratic party would support. . . democracy ("count every vote!" that sorta thing in the post-2000 era). I'm just curious how people feel about this. Obviously, Obama will win a proper Delegate count, I'm just surprised that that democratic process (and the process of delegates voting for VP) is being so overtly disregarded (obviously back-room deals probably always decided these things for all I know).

In other words, is the spectacle of Democracy less important than the spectacle of a "unified" Democratic party? Why are they incompatible?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

How do people feel about the delegate voting process being predetermined and orchestrated? Because I'm weird, I thought the Democratic party would support. . . democracy ("count every vote!" that sorta thing in the post-2000 era). I'm just curious how people feel about this. Obviously, Obama will win a proper Delegate count, I'm just surprised that that democratic process (and the process of delegates voting for VP) is being so overtly disregarded (obviously back-room deals probably always decided these things for all I know).

In other words, is the spectacle of Democracy less important than the spectacle of a "unified" Democratic party? Why are they incompatible?

They are not. It is a process just like the electoral process in the US. The popular vote does not determine the President. Moreover, I believe Obama won the popular vote in the primaries

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

They are not. It is a process just like the electoral process in the US. The popular vote does not determine the President. Moreover, I believe Obama won the popular vote in the primaries

I apologize for not being clear. I was referring to the actual delegate process which is being pre-orchestrated as opposed to a delegate process that is not pre-orchestrated. That's all. (In other words I'm not questioning, here, the delegate process. . . i'm questioning the literal way in which delegates will be counted).

[strandinthewind]

^^

I am still unsure what you mean. Are you referring to the roll call on the floor right before the actual nomination is completed and the winner elected?

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Conservative's fear of Obama only makes me want to support him more.

Who cares? It's not like you were undecided or independant in the first place. You are fiercely partisan. Aren't you the one who said you had Communist sympathies?

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Moreover, his "redistributionist ideas" are hardly the ogre the right makes them out to be. But, the suggestion of that idea (blacks and poor people on the public tit for generations on end without any care or regard for getting off when Johnny lunch box works hard at the local mill) is enough to rile the general sheep like American populace who work every day. The reality is, as mentioned earlier, Obama's tax "increase" will not have any effect on anyone making less than $200,000 a year and the proposed "increase" for those making over $200,000 a year pretty much is to take the tax rate back to the Clinton levels, during which the US had a trillion plus dollar surplus, that the R's spent and then borrowed What utter cr*p as usual from the R party

GROAN! This is econ 101. Has any poor person ever hired you? Oh yeah, I forgot, you are a public servant who doesn't work in the private sector. If you tax the wealthy, the middle class end up paying for it with less jobs, lower wages and less raises. This is so basic, I don't get why you don't understand such a basic concept?! Tax increases always stifle growth. My only thought on the Clinton tax rates is how much more the economy could have been if he hadn't been skimming from it with his higher tax rates.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Who cares? It's not like you were undecided or independant in the first place. You are fiercely partisan. Aren't you the one who said you had Communist sympathies?

nah that was what strandie said about dissention. a ledgie past that would have eaten you for brunch if he were still around .

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

GROAN! My only thought on the Clinton tax rates is how much more the economy could have been if he hadn't been skimming from it with his higher tax rates.

ajm when people talk about how great our economy was under Clinton they always fail to mention that Clinton inherited an economy that was on a upswing. And when he left office it was on a downswing.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^

I am still unsure what you mean. Are you referring to the roll call on the floor right before the actual nomination is completed and the winner elected?

Yes. My understanding is that this is already kinda pre-orchestrated (votes already counted. I odn't know I oculd be wrong. I might have been overreacting)

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

ajm when people talk about how great our economy was under Clinton they always fail to mention that Clinton inherited an economy that was on a upswing. And when he left office it was on a downswing.

True! Although, the president, generally speaking, has very little to do with economic performance. He sets the stage to work with, IE taxes, regulation, etc. However, what we do with it is our fault and not his. Clinton did not "create" a great economy, it was happening because of private market innovation and the growth of the tech industry, as well as payoff's from investments from previous years. It started to go bad because some of the growth wasn't legit, IE the dot com bubble and the beginning of the housing bubble. My point is that the economy was going to grow or contract anyway, Clinton's taxes dampened the growth that there already was. It would have been much greater without the taxes, partially because of the money multiplier effect.

[gldstwmn]

So I just got home. I'm going to upload some pictures that I think you all might get a kick out of and tell you about my day.