What do you guys think about the super delegate "situation."
- 03-10-2008, 11:12 PM
What do you guys think about the super delegate "situation."
Looks like there is no way for Obama to have not won the popular and delegate vote before the DNC. But if Hillary can get these super del. to vote for her she could easily win in the end. Basically "stealing" the election.
Are those delegates really ready to set off an absolute nuke into their own party?
What you guys think?
- 03-10-2008, 11:50 PM
03-10-2008, 11:52 PM
Superdel. is just BS but that's my belief on most politics. We'll have to wait and see how the rest of this goes before saying if one choice over another will destroy the party. before it ends they will likely do enough damage to their [party, themselves.
03-12-2008, 03:16 AM
its like a 52%-48% lead for him. plus most of the votes he is getting are from people that are voting for him just to vote for him. 2 out of 3 Obama supporters cant name anything he has done in his time in DC.
if they pick him there will be real good chance of pissing off the real Democrats and losing to the mccain.
just my 2 cents.
03-12-2008, 06:26 AM
03-12-2008, 09:33 AM
Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
03-12-2008, 09:06 PM
03-13-2008, 11:14 PM
03-14-2008, 01:03 AM
I just hope the democrats take office period. That way we can finally have either a black guy or a woman in office and can finally get over one more social issue as a nation. I mean, who really cares what color you are or what chromosome pair you ended up with as long as you can do a better job in office than your predecessor?
Sadly sex and race will be influential as far as voting goes though.
03-14-2008, 12:39 PM
03-14-2008, 01:45 PM
The first was Obama’s pastor of 20 yrs, Jeremiah Wright. There were video clips of his sermons and they were extremely hateful worse than I imagined from earlier reports. Not much different at all from Farakahn. I would like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and maybe I should. But if any clergyman in my parish said anything close to what he said, I would be gone from there immediately, let alone have a 20 year friendship. It sounded no different than what a Nazi or white supremesist would say. If any other candidate, past or present, had similar associations they’d be gone.
The second was McCain’s interview on Hannity and Combs. He was able to explain why he opposed the original Bush tax cuts and admit that his position on immigration was out of touch with what people want. He also wants “originist” as opposed to “constructionist” judges and may really want to reign in federal spending. This last item, is rarely carried thru, but at least he’s not proposing any new big items like socialized medicine.
BTW, I think the Dem’s delegate procedures (not just the super delegate) shows just how convoluted the Dem’s thinking is.
03-15-2008, 02:06 AM
03-15-2008, 03:24 AM
In all honesty, what does it matter what they parade in the media when they can just manipulate your votes electronically? Didn't they dispute the count last time and nothing came of it?
Voting is a sham, the whole system is a farce.
03-15-2008, 03:53 AM
03-15-2008, 11:39 AM
Thatís a misquote. A presence is different than a war. Weíve been in Europe and Korea for over 50 years. Bush did a horrible job at the beginning, but things are turning around.
But youíre right about the taxes, Iím not particularly hopeful either. Everyone can agree theyíre too high, but no one wants to do their share to reduce it. And thatís part of the problem. We seem to elect people (dem or rep) who are the most likely to pander to our whims, then we complain we have too much spending, or no energy policy, etc. Bush was a big disappointment here, too. But I think, now, we have a choice between one candidate who wants to give us socialized medicine which will be a huge cost, and one whoís goal is to reduce taxes. Iím not sure who was the last republican president to balance the budget, but Eisenhower was the last president to be elected under the old system without primaries, so maybe he was the last one. Clinton just got lucky because the economy at the time was really strong. Also, if Clinton did what he should have when Osama and Al Kaeda was smaller, we might not be in a war now, ďPeaceĒ at any cost is not peace, itís just putting off the inevitable.
The other problem I have with the fedís handling medical benefits is that it is unconstitutional. Every time we ask the fedís for something new, it gives them more power. Our founding fathers had a big issue with that for good reason, power corrupts. I donít want the same people who have developed such a convoluted system of taxes, for example, to handle my health. The feds have way overstepped their boundaries too much already.
03-15-2008, 10:37 PM
under the present system, 35% of an individual's healthcare dollars go to insurance companies. The convoluted insurance bureaucracy, rather than your doctor, decides what care you will get. With Medicare, basic coverage is provided and less than 5% goes to overhead. You can't get every possible treatment you could ask for, just like with private insurance, BUT nothing stops a Medicare patient from buying more expensive healthcare. If Medicare were expanded so that everyone could get into it, would it be evil socialized medicine?
I really don't see the benefit of private insurance companies siphoning off a third of what we spend on healthcare. I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either. It makes employers not want to hire people, and makes them want to move work to countries with public healthcare. It makes it hard for workers to change jobs, since they are afraid of leaving because they may lose their healthcare. The present system is an inefficient mess that saps the competitiveness of the American industry.
as for Clinton, he did go after al queda, and was attacked by GOP at the time, because they wanted to focus on the lewinsky scandal.When he did send in some cruise missiles, the Republicans accused him of a "Wag the Dog" scenario.The majority of Democrats opposed the war, although Hillary was for it. Virtually all Republicans were for it. There was nothing "inevitable" about it, that is until Bush got into office
03-16-2008, 06:22 PM
03-16-2008, 10:43 PM
How Clinton passed up an opportunity to stop Osama bin Laden in 1996. Wall Street Journal:
I believe the Washington Post ran a similar article.
Why I oppose it.
1) It is NOT constitutional. It allows the federal government to further over step their authority. This put our rights at risk. Our founding fathers limited federal jurisdiction to interstate commerce and defense. They knew people in power cannot be trusted. Even if there were no other arguments this would be enough. If people want it badly, then let the states handle it. That would be constitutional.
2) The federal government canít manage the money they collect now.
3) If they handle health care they way they handle the Veterans Administration, weíre in trouble.
4) I find it hard to believe only 5% goes to overhead. Charities where people work for stipends donít have that return. Can you point to some sources for private vs public cost.
5) Much of the cost of health care comes from malpractice and cutting edge technology. Sky rocketing malpractice should be addressed first.
6) http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/0...-cps/index.htm According to Dept HHS, 15.7% of the population are uninsured. Of the 15.7%, 21% are immigrants. I donít mean to be sound calloused, but they knew that before they came. Thatís the way it has always been. You come to this country because you believe you will be better off, not to be comfortable.
19% of the uninsured declined coverage because they felt it too expensive. Itís not clear how many truly could not afford it or chose not to for personal reasons.
We already have the most at risk on Medicaid and SCHIP.
IMO it would be better to address the remaining 9% (or even the whole 15.7%) rather than turn an industry that essentially works into another bureaucracy. At least the insurance companies need to compete with each other.
I honestly do not believe the countries that currently have government run health care to be superior to ours.
03-16-2008, 10:54 PM
He doesn't look particularly stressed now. In fact he looks pretty good for someone who was tortured for 5.5 yrs in a POW camp.
03-17-2008, 06:46 PM
there is NO point in being there!!!! and dont call me a left wing bleeding heart either!
i was there and the sh!t wont EVER be fixed!
almost 4000 dead because we were told there were WMD in iraq! WRONG! nothing! friends of mine are dead because Bush wanted to start a war to show off to daddy!
the world will always hate us because they cant be like us.
this war has cost us not only in American blood but also ablout $1 TRILLION. and what do we have to show for it?
im not trying to start sh!t with you and im not trying to disrespect you at all but there is NO reason to stay in Iraq.
FYI- i think we should just nuke the whole middle east.
03-17-2008, 11:22 PM
03-18-2008, 09:51 AM
I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either.
Iím not sure why it shouldnít be tied to employment in a country with such a labor shortage that we need to import labor; that includes all immigration. IOW, even if it means taking a lower paying job, ISTM, most hardworking Americans should find work.
I agree with the position that it is unfair for American labor to compete with countries that have no benefits, pollution standards, etc. Iím not sure what that answer is. I also agree the costs of medical care need to be addressed. I just donít agree the Fed. Gov. sponsorship of Health Care is the answer.
But weíre there and one human life is no more important than another. If we leave now, things will spiral out of control and odds are weíll be back and lose another 4,000. Weíre fighting a culture that sees nothing wrong with targeting civilians. When they're not doing it to each other, given an opportunity, they do it to everyone else they perceive as an enemy.
03-18-2008, 10:43 PM
In the end, I don't think the super delegates will play a role. Oddly enough, this is the first election I'd ever heard of them.
Learn something new everyday.
03-19-2008, 02:45 AM
My point about immigration is that most immigrants in the US today are illegals, and most of them take jobs that don't have healthcare. Would it be more acceptable if we said that the government should replace the function of much of the health insurance industry, rather than being a provider of healthcare? That's really what we're talking about; instead of letting the insurance industry skim a huge percentage of our healthcare dollars, just get rid of most of them.
03-19-2008, 09:36 AM
One thing I would like to know is where you found the 35% overhead for the insurance companies. I found the 5% regarding Medicare, but frankly I donít believe it and would like to know how both numbers are arrived at.
It can be argued that costs need to be reduced, but they have to be done intelligently. Hereís an article by the NY Times about the costs of health care. Iím not a big fan of the Times and expected it to validate the position that the government should be the health care provider:
Some of the costs go into research and if we reduced costs and research, the cure would be worse than the disease. The federal gov just doesnít have a good track record for reducing costs, and an even worse one for reducing costs without screwing everything up.
I think the private insurance industry basically works well enough that I donít think the feds will do any better. Iím not sure how we should fix the situation. Maybe the auto insurance model would work. The auto insurers (maybe this is only in ĎNo Faultí states) are forced to take a number of high risk drivers. I wouldnít mind my premiums go up a small amount if thatís what it takes. Alternatively, the states could subsidize for those below a certain income. I havenít thought this one out enough to know what the pitfalls would be.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Kirkatis in forum SupplementsReplies: 4Last Post: 08-12-2007, 07:18 AM
- By Changing in forum IGF-1/GHReplies: 1Last Post: 05-19-2005, 02:05 AM
- By Ript22Swole in forum AnabolicsReplies: 0Last Post: 11-08-2004, 09:54 PM
- By darius in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 10-18-2004, 05:43 PM
- By Luke530 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 01-29-2004, 07:13 PM