Who are you thinking of voting for in 2008?
- Thread starter dmclone
- Start date
Standardized tests have no effect on their grades. A lot of these kids would be passing these tests if they tried. But they have no reason to try. Some schools give kids a day off if they do well enough or improve their score.
I believe the problem there is more likely to be due to the teacher's union, than any other factor.
If a criminal is hurt in any way, in the act of committing a crime, whether it is by the victim, the police or just falling over the fence trying to get out of the yard, I don't believe they should have any particular punitive rights. Short of police brutality.
I believe that there should be limits on the amount of liability for lawsuits. You cannot place a dollar amount on the value of life, or the quality of life anyway. Why is $10,000,000 not enough? Does $300,000,000 make it all better? I wouldn't mind criminal action for reckless disregard or intentional disregard for another's safety, but the dollar amounts are getting ridiculous. Besides, tort lawyers end up suing companies for tons of money, and the individuals get very little, while the lawyers get rich.
The constitution has very specific rights for the federal government, and the balance of unspecified powers are supposed to be reserved for the states. Right now, our federal government coerces this power from the states by withholding federal money. The federal government as a whole has no right to do half of what it does.
There are many issues that the supreme court has very little immediate jurisdiction over, but whether or not they will support the decisions passed down below, has a lot of bearing on what is passed down below.
Serious Answer: Barack Obama..I was considering voting for him before, but I am 99.9% certain NOW that I am voting for him after reading Audacity of Hope. Seems like he has some great changes and ideas ready for both domestic AND foreign problems we currently have. I think he would be a breath of fresh air from the Clintons/Bushs of the world.
Joking Answer: Robert Goulet. 'Nuff Said.
Joking Answer: Robert Goulet. 'Nuff Said.
Oh, and I would totally vote for Splinter. In his absence though, I'll probably be voting democratic. The real question is who I'd like to be the candidate. I've been impressed with Biden on foreign policy but don't have enough information about his domestic policies yet. He's also the only politician I've ever seen who solicited yes or no questions and then answered with a straight yes or no. I like Obama's background and speaking ability, but again, not enough specifics yet. Hilary is too devisive and lacks electibility IMO. There's also probably something to be said for having someone other than a Clinton or Bush in office since we will have had 20 years of them.
good point. I've been sayin' it too for awhile. I don't think it is positive for our nation to have our leaders be from only two families for that long (possibly longer if hilary...oh god, lets not go there.) Obama '08!
Unemployment rate is fine, but that doesn't always correlate to teaching jobs. Since Bush's time here, 3 elementary schools in my home town have closed because of lack of government funding. I worked a summer in Appalachia and so many school are consolidating each year for the same reasons which leaves 100s of unemployed teachers.
School consolidations are generally done for effciency, we don't use horses anymore.
There is no "right to have teaching jobs" - a lot of auto workers are losing jobs too, you have to adapt to a changing environment. I come from a teaching family at mostly A & 1A schools, so I hear all of the whine. But all of my relatives have either switched schools or changed positions (to counseling or adminstration) with relative ease.
Lastly, Appalachia has schools? :wink0st:
Any particular examples? Anyone that would get an award for such would have to convince a jury of their claim.
They typical contingent fee is 1/3 of the jury award. An award over 10 million dollars is extremely rare. Anything much over that is the result of a punitive damages award against a company. Such awards are given for the sake of punishment so as to prevent similar occurrences in the future, and in many states the money goes to the state. Examples of such cases include the the Ford Pinto case, where they knew the car had an easily preventable defect that could cause it to burst into flames. There is also the infamous McDonalds coffee case. Few people know that the woman's labia were fused together and McDonalds knowingly sold coffee that was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in under 3 seconds. The punitive award in that case was the equivalent of what McDonalds made on their coffee sales in a matter of days.
Let me preface this by saying I'm registered Independant and don't care much for being associated with political parties. My views are pretty much right down the middle with a slight lean towards the conservative side on some things. In fact I really don't like politics much and I hate discussing them with people who can't look past what party someone is associated with. I vote for the best candidate regardless of party affliation so I throw all that BS out the window when I consider things.
With that being said, I'm hoping for Rudy Giuliani. Still too early right now for anyone to make much of an educated decision until the primaries weed some of these people out though. The thing I like about him is in a time where everyone is going bonkers over the war in Iraq, I think he'll probably have a plan to get the troops out but not all at once like everyone wants. It scares the crap out of me to think what would happen if we just pull out quickly like the democrats want. I know the nation is split on this but common sense tells you that pulling out of Iraq quickly is not a good thing for our nation's security nor the people of Iraq. It's a popular thing to say though because there are people there that think that would be a good idea and it's an easy way to pull some votes your way. I have a co-worker that by the time he returns this fall will have been over there nearly 2 years and if you want to hear how things are really going over there you need to talk to someone that has been there. It's not nearly the same stories you'll hear the media report. The Dems are going to have to come up with a better plan than just "let's get out of Iraq now" for me to take any of them seriously.
If somehow Hillary gets elected I think I may just start looking at how feasible it would be to move to Canada because she is one of the last people we want running this country right now. Besides, for the last 20 years we've had a Bush or Clinton in the white house and it's about time we get away from that and get some fresh blood in there. I'm not 100% on Bush but I did vote for him because Kerry was another guy that I'm glad we don't have running this country. It was basically voting for the better of the 2 evils. Bush may not be very polished with his speaking and interviews and such but at least I can respect the man for sticking to his values and beliefs and not letting a few idiots make him waver. I could not say that I respected John Kerry as a man, some of the things he was saying condradicted what he had actually done in the past. I don't give a damn if he no longer owns Heinz factories overseas, he did before and made money off it before selling them off yet he supposedly was all about keeping companies in the US so that was a big reason why I could never trust him because he said 1 thing and had done the opposite. He was Mr. Flip-Flop on a lot of things, he basically told you what you wanted to hear but couldn't ever back it up.
//edit: UNGH! This is why I hate politics, read my post afterwards and realized I got way more into this than I wanted too...
With that being said, I'm hoping for Rudy Giuliani. Still too early right now for anyone to make much of an educated decision until the primaries weed some of these people out though. The thing I like about him is in a time where everyone is going bonkers over the war in Iraq, I think he'll probably have a plan to get the troops out but not all at once like everyone wants. It scares the crap out of me to think what would happen if we just pull out quickly like the democrats want. I know the nation is split on this but common sense tells you that pulling out of Iraq quickly is not a good thing for our nation's security nor the people of Iraq. It's a popular thing to say though because there are people there that think that would be a good idea and it's an easy way to pull some votes your way. I have a co-worker that by the time he returns this fall will have been over there nearly 2 years and if you want to hear how things are really going over there you need to talk to someone that has been there. It's not nearly the same stories you'll hear the media report. The Dems are going to have to come up with a better plan than just "let's get out of Iraq now" for me to take any of them seriously.
If somehow Hillary gets elected I think I may just start looking at how feasible it would be to move to Canada because she is one of the last people we want running this country right now. Besides, for the last 20 years we've had a Bush or Clinton in the white house and it's about time we get away from that and get some fresh blood in there. I'm not 100% on Bush but I did vote for him because Kerry was another guy that I'm glad we don't have running this country. It was basically voting for the better of the 2 evils. Bush may not be very polished with his speaking and interviews and such but at least I can respect the man for sticking to his values and beliefs and not letting a few idiots make him waver. I could not say that I respected John Kerry as a man, some of the things he was saying condradicted what he had actually done in the past. I don't give a damn if he no longer owns Heinz factories overseas, he did before and made money off it before selling them off yet he supposedly was all about keeping companies in the US so that was a big reason why I could never trust him because he said 1 thing and had done the opposite. He was Mr. Flip-Flop on a lot of things, he basically told you what you wanted to hear but couldn't ever back it up.
//edit: UNGH! This is why I hate politics, read my post afterwards and realized I got way more into this than I wanted too...
Hillary is definitely a problem. She was so far left on so many views and as soon as she started running for the big office it was a whole different face. That should scare us all more than anything. I am a Republican and vote a lot on my faith and such. Abortion is a big issue with me and how a church going person could ever vote for a pro-choice candidate is beyond me. I would like to see someone step forward that is better than the crap we have out there now to choose from.
Oh, and Bush has never "flip flopped"?
Like, say, campaigning in 2000 on "No Nation Building". Then invading two countries and pouring billions of dollars and thousands of lives in to nation building.
Like being against a Department of Homeland Security until he decided to take the idea as his own.
Like constantly saying he "supports the troops", then sending them to battle without proper equipment and not funding VA hospitals to take care of them back home.
I could go on all day.
But by all means, trust Bush. After all, he's someone you'd want to have a beer with.
I don't have the time to research specific examples on that, but I see judgements of that sort on an almost weekly basis.
I'm one of those people who purposely isn't signing up for my share of the Microsoft lawsuit which was brought by the state of Iowa. I don't want any part of that money. If that tells you my views:wink0st: .
Beyond that, Kyle, the only thing that I think we can agree on is the Cyclones. Thank God for that.
Honestly, if we never went into battle without being fully prepared, there would never be another battle. No battleplan survives first contact with the enemy. Ever hear that one? Wars are continuously changing environments that have to be adjusted for on the fly. There you are just reciting the lines that you have been fed. I will say that the overall strategy in Iraq has had some serious flaws, but you are picking upon something that can never happen.
Not to say I'm voting Democrat (because I'm likely not), but I think the only realistic chance for the Democrats to take the Presidency in '08 is if somehow John Edwards miraculously wins the nomination. The problem with that is he's sitting in 3rd place right now, and with the "scandal" of him using campaign funds to finance his $400 haircuts, many are now questioning his fiscal responsibility.
I honestly don't think Hillary Clinton can beat a Republican for president. She has created way too many enemies. I have read on both CNN and FOX websites that if you aren't supporting her now, you probably won't be supporting her by the time the election rolls around. People seem to think that she will pull some of the conservative women away from the Republicans, but wouldn't the opposite be true, that she'd also repel liberal men/women who don't want to see a women become President? And before you think I'm spinning my wheels on liberal women not wanting to vote for a woman president, I have had conversations with feminist liberal women at Iowa State who would not vote for ANY woman candidate, much less Hillary Clinton, because they "didn't want them to have the launch codes to the nation's nuclear arsenal when she's going thru PMS." Honest to God, a feminist liberal woman said that exact thing to me.
The problem with Barack Obama is his experience - he has (as of now) 2 years in the Senate (as well as local political experience). Is that enough to develop his own national policies? I don't think so. I have read on both CNN and FOX websites that they believe Obama is losing momentum mostly because of his experience, but also because he rests so far on the left that he is out of touch with a good number of Americans.
As we've learned in both 2000 and 2004, it takes the Democrats a lot more than winning California and New York to win the Presidency. This is why those on the far left will have problems winning - it's difficult for them to win the so-called "flyover" states because their values tend to not match up with the majority of those that live in those states (If you remember, basically everything from Montana south to Arizona, East to Florida, and up to Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana was solid red). IMO, if the Democrats want to win the Presidency, they're going to have to nominate a more moderate candidate to steal states such as North and South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa. IMO, that leaves John Edwards, but like I said, I don't think he can get the Democratic nomination. We'll see what happens a year and a half from now...
Honestly, I'm a fan of Duncan Hunter. His beliefs closely match my beliefs. Unfortunately, I don't think he can win the Republican nomination, so as of right now I have no idea who I'm voting for... (and yes, if Hillary does happen to win the White House, I'm going to consider a move to Canada. I'll even consider Mexico...)
I honestly don't think Hillary Clinton can beat a Republican for president. She has created way too many enemies. I have read on both CNN and FOX websites that if you aren't supporting her now, you probably won't be supporting her by the time the election rolls around. People seem to think that she will pull some of the conservative women away from the Republicans, but wouldn't the opposite be true, that she'd also repel liberal men/women who don't want to see a women become President? And before you think I'm spinning my wheels on liberal women not wanting to vote for a woman president, I have had conversations with feminist liberal women at Iowa State who would not vote for ANY woman candidate, much less Hillary Clinton, because they "didn't want them to have the launch codes to the nation's nuclear arsenal when she's going thru PMS." Honest to God, a feminist liberal woman said that exact thing to me.
The problem with Barack Obama is his experience - he has (as of now) 2 years in the Senate (as well as local political experience). Is that enough to develop his own national policies? I don't think so. I have read on both CNN and FOX websites that they believe Obama is losing momentum mostly because of his experience, but also because he rests so far on the left that he is out of touch with a good number of Americans.
As we've learned in both 2000 and 2004, it takes the Democrats a lot more than winning California and New York to win the Presidency. This is why those on the far left will have problems winning - it's difficult for them to win the so-called "flyover" states because their values tend to not match up with the majority of those that live in those states (If you remember, basically everything from Montana south to Arizona, East to Florida, and up to Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana was solid red). IMO, if the Democrats want to win the Presidency, they're going to have to nominate a more moderate candidate to steal states such as North and South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa. IMO, that leaves John Edwards, but like I said, I don't think he can get the Democratic nomination. We'll see what happens a year and a half from now...
Honestly, I'm a fan of Duncan Hunter. His beliefs closely match my beliefs. Unfortunately, I don't think he can win the Republican nomination, so as of right now I have no idea who I'm voting for... (and yes, if Hillary does happen to win the White House, I'm going to consider a move to Canada. I'll even consider Mexico...)
I may be wrong on this, but what I had heard was that the initial Iraq plan was to have a 2 pronged invasion. One from Saudi Arabia and more coming from Turkey to the north. The thought being the north group would be able to keep a lot of people/supplies from escaping to Syria or wherever. Well, Turkey wanted no part of that, so we just went the way we did, didn't effectively stop the flow of stuff to Syria and blamed it all on the Turks. It seems to me that if something like that happens, you may need to spend more time to figure out a better plan before rushing in to kill Saddam quickly.
Other major mistakes that I see were disbanding the army and not allowing any Baath party members to remain in the government. Obviously the higher ranking party members needed to go, but the lower ones who only joined the party to get a job and may have had the skills to organize things better should not have been removed.
I think we're basically screwed in Iraq now. I think a best case scenario is Biden's idea (though I don't support him for the Democratic nomination). Split Iraq into three areas and split the oil revenue fairly. Even this would require forces to remain ready so that the parties behave. I don't even know if this is realistic though. I'm sure there are plenty of religious areas that neither party would want to give up. I don't see how this united government is going to work out over there. It just seems to have too many problems.
Here is a question for you, if McCain or Giuliani win the Republican nomination (and I have a hard time seeing how they do unless some Dems switch over for primaries), will that drop the conservative voter turnout? Would a strong conservative candidate run as a third party (Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson)? I think it will be a very interesting election season.
Fred Thompson intrigues me. More conservative than I'd probably go for, but he just seems like a good person and not so much of a politician. Barack Obama is the same way. More liberal than I'd probably go for, but he just seems like a good person and not so much of a politician.
The first Clinton was a rather moderate democrat, and as far as I know Hillary is not remarkably left wing. I think people just percieve her that way. Obama and Edwards are probably both farther left in a lot of ways.
I find it funny that so many people's votes are based on this single issue, especially when there is virtually nothing that can be done about it right now aside from appointing different Supreme Court justices. Even with some new justices, don't look for Roe to be overturned anytime soon. By my count the court would probably go 6-3 in favor of upholding Roe right now, as Roberts would probably take the Kennedy approach.
