Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't believe that you don't believe me. 😐

Is anyone else here discussing how our US government is run? I thought we made progress in our discussion. I am also learning your thoughts on subjects that I do not discuss very often. People that I know do not know nearly as much as I do about how the government works so I am always hard pressed for actual political discussion.

This is the democratic nomination thread so I thought that I would throw out an example of political strategy because I was getting bored with the current topic.

You said that the Supreme court is not the best option, as though you had thought of better options and I wanted to hear those. If you were just full of hot gas and didn't really have anything, there is no harm in admitting that.

As for your other statements...yes, things like the elastic clause has kept the Supreme court busy. Slowly but surely, we are getting closer to where there isn't really big decisions to be made about the laws we have in place. We do have cases that go to the supreme court that do sometimes change how the law is fundamentally enforced or interpreted...but not too often.

On another note:

Clinton won the popular vote in the Nevada Caucus but Obama won the majority of delagates.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120077137909103115.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Most places reported that Hilary had won but the vote that really counted was the delagate vote and Obama won that.

Clinton leads in delagate votes with 236.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Clinton leads in delagate votes with 236.

clap

Hilary is on her way. 🙂

Results of the Nevada Democratic Caucus (98% precincts reporting)

Hillary Clinton: 51% (5,355 votes)
Barack Obama: 45% (4,773)
John Edwards: 4% (396)
Uncommitted: 0% (31)
Dennis Kucinich: 0% (5)

Does anyone else think that's an awfully low turnout?

EDIT: Those numbers are in county delegates to the state convention, not actual vote numbers.

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
clap

Hilary is on her way. 🙂

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not a good thing. Seeing as she is a major idiot.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Ron Paul's a major lunatic.

His points are reasonable, sensible and beneficial. Hillary is Bush with more government spending for poor people on top of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, just no.

His points are reasonable, sensible and beneficial. Hillary is Bush with more government spending for poor people on top of it.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well you made a statement that I believe to be patently untrue, so I thought I'd return in kind 😄

I elaborated on it.

Ron Paul is a quasi-anarchist who seems to think that the best course of action is for America to shut itself off from the world. Hillary believes in good government and international cooperation.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Ron Paul is a quasi-anarchist who seems to think that the best course of action is for America to shut itself off from the world. Hillary believes in good government and international cooperation.

Good government is not defined. What Hillary believes in is War in foreign Nations and Nation building. Large government spending for all sorts of charitable things she likes. And of course tax raises. She's probably one of the closest to Communism in the whole run. Ron Paul is close to Anarchy, though that is not a bad thing. He supports everyone's rights and responsibility for their own life. People can't always run to the government for it to set their lives straight. It's not the duty of the successful to pay for the poor.

well the "good government" thing is just a philosophy that government should not be the enemy. There is absolutely nothing to suggest communism in Clinton's philosophies.

Originally posted by Strangelove
well the "good government" thing is just a philosophy that government should not be the enemy. There is absolutely nothing to suggest communism in Clinton's philosophies.

There actually is, channeling of wealth, etc.

Certainly strongly socialist. No denying that.

And good government is an empty phrase. A libertarian finds his kind of government just as good as a socialist finds theirs.

Socialism and communism aren't interchangeable. And it's not "channeling" wealth. It's called changing the tax code back to what it used to be before Bush handed a huge tax cut to the top 1%.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Socialism and communism aren't interchangeable. And it's not "channeling" wealth. It's called changing the tax code back to what it used to be before Bush handed a huge tax cut to the top 1%.

That doesn't change the fact that she wants to take away their money and give it to other people who didn't work for it.

And no, socialism and communism are not interchangable, but they have similar traits, some of which Hillary portrays.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That doesn't change the fact that she wants to take away their money and give it to other people who didn't work for it.

And no, socialism and communism are not interchangable, but they have similar traits, some of which Hillary portrays.

Originally posted by Strangelove
the richest people in the country pay about 25% of their income in taxes. Lower tax brackets pay about 35%. Would you call that fair?

No. Would like to see the statistics on that please.

And the solution would be to make the lower income brackets pay 25% too, not make the rich ones pay 35%.

Originally posted by Strangelove
the richest people in the country pay about 25% of their income in taxes. Lower tax brackets pay about 35%. Would you call that fair?

afaik (and in Canada at least), this isn't all rich people, just those who take advantage of the lucrative tax loopholes. Its not the set rate, but more the "back door" method.

Not to support them either, but in theory, these loopholes allow the rich (re: the only people capable of this) to invest more money into the economy and produce growth. To be honest, if capitalism was still in it for long term infrastructure and profit, it would likely work.

Originally posted by Strangelove
the richest people in the country pay about 25% of their income in taxes. Lower tax brackets pay about 35%. Would you call that fair?

That is BS. In fact, the opposite. I was taxed at the 25% rate for my income and my bonuses were taxed at 42%. The more money I make, the higher the percentage of taxes.(In my case.)* Because I had a child last year, I am getting back ALL of my federal taxes. ALL of it. My tax deductible amount was $10700. If I would have paid that much in taxes last year, I would have gotten that all back. Last year(For the 2006 tax year.) was almost the same...I only had one dependant during that year and I got almost all of that money back.

Taxes, at least for me, have gotten better since Bush has been my president.

If you can provide statistics for your information, then I am the exception because I have two children.

*Yes, I know my employer does this for me.

So you earn between 30 and 80 thousand?