ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics
-
Certainly if he allowed Clinton to back him, I believe more of the Democrat base would have supported him. However, if I recall correctly, feminists are quite a number in the democrat bloc and perhaps he tried to gain their support. What with the Lewinsky scandal and the feminists were baying for Clinton's blood. It might have been remedied if Hillary Clinton came out as well to support Gore.Originally posted by walesa:I think the bigger flaw stems from Al Gore's campaign - by distancing himself from Clinton, he made himself unavailable to most (if not all) of the key players who had propelled Clinton to office in 1992. Of course, the worse thing he could have done was to prevent Clinton, who'd readily made himself available, from campaigning for him. Besides, I'm unconvinced if Al Gore had had James Carville (the strategist who had propelled Clinton to office in '92 and re-election in '96) on board running his strategy, he'd have lost.
Of course, it's easy for me to talk about that on hindsight, but if you consider the fact that Gore lost by 537 votes in Florida - a state where more than 100, 000 votes went to Ralph Nader - and numerous other close losses elsewhere (and Gore had the simple majority, mind), the whole Clinton economic legacy could have just tipped things his way.
The whole notion of the GOP paddling their religious drivel to the fundamentalists doesn't really strike a chord with me despite it covering 10% of the eligible electorate because it's hard to track how many of those eligible in this category actually turned up to vote on election day. Referring to the above paragraph, it's pretty clear - to me, at least - Al Gore's indiscretions which could have swung things his way. Ironically, if you needed an indication (Gore was needlessly worried about the female votes considering the Lewinsky affair), more women had actually voted for him in 2000 than those who did for Clinton's re-election bid in '96 - it's indeed a shame, among his other oversights, he placed too much of an emphasis on the women's votes.
Not entirely sure what was the state of the Democrat leadership then but the Republican political machinery managed to side track the debate into a values debate (pretty much what the PAP does every election) which the Democrats lost. It's little wonder that Hillary Clinton herself tried to play the values thing especially when she tried (foolhardy in my opinion) to ban violent video games or something like that.
Apparently, from some articles I read, the Republicans, at least for the 2004 election, went as far as getting vehicles to transport their supporters to the booths. The trouble with the electoral system of course, is that voting is not compulsory. It's one thing to get supporters, it is another to get them to vote. -
You have to be a registered voter, they are the ones that vote for either party. most poll would conduct from the pool of the registered voter.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Certainly if he allowed Clinton to back him, I believe more of the Democrat base would have supported him. However, if I recall correctly, feminists are quite a number in the democrat bloc and perhaps he tried to gain their support. What with the Lewinsky scandal and the feminists were baying for Clinton's blood. It might have been remedied if Hillary Clinton came out as well to support Gore.
Not entirely sure what was the state of the Democrat leadership then but the Republican political machinery managed to side track the debate into a values debate (pretty much what the PAP does every election) which the Democrats lost. It's little wonder that Hillary Clinton herself tried to play the values thing especially when she tried (foolhardy in my opinion) to ban violent video games or something like that.
Apparently, from some articles I read, the Republicans, at least for the 2004 election, went as far as getting vehicles to transport their supporters to the booths. The trouble with the electoral system of course, is that voting is not compulsory. It's one thing to get supporters, it is another to get them to vote. -
Well, there has to be an incentive to vote... as it isn't compulsory voting.Originally posted by Arapahoe:You have to be a registered voter, they are the ones that vote for either party. most poll would conduct from the pool of the registered voter. -
HmmÂ….perspectiveÂ…Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Actually, Hillary is riding a lot on Bill Clinton's popularity.... and it's kinda of hard for him not to overshadow her during the campaign walks
As for Obama, some Aussies on another forum regard the Australian PM as a class one idiot. Actually they consider most of the political establishment as idiots. The reason being is that Howard is feeling weak politically at home with rising domestic resistance to Australian involvement of the war and the rising popularity of his political opponents made him attempt to pander to Bush. I mean, he is one of Bush's pet dogs.
Actually, CNN and FoxNews are right wing..... and FoxNews hates the Democrats.... It's not because the Democrats have the most money really. Even news networks know that hte tide of public opinion is against the war.
I donÂ’t think Hillary is riding on Bill but more because she is might be the first female commander in chief. She is gaining popularity from different demographic that cut across party line. infact i think her last name maybe a drag rather than positively influence. Voters does not want another Bush nor Clinton to be in the whitehouse.
As for Bill his popularity maybe stronger in Asia especially after he stepped down in contrast with Walker Bush. But after 911, public took a 2nd look and the continue developing of Nuke in NK did not help his popularity within the USÂ…..but left with Monica. Both houses were dominated by Republican because voter could not find a cohesive democrats agenda.
Bill was probably more fortunate during his white house term, For economics success, I would attribute more to James Rubin abilities to reduce interest payment on national debt, and Greenspan abilities to keep interest low during the BillÂ’s years, all these help for the fed to balance budget. Bill was also fortunate that the global economy was ridding on IT growth and increase productivities. I believe the one bill was probably his legacy was 401K Plan.
As for fiscal cut, (as a matter of perspective) I think he cut too steep into CIA cold war intelligent ops. That may have weakened Intel capabilities on highlighting other threats to the United States. Especially some of the FBI/CIA works. There was serious critical report came up but than it was the beginning of a cool down period between Russia and US. Spooks were out of job. It may have contributed to Clinton miss-calculated the threats and did not response strong enough to take out Osama when he had the chance. For that he has to live with it.
I think in the US money is important to run campaign look at the campaign contribution fund they generated. Its a Lot of Money. CNN (Clinton News Network) only Fox audience is republican base. News media know how to project their candidates in a positive limelight. Opera Winfrey came out to support Obama with fund raising dinner of US$2400 a plate that is hard to bit. So money and media are important.
I think if one held a democrats view, we tend to see the positive side of it, and if you held a Republican view than it is easy to see the other way. For democrats I think I will look for the underdog “John Edward” -
John Edward? Ewww... that guy is a fluff. Can't stand him whatsoever. He's the ultra-liberal type which I particularly despise. Total detachment from the realities of the situation. He was totally useless during the last John Kerry campaign. Heck, John Kerry should have picked someone else. I won't even consider him an underdog. He jolly well better be a nobody. Thank God he's not much really popular beyond a few states. Not least, that guy is .... ugh.. a total light weight in politics. You hardly see him in any of the important bills.
Hillary not getting a boost from Bill Clinton? I'm not so sure about that. Most of the American newspaper articles pretty much show that Hillary Clinton is in the lead running for the Democrat nomination, while Obama next, and John Edwards even further. That was a recent poll. A recent article in the Times magazine (US edition) show that she brings him around a fair bit, and quite a lot of people cheer for him. Even if she doesn't derive much support because of her ties to Bill Clinton, the latter is certainly helping her plan the campaign, which is a key advantage for her.
Actually, contrary to popular opinion, the CIA/FBI have been bumbling fools all the while, never mind cuts or no cuts. Things got even worse under George W Bush because he politicised the entire CIA/FBI what with his incompetent appointees. The Iraq war evidence is the largest piece of shit in a long time. They simply fired anyone who disagreed with the analysis given by Cheney and his goons. -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:John Edward? Ewww... that guy is a fluff. Can't stand him whatsoever. He's the ultra-liberal type which I particularly despise. Total detachment from the realities of the situation. He was totally useless during the last John Kerry campaign. Heck, John Kerry should have picked someone else. I won't even consider him an underdog. He jolly well better be a nobody. Thank God he's not much really popular beyond a few states. Not least, that guy is .... ugh.. a total light weight in politics. You hardly see him in any of the important bills.
Hillary not getting a boost from Bill Clinton? I'm not so sure about that. Most of the American newspaper articles pretty much show that Hillary Clinton is in the lead running for the Democrat nomination, while Obama next, and John Edwards even further. That was a recent poll. A recent article in the Times magazine (US edition) show that she brings him around a fair bit, and quite a lot of people cheer for him. Even if she doesn't derive much support because of her ties to Bill Clinton, the latter is certainly helping her plan the campaign, which is a key advantage for her.
Actually, contrary to popular opinion, the CIA/FBI have been bumbling fools all the while, never mind cuts or no cuts. Things got even worse under George W Bush because he politicised the entire CIA/FBI what with his incompetent appointees. The Iraq war evidence is the largest piece of shit in a long time. They simply fired anyone who disagreed with the analysis given by Cheney and his goons. that is why he is underdog.
Right now it is difficult to see because they are campaning within their own party pulling supporter from one another so we always see crowd of supporters. She has to keep Bill by herside right now because public need to see candidates as a couple. also to keep him out of trouble ha ha. Remember the port ownership issue i believe clinton was the paid advisor.
I think intel from post 911 was weaked and it was further cooked and politised by Rumsfield and Cheny. I do believe that Intel during the cold war was really strong and they had connection with islamic group. Remember after 911 CIA have nothing on Afg at all. -
Afghanistan was largely done through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There might have been contacts but not a whole lot. In fact, after the Soviets withdrew, the CIA couldn't recover all the American weapons. I am of the opinion that the Afghan operation really... was a stupid mistake.Originally posted by Arapahoe: that is why he is underdog.
Right now it is difficult to see because they are campaning within their own party pulling supporter from one another so we always see crowd of supporters. She has to keep Bill by herside right now because public need to see candidates as a couple. also to keep him out of trouble ha ha. Remember the port ownership issue i believe clinton was the paid advisor.
I think intel from post 911 was weaked and it was further cooked and politised by Rumsfield and Cheny. I do believe that Intel during the cold war was really strong and they had connection with islamic group. Remember after 911 CIA have nothing on Afg at all. -
Wrong. Highest employment rate and highest salaries exists today, not during the Clinton years.Originally posted by walesa:You're really making me laugh.
Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, lowest inflation rate since the Kennedy administration, highest average wages across the board for all ethnicity, first administration to churn out bugdet surpluses instead of deficits since Lyndon Johnson (and that's before you consider Clinton transformed the greatest budget deficits ever to the highest budget surpluses ever during his term of office) and more people going to college than any point in time. All that for the world's strongest economy (perhaps, you need reminding the economy of scale we're talking about here). That's not an economic legacy worthy of mention?
If the drivel you've been espousing is what this regime's propaganda mouthpieces have been feeding you, I can surely understand why they're ranked 154th in the world for press freedom.
If you study US economy and politics carefully, clinton did nothing for the economy. The boom under his admin came about thru the spill over effect of the Reagan and Bush years and the IT boom. The Clinton administration was not able to even sustain the boom and we actually saw a shortage of power in California under Democrats. Recession actually set in during the Clinton admin itself. -
Good discussion and views of current US politics.
My bet is, Hilliary will win with Obama as VP. -
Huh? You do realise that the US is a federation of states, and what one state does for its own energy policy isn't quite the responsibility of the Federal Government?Originally posted by Mat Toro:Wrong. Highest employment rate and highest salaries exists today, not during the Clinton years.
If you study US economy and politics carefully, clinton did nothing for the economy. The boom under his admin came about thru the spill over effect of the Reagan and Bush years and the IT boom. The Clinton administration was not able to even sustain the boom and we actually saw a shortage of power in California under Democrats. Recession actually set in during the Clinton admin itself.
The Democrat, as a political party, is quite a fragmented one, since each Senator, Governor, etc. is actually answerable to the electorate? Same goes for the Republicans? I mean, even the current Republican Governor of California makes more deals with the Democrat legislators of California more than the Republican legislators.
As for sustaining the boom, the bursting of the IT bubble was quite out of the Government hands. You can't really blame them for anything, and many of the institutions exercise a fair degree of independence. This isn't Singapore you know, where the PAP exercises maximum control over everything.
And during the last 2 years of the Clinton Administration, the Republican controlled Congress simply stonewalled just about anything the Clinton Administration put out, and set the course for how the conservative right steamrolled just about anything for the last 6 years.
If there is something that Clinton can claim to, is that he reaped some of the largest surpluses the US Govt has ever had thanks to prudent spending. Contrast that against Reagan who simply spent tonnes of cash on military and other stuff and lowered taxes. The same went for the current administration.
The thing I believe I have noticed, is that the US Federal Government has very little control over the economy in general, and they only have some degree of macro control. I am no economist, but I have noticed that the economy of each state is highly dependent on how each state runs it. The Federal Bank (incidentally, the US Federal Government may appoint the Federal Board, but it does not exercise control or even own it.) is an extension of the macro control of the economy. -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Wrong, it was under the govt control. Right after Bush came along, he cut taxes and the recovery took less than a year. It was the fastest every recovery in history of US. And that came after 911. In other words, the Clinton administration was sleeping on the job and was simply riding on the good policies of Reagan and Bush.
As for sustaining the boom, the bursting of the IT bubble was quite out of the Government hands. You can't really blame them for anything, and many of the institutions exercise a fair degree of independence. This isn't Singapore you know, where the PAP exercises maximum control over everything.
Not true. They only blocked those bad policies. Did Clinton admin initiate any tax cuts to boost the economy? Never! They supported Clinton in the war on Serbia.
And during the last 2 years of the Clinton Administration, the Republican controlled Congress simply stonewalled just about anything the Clinton Administration put out, and set the course for how the conservative right steamrolled just about anything for the last 6 years.
If you are in the US, it is common knowledge that Clinton had no legacy asnd is still searching for one cos the people know that the economic performance was not his policies.
If there is something that Clinton can claim to, is that he reaped some of the largest surpluses the US Govt has ever had thanks to prudent spending. Contrast that against Reagan who simply spent tonnes of cash on military and other stuff and lowered taxes. The same went for the current administration.
Reagan was praised for his arms policies today. Thats why he was so honored by both Republicans and Democrats.
There are state taxes and federal taxes. Both play a part and the federal taxes do play a huge part.
The thing I believe I have noticed, is that the US Federal Government has very little control over the economy in general, and they only have some degree of macro control. I am no economist, but I have noticed that the economy of each state is highly dependent on how each state runs it. The Federal Bank (incidentally, the US Federal Government may appoint the Federal Board, but it does not exercise control or even own it.) is an extension of the macro control of the economy.[/b]
The Fed bank do indeed play a part, thats why Greenspan was so powerful and so highly watched. -
Double post
-
I am going to have to ask you to bring up your own evidence on it. Saying this wrong and that wrong and not backing it up is simply superfluous. And if you claim that they were sleeping on the job, they must be sleeping so well that the budget turned in a surplus, of which has a lot to do with how the federal government controlled it.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Wrong, it was under the govt control. Right after Bush came along, he cut taxes and the recovery took less than a year. It was the fastest every recovery in history of US. And that came after 911. In other words, the Clinton administration was sleeping on the job and was simply riding on the good policies of Reagan and Bush.
And here's something I just dug up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993 He increased taxes for the rich, but reduced for the low income and the small businesses. This bill was credited with reducing the deficit and government spending and turned in the biggest surpluses in American history.
Guess what, no Republican voted, and despite warnings of a recession, none turned up. So quit spitting Right Wing rhetoric. You have been doing so from the top to the bottom of this thread.
Moreover, the way you describe the market is as if the federal government is in total control of the situation. YOu are expecting the federal government to tell the people not to invest in what not? The IT bubble was something created by private investors and the consequences reaped by them.Not true. They only blocked those bad policies. Did Clinton admin initiate any tax cuts to boost the economy? Never! They supported Clinton in the war on Serbia.
And they also blocked "bad" environmental policies and other policies including a nuclear treaty which left a very bad after taste. The mood in the congress was so anti-Clinton that after George W. Bush took power they started dismantling just about anything that smacked of Clinton, starting with foreign policy. US International Reputation fell down soon thereafter.
Not least, they started cutting back on funding on college education federal grants and etc. etc. etc. etc. Only Republicans cut back on social funding, and democrats increase it.
You are going to have to read who's writing the articles, and determine that the fools who wrote them are the same fools who have single handedly now sent the nation into a huge debt like right now.There are state taxes and federal taxes. Both play a part and the federal taxes do play a huge part.
When I meant little control, I meant micro wise. Macro was probably where they had the most.
The Fed bank do indeed play a part, thats why Greenspan was so powerful and so highly watched. -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
The budget turned surplus due to the policies carried over by the Reagan admin. The reason why there was a surplus was because the house blocked pork barrel spendings on the Clinton admin.
I am going to have to ask you to bring up your own evidence on it. Saying this wrong and that wrong and not backing it up is simply superfluous. And if you claim that they were sleeping on the job, they must be sleeping so well that the budget turned in a surplus, of which has a lot to do with how the federal government controlled it.
Its coincidental with the later IT boom which has nothing to do with the govt.
And here's something I just dug up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993 He increased taxes for the rich, but reduced for the low income and the small businesses. This bill was credited with reducing the deficit and government spending and turned in the biggest surpluses in American history.
Guess what, no Republican voted, and despite warnings of a recession, none turned up. So quit spitting Right Wing rhetoric. You have been doing so from the top to the bottom of this thread.
Had they not introduced teh bill, the boom would had been even greater.
How do we know? Every time taxes were cut in US, the economy boomed.
I never said total control, you did.
Moreover, the way you describe the market is as if the federal government is in total control of the situation. YOu are expecting the federal government to tell the people not to invest in what not? The IT bubble was something created by private investors and the consequences reaped by them.
really? they didn't back track on kyoto and they didn't back track on foreign policy either.
And they also blocked "bad" environmental policies and other policies including a nuclear treaty which left a very bad after taste. The mood in the congress was so anti-Clinton that after George W. Bush took power they started dismantling just about anything that smacked of Clinton, starting with foreign policy. US International Reputation fell down soon thereafter.
Wrong again. Social funding hit record highs under Bush.
Not least, they started cutting back on funding on college education federal grants and etc. etc. etc. etc. Only Republicans cut back on social funding, and democrats increase it.
You sure didn't follow US politics did you? -
I asked you for evidence damn it. In this entire thread, you have been giving one no after another and you haven't given any damn article. Where the frak did you read any of this crap shit? Some right wing journal that is the stuff of fancies of the conservatives?Originally posted by Mat Toro:The budget turned surplus due to the policies carried over by the Reagan admin. The reason why there was a surplus was because the house blocked pork barrel spendings on the Clinton admin.
What frakking policies? What pork barrel spendings? I can't find any accusation by anyone that he performed pork barrel spendings. List them down here then we talk. List thoroughly or else nothing you say is worth a dime.Its coincidental with the later IT boom which has nothing to do with the govt.
Post your damn proof. This bill had taxes cut for the lower class and for small businesses which provide a strong bulk of the employment in the US. The end result was a huge surplus. Please tell me why a huge surplus should appear when you claim he merely rode on their policies. And one more thing, budget surplus depend quite nearly entirely on the previous year's budget policy.
Had they not introduced teh bill, the boom would had been even greater.
How do we know? Every time taxes were cut in US, the economy boomed.
And yet when taxes were cut, these Republican presidents were unable to balance the budget because they continued heavy spending on the military and other things. Typical Republican budget policies.
And give historical evidence that taxes cut = economy boomed. Such a correlation is overly simplistic.
And guess what, George H W Bush did raise taxes at the end of his term in an attempt to address the growing deficit:Several other factors were key in his defeat, including agreeing in 1990 to raise taxes despite his famous "Read my lips: no new taxes" pledge not to institute any new taxes. In doing so, Bush alienated many members of his conservative base, losing their support for his re-election. Bush raised taxes in an attempt to address an ever-increasing budget deficit, which some attributed the to the Reagan tax cuts and military spending of the 1980s. George Bush had been supported in 1988 by conservatives to continue the Reagan revolution, and was seen as a failure in this regard. Ironically, Bush had previously admonished Reagan's supply side tax cuts in the 1980 presidential primary when he referred to Reagan's tax proposals as "voodoo economics."
How many times are you going to ignore what I said before? Reagan spent so much money on the military he sent the country into a huge debt. Under the Clinton administration, the US actually managed to pay off some of that debt, only to have George W. Bush erase all of that. Do note that George W. Bush practically replicated some of the older Republican policies.really? they didn't back track on kyoto and they didn't back track on foreign policy either.
Oh really? The Kyoto treaty was never ratified, since the Republicans were pro-business. The foreign policy? Good lord have you been sleeping the last 10 years? Foreign policy under the Bush administration was a complete polar opposite compared to the Clinton administration's.
For someone who painted all the democrats as bumbling fools in the Californian electric shortage crisis, that is rich. More so for a person who is totally ignorant of history and fires one accusation after another without producing any evidence.
Wrong again. Social funding hit record highs under Bush.
You sure didn't follow US politics did you?
Are you in the business of rewriting history ? Or are you pretending to be knowledgeable? For one claiming to be, you are doing a really bad job at making it seem like it. -
Thats right, Kyoto was never ratified, there was never any wabering on this policy.
And social spending did hit record highs under Bush. Thats why the GOP lost the last house and senate elections last year. Sure you know US politics? -
My mind boggles at your ability to debate.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Thats right, Kyoto was never ratified, there was never any wabering on this policy.
And social spending did hit record highs under Bush. Thats why the GOP lost the last house and senate elections last year. Sure you know US politics?
Would you please also tell me which bush you are talking about? There are two of them.
And yes, I currently am in the US right now, read US newspapers like NYTimes and Washington times and maybe a sporadic others. What more do you like to know?
No matter... I'll leave walsea to to do that job of squashing you flat, if he even cares to. -
You mean you are in the US and you did not know that Bush was unpopular because of the high spendings?
-
I say again, could you tell me what the frak are talking about? What are you even telling me? Which damn Bush? There are two of them? I have been assuming the father and not his idiot son from the start of your arguments and now I am confused.Originally posted by Mat Toro:You mean you are in the US and you did not know that Bush was unpopular because of the high spendings?
If you are refering to the current Bush, his unpopularity stems from his bungling of a whole lot of issues, not least his nepotism and what not. Spending? Sure... his military spending sure sent the US budget into a deficit worth hundreds of billions.
You have a bloody habit of ignoring what people say and just gloss over it. Talking to you merely hurts my brain. -
the number one issue that made the GOP lose votes was the high social spendings.
The people never complained about supporting the troops at war.
Come on, I'm in singapore and I know, how come you stay in usa and dunno?
Please be honest ok? Are you anti Bush or what? -
that would not happen, I think it is hard for 2 first don't u think. I think there can only be one. Hiliary is a possiblilities. Bill Clinton got the supporter of african american. So the black voters might be indifferent between Obama and hiliary, depend upon which states.Originally posted by Mat Toro:Good discussion and views of current US politics.
My bet is, Hilliary will win with Obama as VP.
its hard right now for me to see Hiliary can work with either candidates but we shall see. -
The only thing that Iranians hate more than their own Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejads are Americans. So what makes you think they'll rid the two, when the Americans are active right at their backyard.Originally posted by Rephidim:Iran is waiting for some of the US troops to pull out so that they can start their middle east dominance campaign. The Sunnis and Shites will be at each other's throats and the local militia in Iraq will not be able to control an ensuing civil war if the US army weakens its presence in the area.
I suggest that they strengthen their hold in Iraq until the megalomaniac regime in Iran is replaced by a more moderate successor. The problem is that now the US is facing major backlash internally. The democrats are sabotaging the republicans for their own agenda to garner support based on the war fatigue and fading support for Bush.
Will the democrats be able to handle the situation in Iraq if they take over the White House as they have done with the Senate? The Senate is one thing, they can give Bush headaches in domestic problems, but if they are the decision makers in Washington, I think the US will sooner -
Here's me analysis.
back in 2004, even a lousy candidate like John Kerry can garner a strong fight against Bush. If you look at the electorate in 08, the democrat supporter base will get stronger with the growth of women and hispanic population.
Hilliary will probably win the nomination in the primaries and she will have to appease the black voters by incorporating Obama as running mate.
All these add up to a hilliary win in 08. -
I think the number one issue why the GOP lost votes is - IRAQ! Americans are sick and tired of the war, the President's poll numbers are down to the low 30s and opposition to the war for the last 2 years has been at an all time high.Originally posted by Mat Toro:the number one issue that made the GOP lose votes was the high social spendings.
The people never complained about supporting the troops at war.
Come on, I'm in singapore and I know, how come you stay in usa and dunno?
Please be honest ok? Are you anti Bush or what? -
Don't bet on it. Hillary has been around for a while, which means lotsa skeletons in the closet. Think John Kerry and the swift boat ads in 2004