it's the return of plumb_dumb
10 pages in, and I still have no clue what socialism is.
Shows how important this thread is.
What about capping campaign budgets?
And TWD, a country can't function without socialism.
Let's not fall into the trap our libertarian friends make that any kind of government program is socialism. Socialism is where the government controls the means of production and effectively manages the economy. In socialism the government is responsible for the well being of the people instead of people being responsible for themselves. Building a road is not necessarily socialism as long as the means of production are still provided by the free market.
You said he would have won without more money.you claim that I'm ignoring the money he raised.
I'm not. obviously raising more than your opponent helps. but this point is so obvious that I didn't feel there was any reason to go out of my way to address it in the beginning.
I honestly don't really care about historical precedence. We shouldn't make historical leaps just because we can. If a person is wrong for the job, they are wrong for the job. McCain's problem from the very beginning was message penetration. Minorities and young people only knew what Obama told them McCain's positions were and that is the position you have to be in to win.but I am also claiming that you are ignoring the historical precedence of the 2008 election; historical on both fronts. democrats had the first black man and republicans had the first woman. the combination of first black man (who wasn't a token black man like Herman Cain) plus HORRIBLE woman and inability of John McCain to connect with minorities and young people played AT LEAST as big a role as the money raised.
The irony of what you just posted is that it's probably accurate to say that both Romney and Obama will do things that you agree with, but both of them "must do some thing that [you] dislike".I don't know where you (and people on the right) get off with all this hyperbole when it concerns what Obama does as a politician on his journey toward political power. you think we (on the left-ish side) are supposed to swallow our pride and admit shame in the face of supporting a guy who had some Wall Street help.
why?
I believe my candidate is superior to yours. and it's unfortunate that our election process is so flawed that he must do some things that I dislike in order to get to the place where he might be able to change those things a little bit at a time.
I don't see how this automatically means that I am sacrificing my principles.
we all have to live in the world as it is currently designed.
I think the problem is that in the American system a vote is for a person not a party. That person (theoretically anyone) can go straight to the top.
Money can buy success.
Here if you want the top job you have to start local and work your way up. Even then we vote for a party. It's true the personality of the leader does make a difference but they can't buy their success.
You said he would have won without more money.
well that's just stupid.I honestly don't really care about historical precedence.
we didn't elect Obama "just because we could."We shouldn't make historical leaps just because we can.
sure.The irony of what you just posted is that it's probably accurate to say that both Romney and Obama will do things that you agree with, but both of them "must do some thing that [you] dislike".
I can disagree with the system while still supporting my candidate.condemning Romney for having and raising lots of money during the campaign and crying eagle tears about how the Presidency is bought and paid for by corporations, then wholeheartedly supporting a candidate that does the exact same thing. If you can look past it for one person, to not be hypocritical, you must look past it for any person.
I don't recall anyone saying he w
I don't know where you (and people on the right) get off with all this hyperbole when it concerns what Obama does as a politician on his journey toward political power. you think we (on the left-ish side) are supposed to swallow our pride and admit shame in the face of supporting a guy who had some Wall Street help.
why?
I believe my candidate is superior to yours. and it's unfortunate that our election process is so flawed that he must do some things that I dislike in order to get to the place where he might be able to change those things a little bit at a time.
I don't see how this automatically means that I am sacrificing my principles.
we all have to live in the world as it is currently designed.
I have a feeling that this coming week will one of the most exciting weeks in politics this country has ever seen. I can't wait!
democrats had the first black man and republicans had the first woman. the combination of first black man (who wasn't a token black man like Herman Cain) plus HORRIBLE woman and inability of John McCain to connect with minorities and young people played AT LEAST as big a role as the money raised.
I blame you for not providing nearly enough breasts to save this otherwise doomed topic. lol,,
(who wasn't a token black man like Herman Cain)
oh.Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman to run on a national ticket, as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984. Not sure if you knew this already.
What on earth do you mean by that?
Ehhh.....no.
I said he could have raised a lot less than he did and still won.
So you were saying "He could have raised less than half of his money" in other words and effectively, he could have raised less money than McCain/Palin and still won. Which I disagree with and, historically speaking, is wrong.yes, and the point is that he didn't need half those dollars.
Historical precedent makes people feel good but it doesn't actually do anything valuable for the country, which is all I really care about out of our President.well that's just stupid.
because historical precedent matters.
This was not stated nor implied. I just don't see "historical precedence" as a useful gauge for how important a particular election cycle is. Should we have Hobo Joe running for President this year because it would set a historical precedence?we didn't elect Obama "just because we could."
Hypocrisy is disagreeing with the system, and then berating one candidate for utilizing that system while giving the other candidate a pass simply because you like him. If you don't like Romney, fine. There are probably many positions he has now or has previously held that you can reasonably disagree with without even approaching the "money raised" topic.I can disagree with the system while still supporting my candidate.
it's not hypocrisy.