Next US President

[zeusbheld]

this time around, i don't think he'll make any difference in the outcome.

his support base is almost certainly already gonna vote for obama.

what if Hilary gets the nomination, . . . . . following the conest i feel a lot of the younger voters energised by Obama might stay home if she gets the nod !!

hilary's a bit of a longshot at this point. she'd have to utterly dominate in TX and OH to even keep it close in the race for delegates.

[zeusbheld]

....He does not demand universal participation and this could kill his chances cause it will not work as well (at all?) but Clinton's healthcare demands universal participation. I think this is critical to a universal healthcare.

problem is, what does 'demand universal participation' mean? to me, it means you don't have the option to opt out. *and* therefore you have to pay for it, regardless of how poor you are or how little money you make.

[Squirreloncrack]

sounds like you Zoos I nominate you

[Loburt]

....He does not demand universal participation and this could kill his chances cause it will not work as well (at all?) but Clinton's healthcare demands universal participation. I think this is critical to a universal healthcare.

problem is, what does 'demand universal participation' mean? to me, it means you don't have the option to opt out. *and* therefore you have to pay for it, regardless of how poor you are or how little money you make.

That's such a distortion. She's already said there will be credits and other mechanisms so that the poor aren't burdened.

And most analysis I've read says her plan is better.

But let's not bother with the facts. Let's just make something up to boost the cold and wicked Hillary caricature.

[Guest iamsamtoo]

As an outsider, it seems easier to see things in a different perspective. Outsiders never have bother with the fine print of internal policy. Its the foreign policy that is interesting to me (and for most outsiders, I imagine).

Taking a sweeping look at the past its not difficult to see that different presidents have acted differently (slightly) but the results are often the similar.

What surprised me about Dubya was how he did what others also used to do... but so openly. He never disguised it in anything other than idealism.

To me its simple... the players change but the rules of the game stay the same. A game of football with varying teams will always be football. It just seems to me that when it comes to a president's global impact, there isnt much variation for us who cant vote.

Who ever wins the next elections can't be any worse than Bush.

Or did i speak to soon :shock: I know one thing none of them have my vote.

never in the mood and probably be hiding in Thailand.

You want my guess? Its just getting warm. If McCain wins we'll all see a world much more troublesome than it is now. This is a person that seems to think his military experiences gives him an insight and a monopoly on comprehending the world. This is nothing short of a Carte Blanche for a trigger happy man with a short fuse and a finger on the button.

Can it get worse? You bet.

Now with Nader back in the race it might very well happen that he diverts enough votes to his cause to give McCain a stronger position... maybe even win this thing.

A sidenote

Citizens of every country with an american military presence should get the right to vote. Yes? No? :mrgreen:

[thitipat]

Who do you think will be the next President?

Clinton is favourite but then again while many like her I think that many dislike her. In other words I doubt she is many peoples second favourite. As others fall by the wayside, her relative popularity will fall.

I think it will be a democrat...

And most likely Obama...

I prefer Clinton . But...Obama may be next one.

[Guest iamsamtoo]

Guys, could you also mention briefly (or in detail) why you will be voting on either candidate? Im curious. Someone discussed the healthplans previously... anything else?

[thitipat]

Actually ,I not yet know about procedure of them. just cheer up Clinton because she is smart.

[zeusbheld]

....He does not demand universal participation and this could kill his chances cause it will not work as well (at all?) but Clinton's healthcare demands universal participation. I think this is critical to a universal healthcare.

problem is, what does 'demand universal participation' mean? to me, it means you don't have the option to opt out. *and* therefore you have to pay for it, regardless of how poor you are or how little money you make.

That's such a distortion. She's already said there will be credits and other mechanisms so that the poor aren't burdened.

And most analysis I've read says her plan is better.

But let's not bother with the facts. Let's just make something up to boost the cold and wicked Hillary caricature.

right then, let's not bother with her own words:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

[ling_dtua_khaao]

Well, it works in Canadian provinces. You can't opt out. Of course some people object on their own grounds, political, economic or philosophical.

Different provinces work differently in how you pay, so I can only comment on Ontario.

When I was growing up, people were assessed a health care premium. It worked just like any other insurance. If you were low income enough you were exempted.

In the late 1980s it became "free", paid from government coffers, so paid ultimately through the provincial share of general taxes (income, sales, etc.).

Premiums have come back again in the last five years, but assessed as a health care tax on your provincial income tax form. Only people above a certain income pay.

There's no need to use a system that requires separate garnishing of wages. Taxes do that anyway!

--Ling

[ling_dtua_khaao]

By the way, why isn't McCain on the poll?

I voted for Huckabee in the poll. We'd have a lot more to laugh about up here in Canada....

--Ling

[zeusbheld]

By the way, why isn't McCain on the poll?

a major oversight. but even more serious: why isn't there a BEER OPTION???

[Loburt]

....He does not demand universal participation and this could kill his chances cause it will not work as well (at all?) but Clinton's healthcare demands universal participation. I think this is critical to a universal healthcare.

problem is, what does 'demand universal participation' mean? to me, it means you don't have the option to opt out. *and* therefore you have to pay for it, regardless of how poor you are or how little money you make.

That's such a distortion. She's already said there will be credits and other mechanisms so that the poor aren't burdened.

And most analysis I've read says her plan is better.

But let's not bother with the facts. Let's just make something up to boost the cold and wicked Hillary caricature.

right then, let's not bother with her own words:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

Right, and did she say garnish the wages of "poor people" as you were alleging or middle class and upper class people who don't want to pay?

Do poor people also have to pay social security tax? Do they have tax credits and other mechanisms that help offset the cost of that?

Or should people be able to opt out of that too? If you think so, you support George Bush and the neocon's approach.

Have you asked those questions and looked at the policy, or you're gonna analyze the whole policy on one paragraph that contains less than a full sentence of a quote?

Either you want real universal health care or you don't. If you don't, vote for Obama.

[CiaranM]

....He does not demand universal participation and this could kill his chances cause it will not work as well (at all?) but Clinton's healthcare demands universal participation. I think this is critical to a universal healthcare.

problem is, what does 'demand universal participation' mean? to me, it means you don't have the option to opt out. *and* therefore you have to pay for it, regardless of how poor you are or how little money you make.

That's such a distortion. She's already said there will be credits and other mechanisms so that the poor aren't burdened.

And most analysis I've read says her plan is better.

But let's not bother with the facts. Let's just make something up to boost the cold and wicked Hillary caricature.

right then, let's not bother with her own words:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

Right, and did she say garnish the wages of "poor people" as you were alleging or middle class and upper class people who don't want to pay?

Do poor people also have to pay social security tax? Do they have tax credits and other mechanisms that help offset the cost of that?

Or should people be able to opt out of that too? If you think so, you support George Bush and the neocon's approach.

Have you asked those questions and looked at the policy, or you're gonna analyze the whole policy on one paragraph that contains less than a full sentence of a quote?

Either you want real universal health care or you don't. If you don't, vote for Obama.

there is also a link to a 2 page article in Zeus's post ......

u could also say if u agreed with the invasion and occupation of Iraq then vote Clinton !!!

[Loburt]

And you can say that if you agree with invading Pakistan against the wishes of that country's government, then you should vote for Obama.

He's on the record as saying it was a possibility he would do that.

And if it's fair game to portray Clinton's position as she will garnish the wages of poor people to pay for universal health care because she mentioned garnishing wages as one element in a range of possible options to enforce the policy, then it's fair game to portray Obama's foreign policy as unilateralist, militaristic and war mongering.

I'm not saying he is, but I also don't believe Clinton is going to enforce a universal health care scheme on the backs of the poor. And portraying it that way is a distortion.

Mind you, during the last presidential campaign, when Obama was asked about Kerry's vote to authorize Iraq, he said that had he been a senator at the time and had access to the same information, he's not sure how he would have voted.

Seems he's not that different from other candidates who want it every which way.

[CiaranM]

And you can say that if you agree with invading Pakistan against the wishes of that country's government, then you should vote for Obama.

He's on the record as saying it was a possibility he would do that.

And if it's fair game to portray Clinton's position as she will garnish the wages of poor people to pay for universal health care because she mentioned garnishing wages as one element in a range of possible options to enforce the policy, then it's fair game to portray Obama's foreign policy as unilateralist, militaristic and war mongering.

I'm not saying he is, but I also don't believe Clinton is going to enforce a universal health care scheme on the backs of the poor. And portraying it that way is a distortion.

Mind you, during the last presidential campaign, when Obama was asked about Kerry's vote to authorize Iraq, he said that had he been a senator at the time and had access to the same information, he's not sure how he would have voted.

Seems he's not that different from other candidates who want it every which way.

it seems to be turning into a pretty dirty campaign . . . . and if the democrats r like this with each other what the f**k will it be like when the neo-cons get stuck into them . . . . i just hope they hit back just as hard and just as f**king dirty !! they really gave that half wit George W an easy ride last time !!

[zeusbheld]

....He does not demand universal participation and this could kill his chances cause it will not work as well (at all?) but Clinton's healthcare demands universal participation. I think this is critical to a universal healthcare.

problem is, what does 'demand universal participation' mean? to me, it means you don't have the option to opt out. *and* therefore you have to pay for it, regardless of how poor you are or how little money you make.

That's such a distortion. She's already said there will be credits and other mechanisms so that the poor aren't burdened.

And most analysis I've read says her plan is better.

But let's not bother with the facts. Let's just make something up to boost the cold and wicked Hillary caricature.

right then, let's not bother with her own words:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

Right, and did she say garnish the wages of "poor people" as you were alleging or middle class and upper class people who don't want to pay?

i don't recall her giving a number (probably because she hasn't, by any account i have seen) but is US$75K rich in new york city? what about US$60K? US$40K?

what is the cutoff for Clinton's plan, where do the subsidies start? no wait, we don't know that yet do we.

Do poor people also have to pay social security tax? Do they have tax credits and other mechanisms that help offset the cost of that?

Or should people be able to opt out of that too? If you think so, you support George Bush and the neocon's approach.

hmmmm if you want to talk about distortion, take another look at little rant of yours above. well played hissy fit! coz that's all it is. *yawn*

Have you asked those questions and looked at the policy, or you're gonna analyze the whole policy on one paragraph that contains less than a full sentence of a quote?

Either you want real universal health care or you don't. If you don't, vote for Obama.

yes, once you slip from universal (mandatory) coverage to universally-AVAILABLE healthcare, you might as well register republican. yeah right. (isn't there a fascist option? can i vote 'terrorist'? i'd prefer it) :roll:

well most of the analysis *i* have seen claims the differences between Clinton and Obama's positions on ANYTHING are not huge. without knowing what the cutoff will be, i expect that i'll probably make more than the 'cutoff' for subsidies as a freelancer upon returning to NYC, but not much more. so mandatory health care is a real-life concern for me.

sorry, you can lecture me about "supporting Bush" all you want, BUT I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY MANDATORY HEALTHCARE, AND YOU ARE NOT, DO YOU GET THAT?

according to factcheck.org who to *my* untrained eye, tend to be fairly objective and non-partisan.

their summary:

Behind the dueling ads there is a legitimate disagreement. Obama is reluctant to force people to buy health insurance they don't want even if the government makes it available at a subsidized price. And Clinton says that any proposal that doesn't aim to cover 100 percent of the uninsured would be "nibbled to death" by opponents.

regarding 'the number' for subsidy eligibility:

But since both plans are lacking details ? for instance, neither candidate has said how big the tax credits or subsidies would be, or how many people would qualify ? it's tough to gauge just how feasible the dollar projections are

since you've claimed i'm not taking the "facts" into account, why not present some? you got any new info? or was that just a rant?

you take it all as such a personal affront. i'm surprised you didn't admonish me that i i ought to support Bush. No wait, you did. :roll:

quick question: if (more likely when) Clinton pulls out of the race, you're gonna vote Nader, aren't you? (see *i* can play that game too)

[zeusbheld]

And you can say that if you agree with invading Pakistan against the wishes of that country's government, then you should vote for Obama.

He's on the record as saying it was a possibility he would do that.

And if it's fair game to portray Clinton's position as she will garnish the wages of poor people to pay for universal health care because she mentioned garnishing wages as one element in a range of possible options to enforce the policy, then it's fair game to portray Obama's foreign policy as unilateralist, militaristic and war mongering.

I'm not saying he is, but I also don't believe Clinton is going to enforce a universal health care scheme on the backs of the poor. And portraying it that way is a distortion.

Mind you, during the last presidential campaign, when Obama was asked about Kerry's vote to authorize Iraq, he said that had he been a senator at the time and had access to the same information, he's not sure how he would have voted.

Seems he's not that different from other candidates who want it every which way.

whereas Clinton is?

oh yeah nice fact-filled post, Mr. Fact-Checker. i'm sure you just persuaded all those people on the fence between two candidates who are near-twins policy-wise to vote Hil instead of Barack. WELL PLAYED! impressive.

[Loburt]

Do poor people also have to pay social security tax? Do they have tax credits and other mechanisms that help offset the cost of that?

Or should people be able to opt out of that too? If you think so, you support George Bush and the neocon's approach.

hmmmm if you want to talk about distortion, take another look at little rant of yours above. well played hissy fit! coz that's all it is. *yawn*

Have you asked those questions and looked at the policy, or you're gonna analyze the whole policy on one paragraph that contains less than a full sentence of a quote?

Either you want real universal health care or you don't. If you don't, vote for Obama.

yes, once you slip from universal (mandatory) coverage to universally-AVAILABLE healthcare, you might as well register republican. yeah right. (isn't there a fascist option? can i vote 'terrorist'? i'd prefer it) :roll:

well most of the analysis *i* have seen claims the differences between Clinton and Obama's positions on ANYTHING are not huge. without knowing what the cutoff will be, i expect that i'll probably make more than the 'cutoff' for subsidies as a freelancer upon returning to NYC, but not much more. so mandatory health care is a real-life concern for me.

sorry, you can lecture me about "supporting Bush" all you want, BUT I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY MANDATORY HEALTHCARE, AND YOU ARE NOT, DO YOU GET THAT?

you take it all as such a personal affront. i'm surprised you didn't admonish me that i i ought to support Bush. No wait, you did. :roll:

quick question: if (more likely when) Clinton pulls out of the race, you're gonna vote Nader, aren't you? (see *i* can play that game too)

Wow, Zeus. I think anyone who reads this can see it's obvious that YOU are taking this as a "personal affront" and a going on a rant.

I asked you some simple straightforward questions, and you're blowing your stack and stooping to name calling. Very mature on your part, buddy.

Your position on opting out of universal health care is the same as that being proposed by Bush for social security.

That is not the same as saying you are a Bush supporter, a fascist or supporter of terrorists.

Sorry to see you going the reverse Vbroker route. I would have thought you were better than that. Obviously not.

In presenting the full quote, and in presenting the stuff from factcheck, you still haven't shown that this policy will be enforced on the backs of the poor, that they will be made to suffer because of this, or that obama's plan is better. Even the poor pay social security tax and get something for it in return. I dont' hear a lot protest from poor and lower income people because they can't opt out of social security. It's a universal, not a free program. Same for universal health care. Everyone has to contribute something. And when Bush proposed opt outs for social security, poor people were against it.

As for your personal penury and hardship, frankly I don't give a damn.

Mandatory health care means I and everyone else are affected too. Those I work for don't pay for my health insurance either. It's not all about YOU YOU YOU!

Don't you get it?

The country will never have universal health care if everyone who says I don't want to pay anything doesn't have to. And most of the country wants universal health care.

Seems he's not that different from other candidates who want it every which way.

whereas Clinton is?

oh yeah nice fact-filled post, Mr. Fact-Checker. i'm sure you just persuaded all those people on the fence between two candidates who are near-twins policy-wise to vote Hil instead of Barack. WELL PLAYED! impressive.

Didn't say she was. Nor do I expect to persuade anyone to vote one way or the other. Clinton is far from a saint. And the same holds true for Obama. He's not some messiah sent down here to save us all from the forces of darkness. He's every bit the politician she and the others are, with all the negative connotations attached.

Sorry if pointing out your candidate's inconsistent or questionable statements is a personal affront that requires you to consign me to the forces of darkness.

But thanks for the foaming-at-the-mouth anger and name calling. WELL PLAYED! impressive.

Maybe you would like to reread your "Why am I an a**hole" thread?

[Loburt]

Do poor people also have to pay social security tax? Do they have tax credits and other mechanisms that help offset the cost of that?

Or should people be able to opt out of that too? If you think so, you support George Bush and the neocon's approach.

hmmmm if you want to talk about distortion, take another look at little rant of yours above. well played hissy fit! coz that's all it is. *yawn*

Have you asked those questions and looked at the policy, or you're gonna analyze the whole policy on one paragraph that contains less than a full sentence of a quote?

Either you want real universal health care or you don't. If you don't, vote for Obama.

yes, once you slip from universal (mandatory) coverage to universally-AVAILABLE healthcare, you might as well register republican. yeah right. (isn't there a fascist option? can i vote 'terrorist'? i'd prefer it) :roll:

well most of the analysis *i* have seen claims the differences between Clinton and Obama's positions on ANYTHING are not huge. without knowing what the cutoff will be, i expect that i'll probably make more than the 'cutoff' for subsidies as a freelancer upon returning to NYC, but not much more. so mandatory health care is a real-life concern for me.

sorry, you can lecture me about "supporting Bush" all you want, BUT I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY MANDATORY HEALTHCARE, AND YOU ARE NOT, DO YOU GET THAT?

you take it all as such a personal affront. i'm surprised you didn't admonish me that i i ought to support Bush. No wait, you did. :roll:

quick question: if (more likely when) Clinton pulls out of the race, you're gonna vote Nader, aren't you? (see *i* can play that game too)

Wow, Zeus. I think anyone who reads this can see it's obvious that YOU are taking this as a "personal affront" and a going on a rant.

I asked you some simple straightforward questions, and you're blowing your stack and stooping to name calling. Very mature on your part, buddy.

Your position on opting out of universal health care is the same as that being proposed by Bush for social security.

That is not the same as saying you are a Bush supporter, a fascist or supporter of terrorists.

Sorry to see you going the reverse Vbroker route. I would have thought you were better than that. Obviously not.

In presenting the full quote, and in presenting the stuff from factcheck, you still haven't shown that this policy will be enforced on the backs of the poor, that they will be made to suffer because of this, or that obama's plan is better. Even the poor pay social security tax and get something for it in return. I dont' hear a lot protest from poor and lower income people because they can't opt out of social security. It's a universal, not a free program. Same for universal health care. Everyone has to contribute something. And when Bush proposed opt outs for social security, poor people were against it.

As for your personal penury and hardship, frankly I don't give a damn.

Mandatory health care means I and everyone else are affected too. Those I work for don't pay for my health insurance either. (any other "facts" you would like to make up before we go on?)

It's not all about YOU YOU YOU!

Don't you get it?

The country will never have universal health care if everyone who says I don't want to pay anything doesn't have to. And most of the country wants universal health care.

Seems he's not that different from other candidates who want it every which way.

whereas Clinton is?

oh yeah nice fact-filled post, Mr. Fact-Checker. i'm sure you just persuaded all those people on the fence between two candidates who are near-twins policy-wise to vote Hil instead of Barack. WELL PLAYED! impressive.

Didn't say she was. Nor do I expect to persuade anyone to vote one way or the other. Clinton is far from a saint. And the same holds true for Obama. He's not some messiah sent down here to save us all from the forces of darkness. He's every bit the politician she and the others are, with all the negative connotations attached.

Sorry if pointing out your candidate's inconsistent or questionable statements is a personal affront that requires you to consign me to the forces of darkness.

But thanks for the foaming-at-the-mouth anger and name calling. WELL PLAYED! impressive.

Maybe you would like to reread your "Why am I an a**hole" thread?

[Loburt]

If you had seen a tshirt that said

2008 elections

99 problems and the ****** is one.

Would you have smile anyway?

So why the double standard?

[Loburt]

sure i've laughed at racist and sexist jokes, just as everyone else has.

but do you think the people making and buying those shirts you saw are jokers or haters?

if someone were wearing the hypothetical shirt i described, would they be a joker or a hater?

the soapbox may be high, but the gutter is also low. :wink:

[CiaranM]

sure i've laughed at racist and sexist jokes, just as everyone else has.

but do you think the people making and buying those shirts you saw are jokers or haters?

if someone were wearing the hypothetical shirt i described, would they be a joker or a hater?

the soapbox may be high, but the gutter is also low. :wink:

jesus guys . . . . i just hope the neo-cons ain't reading this thread.u have just given some obviously totally unrelated support group their catch phrase no matter who wins the democrat nomination !!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

although knowing the neo-cons they'll probably come up with worse . . . a lot f**king worse !!!

[Loburt]

you really think they haven't already come up with this stuff, and worse?

that first tshirt is not hypothetical. it's out there.

[CiaranM]

you really think they haven't already come up with this stuff, and worse?

that first tshirt is not hypothetical. it's out there.

geeezzz guys . . . i was just trying to lighten things up a little bit !!! :shock: :shock: