Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Well then you don't read.

I invite you to reread. I just skimmed the last page but there you were trying to convince me that that system would work here

College boy tries to convince me of the insane

[Collegeboy]

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96799&perpage=30&highlight=Putin&pagenumber=5

Second post on the page by me, the first one on the subject.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
http://www.automags.org/forums/showt...n&pagenumber=5

Second post on the page by me, the first one on the subject.

Yup, I see it. You started off by saying it doesn't always work, and then spend 2 pages trying to convince me that it would work here.

But that doesn't invalidate Aaron's post showing that apparently it doesn't work at all, as opposed to sometimes.

[aaron_mag]

My point is that anyone with any sense can see that having the president not being a member of any party would evolve very quickly into a formality that no one truly believes. To have it in the political system at all is just plain dumb. Accept it CB. In that case you were wrong as shown in the on going political manuevers in Russia.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
My point is that anyone with any sense can see that having the president not being a member of any party would evolve very quickly into a formality that no one truly believes. To have it in the political system at all is just plain dumb. Accept it CB. In that case you were wrong as shown in the on going political manuevers in Russia.

Yeah, and I agreed with you on that one

Frankly, although I think it's an inherently bad idea, if it works anywhere maybe I'll consider it. But until it's worked I will think very little of the idea

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Yeah, and I agreed with you on that one

We probably agree on alot of things non politics related. For the record I don't think that you, 1stdeadeye, and CB are unintelligent or bad people just horribly misguided. Once I show you the true light you guys will all come around and agree with me on everything...

Sorry I couldn't resist. Have to keep some humor in these threads after all

Just building up the cause for you all to pepper me with paintballs if I ever make it out to one of the major AO events

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Yup, I see it. You started off by saying it doesn't always work, and then spend 2 pages trying to convince me that it would work here.

But that doesn't invalidate Aaron's post showing that apparently it doesn't work at all, as opposed to sometimes.

Do you even understand my premise I was arguing from my very first post.

I said that if it works one time out of a 100 (not that exactly but simplifying it down some) then it works. For the other 99 times it is the exact same as we have now, but that one time makes it work for it is different and better.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy


Do you even understand my premise I was arguing from my very first post.

I said that if it works one time out of a 100 (not that exactly but simplifying it down some) then it works. For the other 99 times it is the exact same as we have now, but that one time makes it work for it is different and better.
That's what you said?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy

That is where this system comes in. It is a good system and it works.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
There is nothing wrong with following the example of Russia and having your president dissolve his political party membership for the time he is a president. The political parties will still push their candidate for they will be of sort of the same ideas. That way you will be electing a person for their ideas not their party. Russia has gone a long way since the Harvard economist messed their country up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
No see you do not understand what I am saying. A republican is not a set of ideas anymore, everyone in the party does not have the same ideas (Same as any party), so instead of voting for people's ideas many voters vote for their party. This system lessens then impact of the parties in the presidential elections for instead of getting a republican or democrat you are getting a man and his views. It has worked so far in Russia, no reason it shouldn't work here.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy

You still have to have the backing of a political party in order to run. You still have to get on the repub or dem or whatever ticket. Just when you become president you do away with your republican or Democratic Party id and become president. Instead of being called a repub pres you are a conservative, or the other way around. You are judged on your ideas not the party. The repubs will back a conservative candidate and the dems a liberal.

And what does this matter if it comes from Russia. This system has stabilized the political parties in Russia, has diminished their role in the executive branch and as so far helped with the system of the government. (How many Russian political parties can you name (without looking them up)

I bet if this was any country other then Russia it would be thought of more. I guess you can not end years of brainwashing in 10 years.

We all were argueing against the idea and trying to explain to you why it just wouldn't work here and you would have none of it.

[Albinonewt]

So CB, now that your Hero Clark is running what are we betting that he is the next President. I thnk he's going to get crushed in the primaries and I doubt he even comes in second in the primary voting.

[Lohman446]

Careful there Newt, recall his big speech is in Little Rock - I wonder who might be supporting him. Don't be surprised to see Hillary on the ticket (despite her I'm not running to serve the people of NY line). You may find a democratic candidate backed solidly by the Clintons (which will incite the Rep. party faithful but hey, they weren't going to vote democrat anyways). Clinton blessing and campaigning will help in the dem primary, could take away a lot of the "no experience in politics" problem. Essentially you have someone who can run as an outsider of politics (which Americans seem to like). Is the only candidate that can question Bush on the war well not looking incompetent himself (most poeple will get over the Kosovo incident the same as people have ignored Bush's past alcholism). You have just presented a candidate that looks more Republican than Bush at first glance... its gonna be a race for the center. Clark will get a serious look from us center voters, and if he is careful on some key issues (gun control, abortion, government programs - not necessarily the exact view I would like but a moderate view) he could easily gain center support. And Clinton can bring along the far left of the party. Don't count the General out until you have seen him, and heard him. He is the only democrat that I would even consider in the current field (I'm not a democrat) though I will admit its mostly because of lack of knowledge of key issues at this point.

[Collegeboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy


Do you even understand my premise I was arguing from my very first post.

I said that if it works one time out of a 100 (not that exactly but simplifying it down some) then it works. For the other 99 times it is the exact same as we have now, but that one time makes it work for it is different and better.
That's what you said?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy

That is where this system comes in. It is a good system and it works.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
There is nothing wrong with following the example of Russia and having your president dissolve his political party membership for the time he is a president. The political parties will still push their candidate for they will be of sort of the same ideas. That way you will be electing a person for their ideas not their party. Russia has gone a long way since the Harvard economist messed their country up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
No see you do not understand what I am saying. A republican is not a set of ideas anymore, everyone in the party does not have the same ideas (Same as any party), so instead of voting for people's ideas many voters vote for their party. This system lessens then impact of the parties in the presidential elections for instead of getting a republican or democrat you are getting a man and his views. It has worked so far in Russia, no reason it shouldn't work here.

Originally posted by Collegeboy

You still have to have the backing of a political party in order to run. You still have to get on the repub or dem or whatever ticket. Just when you become president you do away with your republican or Democratic Party id and become president. Instead of being called a repub pres you are a conservative, or the other way around. You are judged on your ideas not the party. The repubs will back a conservative candidate and the dems a liberal.

And what does this matter if it comes from Russia. This system has stabilized the political parties in Russia, has diminished their role in the executive branch and as so far helped with the system of the government. (How many Russian political parties can you name (without looking them up)

I bet if this was any country other then Russia it would be thought of more. I guess you can not end years of brainwashing in 10 years.

We all were argueing against the idea and trying to explain to you why it just wouldn't work here and you would have none of it.

After being proven wrong you still go on. Come on man it is time to give it up. I was clearly stating that if it works one time out of many it works, and it does work one time out of many. For the other times it is the exact same as we have here.

I wouldn't say Hero, there are things I don't like that he has done, but to me he is the best candidate. He is another Eisenhower, no political experience, just military and foreign.

The office of President has become a figure head, his aides and his cabinet holds the true power. All he has to do is get a good aide that is up to date on internal matters and he is set.

More then likely he will be a VP candidate, but I hope not.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy


After being proven wrong you still go on. Come on man it is time to give it up. I was clearly stating that if it works one time out of many it works, and it does work one time out of many. For the other times it is the exact same as we have here.

Upon re-reading your posts CB I realize just how full of crap you are, you leave yourself the out so that no matter if you;re right or wrong you can claim to be right.

"It'll work here, it's a great idea, there's no reason why it won't work, oh but it won't"

then no matter what happens you can come on here and tell us you told us so. Whatever dude, at least next time have some convictions in your silly concepts

I wouldn't say Hero, there are things I don't like that he has done, but to me he is the best candidate. He is another Eisenhower, no political experience, just military and foreign.

He'd make an ok third party candidate, but as a Democratic candidate he doesn't get out of the primary.

The office of President has become a figure head, his aides and his cabinet holds the true power. All he has to do is get a good aide that is up to date on internal matters and he is set.

Then why the three year stink about Bush not being smart enough to be President. He's surronded himself with brilliant people, isn't that all it takes?

More then likely he will be a VP candidate, but I hope not.

Two days ago he was the unbeatable candidate that would destroy Bush and blah blah blah. Now he's maybe a VP candidate.

You sure don't stick to your guns

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lohman446
Careful there Newt, recall his big speech is in Little Rock - I wonder who might be supporting him. Don't be surprised to see Hillary on the ticket (despite her I'm not running to serve the people of NY line).

She won't run in this crowded field. She's going to wait until 08, build a record in the Senate, and challenge an open white house. With Cheney as VP that means she has about as good as chance as she'll get running for the President then.

You may find a democratic candidate backed solidly by the Clintons

Any candidates the Clintons endorse should be careful. The Clintons care about the Clintons and nobody else. In order for Hillary to have a shot at the White House in 08 it must be vacant (a President completeing his second term, ie George Bush). The Clintons want Bush to win so she can run in 08. They don't want a Democrat in the White House, because that shuts her out of the White House basically for good (2 terms for the candidate and then his VP takes over)

{which will incite the Rep. party faithful but hey, they weren't going to vote democrat anyways). Clinton blessing and campaigning will help in the dem primary, could take away a lot of the "no experience in politics" problem. Essentially you have someone who can run as an outsider of politics (which Americans seem to like).

Outsider is the right word. There are two kinds of people when it comes to Clark. The first group are people who don't know who he is, and then there's the people that know because of all his screups.

Is the only candidate that can question Bush on the war well not looking incompetent himself (most poeple will get over the Kosovo incident the same as people have ignored Bush's past alcholism).

Kosovo will be forgotten by the party faithful, but national security is so important these days the rest of the people won't forget so easily (the few that know)

You have just presented a candidate that looks more Republican than Bush at first glance... its gonna be a race for the center.

The problem he faces is trust. American center voters trust Bush with the military. And while Clark may be qualified (which I say he isn't) people trust Bush.

Clark will get a serious look from us center voters, and if he is careful on some key issues (gun control, abortion, government programs - not necessarily the exact view I would like but a moderate view) he could easily gain center support.

Maybe, but I'm thinking his failures, lack of any experience, love for the UN (which more then 60% don't support right now), and zero name recognition are too much to overcome.

And Clinton can bring along the far left of the party. Don't count the General out until you have seen him, and heard him. He is the only democrat that I would even consider in the current field (I'm not a democrat) though I will admit its mostly because of lack of knowledge of key issues at this point.

Clinton will not be an asset. The Clintons want the White House again, and they're not going to share it.

[Collegeboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by Collegeboy


After being proven wrong you still go on. Come on man it is time to give it up. I was clearly stating that if it works one time out of many it works, and it does work one time out of many. For the other times it is the exact same as we have here.

Upon re-reading your posts CB I realize just how full of crap you are, you leave yourself the out so that no matter if you;re right or wrong you can claim to be right.

"It'll work here, it's a great idea, there's no reason why it won't work, oh but it won't"

then no matter what happens you can come on here and tell us you told us so. Whatever dude, at least next time have some convictions in your silly concepts

I wouldn't say Hero, there are things I don't like that he has done, but to me he is the best candidate. He is another Eisenhower, no political experience, just military and foreign.

He'd make an ok third party candidate, but as a Democratic candidate he doesn't get out of the primary.

The office of President has become a figure head, his aides and his cabinet holds the true power. All he has to do is get a good aide that is up to date on internal matters and he is set.

Then why the three year stink about Bush not being smart enough to be President. He's surronded himself with brilliant people, isn't that all it takes?

More then likely he will be a VP candidate, but I hope not.

Two days ago he was the unbeatable candidate that would destroy Bush and blah blah blah. Now he's maybe a VP candidate.

You sure don't stick to your guns

You sure don't read.

Why am I always having to go back and repeat what I say, it is not an out, it is me having to explain to you all what I said and what I did not.

My ideas on the Russian idea was set from the beginning, I was hoping that you all could read that then read the ones that followed it, to see what I mean, but I guess that is too much to ask.

I said that if Clark would face Bush, Clark would destroy Bush. But like you said, getting the nod from the democrats will be difficult. Hence why I said more then likely a VP.

And Bush surrounded himself with idiots (except Powell), they are all still making the same mistakes they made in the past, all of which lead to problems in Vietnam.

You keep talking about Clark's one mistake, do you even know all of Powell's military mistakes.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Why am I always having to go back and repeat what I say, it is not an out, it is me having to explain to you all what I said and what I did not.

Because when you are incorrect you try to explain to us you were right all along and we're the ones that don't get it.

My ideas on the Russian idea was set from the beginning, I was hoping that you all could read that then read the ones that followed it, to see what I mean, but I guess that is too much to ask.

CB, you argued with me for days why it would work here. And there were like four of us disputing you and you kept at it.

I said that if Clark would face Bush, Clark would destroy Bush. But like you said, getting the nod from the democrats will be difficult. Hence why I said more then likely a VP.

Right, like I said.

And Bush surrounded himself with idiots (except Powell), they are all still making the same mistakes they made in the past, all of which lead to problems in Vietnam.

No, Bush surronded himself with Brilliant people that think differently then you. I may disagree with Begala, Carville, Clinton, and the rest, but I don't insult them by calling the stupid. They just have different viewpoints then me, and in my view their wrong. But in their view I'm wrong. That doesn't make anyone stupid, just different.

You keep talking about Clark's one mistake, do you even know all of Powell's military mistakes.

That's why I'm not voting for Powell for President. I constantly advocate his removal from the State Department and relagating him to teaching duties at a university somewhere. I am no fan of Powell.