ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics

last SG · 2007-07-19T09:34:50+00:00

Repeat after me monkey brain: "Ad Hominen attacks do not constitute an argument."

walesa SG

Cut that mug some slack - he probably doesn't even know the difference between state laws and federal laws, much less the function of the Legislative or what exactly do the Senate and House of Representatives do...

walesa SG

Now, you must have been sleeping on your research.

If Clinton had not reduced taxes for the middle and lower-income groups, in addition to dishing out other incentives, how on earth do you think his administration would have seen the largest proportion of people withdrawing themselves from welfare rolls? (I hope it's not too hard to understand people on welfare are the poor and not the rich)

Yes, unlike the current noob who thinks cash falls from sky by the grace of God, Clinton balanced the books by targetting the corporations and increasing the income tax of the richest lot to 39.6% (affecting only 1.2% of the population earning at least USD180, 000 per annum).

Arapahoe SG

ha ha ha most of your fixation on Bill is yours truly. Laughing

walesa SG

Laughing

walesa SG

Do you have the faintest clue of what you're talking about? Do you know how the primaries/caucuses and the electoral college system work?

Why should the '08 electorate base be stronger than say, '92 when Clinton ran for the Presidency? Are you assuming all blacks and hispanics eligible to vote will vote for the Democrats? And on what basis are you making your claims - how do you even know how many of those eligible to vote will even bother to turn up on election day?

If you aren't aware - and applying your above reasoning (look, for the sake of this discussion, I shall assume blacks and hispanics will vote disproportionately in favour of Democrats) - Al Gore actually lost the 2000 elections despite having more support from women and the minorities and I'm sure you'll agree he's a more capable candidate than John Kerry. So would you like to explain why did he lose the 2000 elections, in the given circumstances, despite Clinton effortlessly being able to clinch the '92 campaign with almost twice as many electoral seats as Georgw HW Bush despite having less support from women and the minorities than Al Gore?

If anything, Clinton's greatest regret as far as Gore's 2000 campaign was concerned stemmed from Gore's failure to capture New Hampshire, where Clinton had spent almost his entire public service career as first, the attorney-general then later on as a governor. Even though New Hampshire's seemingly few seats looked negliglible on the surface, the eventual 271-267 defeat for Gore proved just how decisive New Hampshire could have been had Gore allowed Clinton to campaign for him.

walesa SG

The Democrats' biggest worry should Al Gore decide to run apparently - believe it or not - stems from the division of Hillary's campaign staff as much as anything. At the end of the day, both sides will want to enlist the help of almost the entire team that propelled Bill Clinton to office.

That said, the biggest winner could then prove to be Obama should that split prove decisive enough - it's all just rumour-mongering and speculation in the meantime though. But we'll see soon enough shore Gore formally announce his candidacy... Laughing

walesa SG

Fixation? Well, it must have been some fixation that he left Office with the second highest opinion ratings of the 20th Century.

With silly ramblings that make as much sense as a toddler's wailings, I'm indeed hard-pressed to make much sense of your fixations. Wink

Mat Toro SG

Originally posted by walesa:

Do you have the faintest clue of what you're talking about? Do you know how the primaries/caucuses and the electoral college system work?

You just took on the wrong guy buddy. It is you who don't know what you are talking about. I happen to be working with an organisation that conduct consultancy for both political parties.

Why should the '08 electorate base be stronger than say, '92 when Clinton ran for the Presidency? Are you assuming all blacks and hispanics eligible to vote will vote for the Democrats? And on what basis are you making your claims - how do you even know how many of those eligible to vote will even bother to turn up on election day?

Why not? Don't you know that the Hispanic population had grown in proportion since even 4 years ago? Don't you know most Hispanics vote Democrat?
Where did I say all blacks and hispanics vote Dems? Please show me you.
Are you able to tell us why blacks and hispanics shld switch allegiance this time?

If you aren't aware - and applying your above reasoning (look, for the sake of this discussion, I shall assume blacks and hispanics will vote disproportionately in favour of Democrats) - Al Gore actually lost the 2000 elections despite having more support from women and the minorities and I'm sure you'll agree he's a more capable candidate than John Kerry. So would you like to explain why did he lose the 2000 elections, in the given circumstances, despite Clinton effortlessly being able to clinch the '92 campaign with almost twice as many electoral seats as Georgw HW Bush despite having [b]less support from women and the minorities than Al Gore?

Hilliary is definitely a stronger candidate than Kerry.
As for Gore, I don't see him as particularly strong back in 2000. What did you see in him? He invented the internet? He insulted Mahathir in msia?

If anything, Clinton's greatest regret as far as Gore's 2000 campaign was concerned stemmed from Gore's failure to capture New Hampshire, where Clinton had spent almost his entire public service career as first, the attorney-general then later on as a governor. Even though New Hampshire's seemingly few seats looked negliglible on the surface, the eventual 271-267 defeat for Gore proved just how decisive New Hampshire could have been had Gore allowed Clinton to campaign for him.

Clinton didn't run for 2000. What are you talking about? Why shld he be dispaointed and what has that got to do with Hilliary's run for 08?

Lets make a bet shall we? I don't think Hilliary will make a good president but I really think she will win.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

You just took on the wrong guy buddy. It is you who don't know what you are talking about. I happen to be working with an organisation that conduct consultancy for both political parties.

For a person who claims to work for an organisation, you certain have very good skills at debating, not least your writing skills is left wanting.

Where is your bloody evidence? I have been waiting for them, and I have been getting nothing.

And what organisation? A right wing organisation?

No one said all the blacks and hispanics vote Dems, but you left the impression that most of them would since you said:

You must be definitely working for some right wing organisation. Strong? He garnered nearly more than half the popular vote and it was down to the electoral college which caused him to lose.

walesa SG

If I've taken on the wrong guy, it must be down to the fact that you actually belong to the asylum. Do shed some light as to the nature of your organisation which actually conducts consultancy for both political parties.

As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for you to show me something more concrete to back up your load of specious polemics - from the abovementioned to how Reagan brought the Cold War to an end with his spendings.

They don't need to switch allegiance to dispel your argument - you've yet to show how that increase could be categorically translated into votes for the Democrats that would yield a similar increase in proportion. That, in essence, is what you've been insisting.

No wonder you don't see so many things as well.

Are you an idiot? Or are you a dyslexic who has problems comprehending English? If, for any reason, you've interpreted my words to mean Clinton having run in 2000, you ought to go back to your grammar class instead of debating with the "wrong" person.

Are there legislations in place to ensure I could recover any outstanding debts against the insane? If so, I might give your proposition a serious thought.

Some organisation you must be working for...

Mat Toro SG

Originally posted by walesa:

If I've taken on the wrong guy, it must be down to the fact that you actually belong to the asylum. Do shed some light as to the nature of your organisation which actually conducts consultancy for both political parties.

There are consultants who are free to consult with any party that can engage them.
Money talks, they don't have to be mutually exclusive about who they serve?

quote:Originally posted by Mat Toro:

Why not? Don't you know that the Hispanic population had grown in proportion since even 4 years ago? Don't you know most Hispanics vote Democrat?
Where did I say all blacks and hispanics vote Dems? Please show me you.
Are you able to tell us why blacks and hispanics shld switch allegiance this time?

As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for you to show me something more concrete to back up your load of specious polemics - from the abovementioned to how Reagan brought the Cold War to an end with his spendings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war#End_of_the_Cold_War

They don't need to switch allegiance to dispel your argument - you've yet to show how that increase could be categorically translated into votes for the Democrats that would yield a similar increase in proportion. That, in essence, is what you've been insisting.

Since Hispanics largely support Dems, don't a proportionate growth in their numbers translate to a proportionate increase for Dem votes? How difficult is that?

quote:Originally posted by Mat Toro:

Hilliary is definitely a stronger candidate than Kerry.
As for Gore, I don't see him as particularly strong back in 2000. What did you see in him? He invented the internet? He insulted Mahathir in msia?

No wonder you don't see so many things as well.

You see, you can't answer me in what way Gore was a strong candidate.

Yes, my US associate is a well known independent strategy consultant, ie not affiliated to any political party.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Yeah right. I would be surprised if they even employed you to advise on foreign policy with your obvious right wing rhetoric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war#End_of_the_Cold_War

And what does that article serve? It just showed he increased his military spending into grandiose projects which mostly came to naught.

The Russians however, were spending tonnes since the end of WWII, courtesy of Stalin, and they have every reason not to trust the West which have historically tried to contain them and even interfere in Russian affairs especially during the civil war in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution.

Since Hispanics largely support Dems, don't a proportionate growth in their numbers translate to a proportionate increase for Dem votes? How difficult is that?

Publish the damn figures damn it. Trends do not stay as trends all the time, what with the latest defeat of the immigration bill by both Democrats and Republicans.

You see, you can't answer me in what way Gore was a strong candidate.

And it's nice to see that you are ignoring the fact that Gore garnered the popular vote while George W Bush won because he garnered the Electoral college vote.

Yes, my US associate is a well known independent strategy consultant, ie not affiliated to any political party.

Yeah right. Give me the name and I'll go dig up the dirt on it.

walesa SG

Make yourself clear, instead of flipping about pushing your luck to see which argument suits your end. It's not rocket science that image consultants are hardly the same as political consultants. And yes, independent strategy consultants hired by both political parties are as common as seeing pigs fly...

Point me out to the part where the demise of the USSR can be directly attributed to Reagan's spending.

Are you naive or stupid? Even if I were to analyse this from a purely statistical perspective, I've got to make room for standard deviation and room for estimation error, don't I?

If the numer of Hispanics eligible to vote increase by 1%, are you telling me categorically the Democrats will definitely get 1% more votes? Or are you assuming that the increased proportion of Hispanics will all vote on election day and all vote for the Democrats? Your argument would only stand if and only if the abovementioned assumptions hold true and I'm amazed any consultant strategist would churn out such drivel.

For someone to lose the tightest Presidential elections ever with a simple majority doesn't render him a strong candidate? What planet are you from?

So on the basis of what you perceive Hillary's campaign to be a strong one, how do you justify Hillary being a strong candidate? Just because you imagine her to be one?

Yes, and you've been talking to James Carville.

Arapahoe SG

Please lah....Rating? of all person you accept rating ? and opinion only from Liberal perharps? History will judge Bill, its still too early to coin it to the 20th century. U of all person should know every well.

At least my rambling is my opinion. Yours is still fixation on an individual character Mr. Green

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Well, a recent Gallup poll put him at 4th in a list of the greatest presidents in history.....

Do realise that the president isn't there to merely sit down and let his subordinates do all the work. It is up to the President to pick the best people for the job, whilst giving his own input and approving bills. Though the same can't be said of the current president.

Arapahoe SG

The current President administration does make a good comparative case study in Managing High Performance Team other than NBA. Bush walked in without much International Relation Exposure. He had put in seasonal team of washingtonian understood how things get done, Actually Too Good that Cheny and Rumsfield had their own agenda. Mr. Green I think what was out of place in experience and diplomacy was Collin Powell. But he is such a True Soldier that when the President ask him to take the job he took it. ( i think now he wished he had not)

911 really throw the team into test, different of opinions are expected with any team structure. But the Bush team was negatively synergized n rivalry within the team. Collin powell was no where to be found. Secretary of defense was out of line overshadowing diplomacy.

It bring to a question of success of a high performance team who meets the individual role and balance skill set, but not necessary overshadow the other roles to yield conclusive result.

Bill Clinton had to change warren christopher, and secretary of defence, Bush should have made the changes and drop Rumsfield and Collin Powell altogether after the 1st term and consolidate his leadership within his team member change the synergy. But again maybe he wasnt in any position as Cheney was beside him.

never get a seasonal VP. Laughing

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

It wasn't just Cheney and Rumsfeld. There was Wolfowitz and a no. of other cronies that really turned the administration into one neoconservative paradise filled with a lot of ideology and a total detachment from the realities of their "dreams". Bush was just a puppet and the strings were pulled by the rest. It was a bloody mess anyhow, and the whole Govt was filled to the brim with people who supported their ideas. Nepotism showed its bloody head when the people appointed were total goofs. Case to point was Katrina when the FEMA totally botched the recovery operations and then a lot of procurement cases showed up.

The current administration can be described as the worst administration in a long time and by far the most idealogical ever.

qlqq9 SG

Hope it will get better when the new President takes over next year.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

It jolly well better. The US has to manage its foreign policy a hell a lot more better and a lot less confrontational. But that is a wishful dream at best since both liberal and conservative have delusions of grandeur.

qlqq9 SG

if u don't mind to let us know, who is your choice for the next President?

« Previous Page Next Page »