Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

There is news coming out that our mayor in Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa may serve as an important cabinet member under a MLXBW presidency. Villaraigosa is a member of Latino group that among other things advocates the return of Mexico’s former territories lost in 1851, and he has an uber pro-immigrant stance on border security.

It would prove to be an abomination to say the least.

the wons gained in 1851 were bought outright and legitly.  just like alaska.  it was shit land at the time.  now that americans have built all the infustructure, now they want it back, go figure.  if your gov’t already gained by the money on the sale, you dont get it back, and get over it.

back to the primaries.  clinton would bring every republican out of the woodwork to vote against her.

If you honestly would endorse Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler before McCain, Obama, and Hillary, then you need some help Jen.

Party loyalty is what has destroyed the American political system. It is the good of the nation that should be our paramount concern, not the success of a certain political party.

I think Thompson will not only endorse McCain, I think he may run as his VP.  That’s the vibe I am picking up right now.  Since Thompsons out I have to do some serious reading and decide who my B choice is going to be.

M36,

That’s not party loyalty.  McCain is, ostensibly, a republican and Hillary is a democrat.  I also gave some justification for putting McCain at the absolute bottom of the list - He’s Hillary with male genitalia.  They vote the same, they advocate similar political policies, they may as well be the same person.  And if they are, in effect, the same person, and Hillary is an unabashed Marxist (she’s always talking about seizing large sectors of the public market and controlling it with the government, that’s about as marxist as you can get) then I think the title of the person who drags this country from it’s knees, face first into the mud and drowns us should have the title of Democrat, not Republican, on the off chance that a true Republican can get elected afterwards and pull us up out of the mud before our heart stops and we cease to exist.

McCain is against universal healthcare and he hates big government, and he’s socially conservative while hillary is not she’s a social liberal.  are you getting this?

he also wont listen to UN and EU judges, while hillary said she would.  he will cut pork which hillary will live off of favors to politicians amounting to lots of pork.  and he will personally slap osama bin laden in the face.

Balung:

His actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear a word that comes out of his mouth.

@Cmdr:

Is the sub-prime debacle (the 5% of homes being fore-closed on) something we should bail people out on, or should we let the market correct itself?

can you please explain this little bit more

thanks

@balungaloaf:

the wons gained in 1851 were bought outright and legitly.  just like alaska.

well Alaska was bought
Mexican land conqured

cant see ˝the link˝ here

and Jen, how is McCain liberal when he is against abortion, pro Iraqi war…

he is not Bush, and its good he isnt,

he is smarter :mrgreen:

but he is a right winger, republican, conservative

i simply see him as that way

while Hillary, Obama and Kerry are so alike McCain and Bush arent

thats why McCain will win this elections, i think that even some democrats will vote from him
-i dont know your situation well, but i think he is your man, would you like him or not :mrgreen:

its called the gadsen purchase amon-sul.  it was a legit deal between sovereign governments.  and they cant have it back.  secondly, texas wasn’t part of america after their war, it was its own republic.  it decided to become part of america later.  its not america’s fault for texas.  same goes for california,…it was its own republic and then became part of america.  america never took anything over, they came to america.  but we did beat down the mexicans in the war in the 1840’s however.

@balungaloaf:

its called the gadsen purchase amon-sul.  it was a legit deal between sovereign governments.   and they cant have it back.  secondly, texas wasn’t part of america after their war, it was its own republic.  it decided to become part of america later.  its not america’s fault for texas.  same goes for california,…it was its own republic and then became part of america.  america never took anything over, they came to america.  but we did beat down the mexicans in the war in the 1840’s however.

yes, but San Francisco

Los Angeles

those are Spanish names

and USA is a ˝pro-english˝ country

dont know the history well, but i know you ˝stolen˝ some lands to the Mexicans , and to Canada too, Alaskan-Canadian border treaty, it was against Canada, USA ˝stole˝ some of Canadian land

and i ve heard that in the constitution of USA isnt written that english is the official language, is this true or some noncense?

Actually Gadsen was a VERY small area of land that was bought.  Most of it is extreme southern Arizona.

But the vast majority of the Southwest WAS seized after military conquest against Mexico.

And the US has maintained control over conquered territory in other places too over the years…

• Our bases in Okinawa and Germany
• The US Virgin Islands
• Puerto Rico
• Most of the American Southwest
• Many Pacific Island groups that we only recently restored sovereignty to after controlling them for 50 years.
• Guam
• Some areas of upstate New York and the Canadian border in New England

@ncscswitch:

Actually Gadsen was a VERY small area of land that was bought.  Most of it is extreme southern Arizona.

But the vast majority of the Southwest WAS seized after military conquest against Mexico.

And the US has maintained control over conquered territory in other places too over the years…

• Our bases in Okinawa and Germany
• The US Virgin Islands
• Puerto Rico
• Most of the American Southwest
• Many Pacific Island groups that we only recently restored sovereignty to after controlling them for 50 years.
• Guam
• Some areas of upstate New York and the Canadian border in New England

thanks for this i found it valuable and interesting  8-)
you just forget Guantanamo Bay

i never mentioned those parts of new mexico and arizona…. :-D  but texas and california chose to come here after they were their own country.  and the purchase was small, and yes we did take parts of new mexico and arizona.  but the mexicans were just taking that from the indians anyways.

to the primaries…who’s McCain going to run against.  obama or hillary.

second, what are some good VP nominees for both parties?

Hillary has too many opponents in her own party. There are Democrats that honestly hate Hillary. Obama has no such animosity. He has people who disagree with him, but no outright hatred, mostly because he hasn’t been around long enough to screw things up.

Mitt Romney is going to run against Obama.  Mitt has the most delegates and Obama has the most delegates.  McCain is a fluke, he won’t carry enough delegates to get into the general election.

Anyway, he IS a liberal.  He SAYS he is pro-life, but every vote has been pro-abortion.  He is pro-sunsetting the tax cuts and pro-tax hikes, based on his voting.  He supports the Fairness Doctrine (which is basically a gag order on conservative radio, but no effect on liberal television.)  He is pro-Iraq, but so is Hillary, she always has been.

Take a look at just about any vote in the Senate.  If McCain voted Yes, so did Hillary.  iF Mccain voted no, so did Hillary.  And McCain’s spent more time in Ted Kennedy’s office then any other Republican Office yet.

Sure, he wears the red name tag, he is counted as a republican during the roll calls, but he isn’t.  Not really.  He is only in name.

So far, for Illinois, the forecasts for the Republicans out of 185 possible delegates (that’s almost the most of any state, California has 441 and New York 281) have:

Huckabee: 1 Delegate
McCain: 62 Delegates
Romney: 102 Delegates

Too Close Too Call: 20 Delegates

There are 70 Delegates possible for the Democrat Side (I assume this is calculated somehow, dunno why Republicans have 185 and Democrats only 70, but who cares.)

Hillary: 33 Delegates
Obama: 33 Delegates
Edwards: 4 Delegates

No too close too call races for them.

I am not yet prepared to call a winner on the R side.

On the D side…
If Hillary is even CLOSE in SC, Hillary runs away with Super Tuesday… and gets the Nomination.

Running mate…  Most likely Bill Richardson.

Nope, she made an under the table agreement with Edwards.  He’ll be her Running Mate on the condition that he attacks Obama with her in a tag team event.

And from what I hear, Mitt may only have WON a single state, but so far he’s collected a LARGE margin of delegates to put him in the lead.

I don’t think all of the delegates currently determined are equal to just Florida’s delegates.

And on Super Tuesday, there are over 1000 delegates up for grabs.  A lead of 10 delegates now means nothing once the polls close on Super Tuesday.