Archaeologica.org

I couldn't make it last night. I had to go to bed. But, Obama won Hawaii by a huge margin.

All he's got to do is keep reminding people of McCain's call for another hundred years of war.

Don't get your hopes up Min. That line plays well with Democratic primary voters (most liberal). But it's actually his weakest point in the general electorate. I know that you know your history. We have never elected a candidate who said that the first thing he would do is surrender.

Bill Clinton won because he ran as a moderate. But now, we know the Clintons. I remarked some time ago that Hillary was carefully compiling a moderate voting record in the Senate. But that hasn't worked for her.

It's way too early, but I would say right now that the election is McCains to lose. But he may do just that. You never know when he may drop an F-bomb to some reporter.

We don't know how the conventions will go or who the running mates are. So I'm just going to watch for now. It will be a fun fall though.

70% of the country wants this war over. We didn't "surrender" in Vietnam, either. We declared "victory" and left.

We won the war. We cannot dictate the peace. The Iraqis are going to have to work that out for themselves....and there is no doubt that it will be bloody.

BTW, we are creeping up on 4,000 US dead. Should happen just in time for the Republican Convention.

Nixon did not campaign on pulling out. If he had, he would not have been elected. Whatever else he was, he was a smart politician.

We've got many months to dissect this election. For the moment though, it's obvious that McCain would rather campaign against Clinton. She would have no chance. McCains attacks are not going to be enough to help Clinton.

What I find astounding is the turnout on the Democratic side. If McCain were running against either of them in Wisconsin he would have been trounced. Far more enthusiasm shown by Dems than the GOP.


And Huckabee is having a swell old time positioning himself for 2012.

Min, I love to talk politics. I think I told you that a long time ago. Indeed, the Dems are having big turnouts. But then, they still have a competitive race going on that will probably go to the convention. However, if Hillary doesn't show well on March 4th, party insiders will urge her to give it up.

And, most of the states that Obama won in the primaries are red states. He won't win them in the fall. McCain has good organization in California and Florida, but I'm not sure about Texas. I'm also not sure that Rudy can bring him New York, I doubt it.

I disagree about Huckabee. He can never get elected. But he has built a good constituency to be the next TV evangelist.

Well as I'm banned from politics on my other forum now's my chance to find out more about America's.
Beag in what way do your two main parties differ and in what do they agree?
Should I sit up late?

I disagree about Huckabee. He can never get elected. But he has built a good constituency to be the next TV evangelist.

That's what I said about Bush. If ever there was a lightweight it was him. Never over-estimate the American electorate.

Digit wrote:Well as I'm banned from politics on my other forum now's my chance to find out more about America's.
Beag in what way do your two main parties differ and in what do they agree?
Should I sit up late?

Why are you banned from politics Dig?

To your next question: that would normally put me on a rant from hell. I am actually a Libertarian, which is the largest 3rd party in the country. It's basically dedicated to doing what the Republicans always say they are for but never live up to.

My opinion on the differences is not the only one you want. All of us politicos are highly prejudiced.

Having said that, the Republican party is supposed to stand for:
Smaller, limited government.
Civil liberties
Strong fiscal restraints with limited spending
Lowest possible taxes
A strong military - so strong you should not have to use it.
Business friendly - "a poor man never gave me a job" philosophy.

For the Democrat party, you should get another opinion as I would probably sound insulting.

the Republican party is supposed to stand for

Key phrase.

Indeed, and I meant that.

But note, I did not characterize the Democrat party. I have nothing good to say there either.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a two-party system. Lack of foresight on their part.

Simple Beag, I made it clear that I am a believer in individual freedom and individual responsiblity, that I object to being over governed, over regulated and being led by those who have demonstrated a complete denial of democracy.
Two people then got nasty and I suggested that being rude to those whose opinions you dislike as a means of quietening them was the bottom rung of a ladder that ultimately led to killing your oponents as a means of quietening them, that they should learn to control their tempers, and perhaps even listen to others.
I received a lot of support, but the moderator stopped all political discussions because of the way some people were acting.
Somebody commented yesterday that that forum was a lot less interesting now!
Yesterday somebody posted a thread about comparing the States with Europe, a poster replied that he would love to join in but could not as it would be impossible to have such a debate without raising politics.

I have a passionate interest in politics, so the fact that I don't vote might seem rather odd.
Every government here since WW2 has been a minority government because we don't count votes, we count vote difference! We use a 'first past the post' system for Parliament, that means a win by one vote has the same credibility as a win by 10000 votes. My mother voted Conservative, my Dad voted Labour, their sole contribution to the so called democratic system was to cancell each other out.
I will vote once they start counting votes using a method where each person's vote is of some value.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a two-party system. Lack of foresight on their part.

Well, that's true. The Jefferson papers are almost a must-read for what they envisioned. Jefferson explains their thinking on each article of the constitution and the first ten amendments. Those papers have stopped many a lawsuit in the Supreme Court when someone tries to characterize what the founding fathers must have been thinking.

The founding fathers represent a different generation Beag, it is unlikely that what ever their thoughts were on the matter, that they would be acceptable to you and yours now.