Who would you vote for in the Democratic Primary?

Who would you vote for? Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama?

What kind of a choice is that?

I am simply curious who has more support. If you support neither, do not vote.

Looks like no support for either one, how 'bout you wiz?

Wow, all the libs here, but they wouldn't want to vote for either one!

Neither is left enough for me. Neither is even a liberal, rather conservative moderates. But I will vote for Obama, only because it would piss of the religious right.:D

As if Hillary's a big star for the religious right.

Perhaps you should have posed the question, "Who would you vote for in the Democratic Primary?"

Obama.
I can't specifically remember all the things but constantly I've heard of hillary clinton trying to ban this or change that and I'm just like "holy shit, it would suck if she was the president".
She has alot of extreme authoritarian views against everyday things, and people might not realise untill it's too late.
Then they'll be wiping their asses with horse hair or something, wondering how it all went so wrong.

Obama is a terrorist, which is the next worst thing. So I guess I'd have to side with him.

Obama in the lead at this point.

That Hillary is one scary broad.

No worse than Ann Coulter or Barbara Bush. In fact, she seems quite intelligent and likeable.

Like a sneaky used car salesperson.

Haha, Hillary is making a great come back

Obama.
I can't specifically remember all the things but constantly I've heard of hillary clinton trying to ban this or change that and I'm just like "holy shit, it would suck if she was the president".
She has alot of extreme authoritarian views against everyday things, and people might not realise untill it's too late.
Then they'll be wiping their asses with horse hair or something, wondering how it all went so wrong.

Obama is a terrorist, which is the next worst thing. So I guess I'd have to side with him.Obama is a terrorist. Really? How many soldiers has he murdered? Hmm. Just what I thought.

What kind of a choice is that?

I agree. Obama is obviously the better choice.

Wow, all the libs here, but they wouldn't want to vote for either one!

Patience is a virtue, puny troll.

Neither is left enough for me. Neither is even a liberal, rather conservative moderates.

Obama is a moderate connie? :confused:

Well, at least you'd vote for him over Clinton.

I can't specifically remember all the things but constantly I've heard of hillary clinton trying to ban this or change that and I'm just like "holy shit, it would suck if she was the president".

I agree. A friend of mine, who's also a liberal, says Hillary's against violent video games and wants to ban those. I'm not a gamer, but I thoroughly agree with him when he says "Not over my dead body!".

Obama is a terrorist

Bush owns Obama in that department any day of the week. Al-Qaida too; they come in second place.

I agree with madanthonywayne, the title of this thread should be changed to - Who would you vote for in a Democratic primary?

It's the Democrat primary, not the Democratic primary, unless of course, you are a Democratic, not a Democrat.

Neither. I'm a Republican, or at least I will be in 10 years.

I'm not a huge fan of Hilary. She's just a classic politician with strong connections in my eyes. I don't follow her much at all so that is nothing more than an uninformed bad vibe I get. So I'd vote Obama. I'd vote for her if she were the Democratic nominee though.

What I like about Obama is his speech makes me think he believes in his ideals. He doesn't do much of typical politician talk to try and say little to avoid criticism and stuff like that. He sounds like a man just talking about something he carefully thought about. This is improved by his ability to think on his feet when he talks. When I see him in Congress or something where he was speaking unprepared he is competent enough to not get side tracked by surprises... A lot of politicians don't adapt from whatever talking points they prepared for, but Obama adapts to counter arguments better than any politician I've ever seen, which makes his message much more powerful and convincing. He's like an anti-John Kerry in that respect.

Besides liking how he speaks I also strongly agree with everything Obama has said, so far. For me, him being President would be too good to be true.

Does anyone know what either of these people stand for...besides uttering stale platitudes?

I sat down with Obama's book 'The Audacity of Hope' in the store for a hour, and I still have no idea what his platform is.

The Hillary who cared about America and wanted a better health care system for America is dead. This Hillary has no soul. I don't want her.

Obama has gotten a lot more attention than he deserves. At this point in time he is just a symbol for freshness. Does he really have charisma? I have not seen it. He is young enough and unknown enough that we can still pretend he has charisma but were deluding ourselves. I think he is likable. I think he still has a little bit of youthfull idealism left in him and I like that. He might just try to make things better. He might take some political risks in order to provide leadership for America but I doubt it. My favorite thing about Bush is that he takes political risks and tries to provide leadership. Too bad that Bush is morrally chalanged and can't tell right from wrong. Too bad that Bush is a horrible judge of charachter and a horrible judge of ideas because Bush is a leader. Perhaps it is easier for fools to be leaders than it is for wise people to be leaders. Bush junior and Reagan were leaders but they lead us in foolish directions. Don't expect Obama to be a leader; he strikes me more as a smiling smoothy.

It's the Democrat primary, not the Democratic primary, unless of course, you are a Democratic, not a Democrat.

shut up.

Is it the Republic Primary? ...Or the Republican Primary?

Neither is left enough for me. Neither is even a liberal, rather conservative moderates. But I will vote for Obama, only because it would piss of the religious right.:D

Yup. Us christians, we hate them sneaky old Darkies!

http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20041107jbPraisingGod_450.jpg

Good thing non of them black folk is a prominent misister or ernthing like that.

http://www.neworleansvfp.org/sites/neworleansvfp.org/files/images/AlSharpton-JesseJackson_0_0.jpg

Yup. Us christians, we hate them sneaky old Darkies!

http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20041107jbPraisingGod_450.jpg

Good thing non of them black folk is a prominent misister or ernthing like that.

http://www.neworleansvfp.org/sites/neworleansvfp.org/files/images/AlSharpton-JesseJackson_0_0.jpgI know religious rightwingers hate Obama because of his name and alleged connection to ISLAM! THAT is my point. The black baiting doesn't work.

I would write in Al Gore, your savior.

Wow, talk about a shitty set of choices!

Dear all


obama, would be better just cos hiliary is a female.

I am not sayi ng that females are unsuitable for the job, but give them a bit of power and they will ahve to "prove" they can be hard

If ol' hilary gets in to power, she will be going out of her way to show she is the "tough guy"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
later

Zak

You're a fool if you vote for another Bush or Clinton for president.

Democracy my ass, we have a corporate monarchy.

- N

... Obama has gotten a lot more attention than he deserves. At this point in time he is just a symbol for freshness. Does he really have charisma? I have not seen it....Don't expect Obama to be a leader; he strikes me more as a smiling smoothy. Then he will need to change a lot. I will not repost here but take a look at post 1 in thread "Update on Obama's schooling", this forum:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1279434&postcount=1

I am never very happy with the choices give to voters in elections, but as Obama is young, there will be opportunities for him later, not so true of Hillary C.

Thus, I would not mind if she headed up the ticket and Obama was her VP. - She could not get better protection against would-be right-wing assassins. (Even Baron Max would be praying for President Hillary not to die. :D Perhaps serving as one of her guards with that gun he so often is sticking in his mouth.)

Democracy my ass, we have a corporate monarchy. Yes, I agree. If you do not, how can anything else be with the cost of elections so high? If you do not agree:

What is it you think we have, if not "corporate monarchy," hidden behind an adequately stupid "front guy"?

Do you never wonder why the avearge CEO now makes in one day what the average worker makes in 400 and not know that about a decade ago the average Joe American only need to work 20 days to equal the average CEO's one day pay?

From the CEO's POV there has been great progress in the USA ever since the Democrates lost control of congress.

Perhaps the first step in returning economic power to the masses will be to strike down the law that makes it illegal to order drugs you need to stay alive etc, from Canada at less than half the cost. - Important if you can not afford both drugs and food that you need.

What if Lieberman runs with McCain or with Guiliani? Are there any of yall who'd vote that ticket?

Do you never wonder why the avearge CEO now makes in one day what the average worker makes in 400 and not know that about a decade ago the average Joe American only need to work 20 days to equal the average CEO's one day pay?

The Economist had a wonderful editorial about this very idea. Do you also have a problem with baseball players and rap stars making millions of dollars? Talent is talent, and certain talents tend to get rewarded in America. If you are in charge of a Fortune 500 company, and post record profits for the shareholders, are you not entitled to some reward?

Barak Obama seems ok from what I've heard although that isn't much.

I don't like Hillary Clinton... she wanted to ban GTA...

But It's not like I could vote so you can ignore my opinion

My favorite thing about Bush is that he takes political risks and tries to provide leadership.

I agree with this---remember that Teddy Roosevelt (one of our most loved presidents) did the same thing in Panama that Reagan tried to do in Central America. Perhaps in another era Bush would have been a great president.

I also agree that the Democrat Party is bereft of leadership. I mean, if you can't come up with someone better than Kerry (jackass) or Gore (a charismatic black hole), then there are problems. Howard Dean, I think, or John Edwards are probably the most marketable candidates, but Dean is kind of a nutjob, and Edwards isn't 100% behind the idea of gay marriages.

http://www.draftgore.com/

http://www.draftgore.com/

Yea, 5 months in country as a reporter, and sombody pulls some strings and he goes home.

Yea, 5 months in country as a reporter, and sombody pulls some strings and he goes home.

And that applies to most politicians; the perks of the rich elite.

- N

http://xs511.xs.to/xs511/07040/164527QVXU_w.jpg (http://xs.to)

Bob Marley!

Fuck Yeah.

It's the Democrat primary, not the Democratic primary, unless of course, you are a Democratic, not a Democrat.

I already talked to you about that.

Neither. I'm a Republican, or at least I will be in 10 years.

Explain the "ten years" part.

...Do you also have a problem with baseball players and rap stars making millions of dollars? Talent is talent, and certain talents tend to get rewarded in America. If you are in charge of a Fortune 500 company, and post record profits for the shareholders, are you not entitled to some reward? I have no problem with sports stars making big bucks, (they do not set their own salaries) but do think it says something about the excess value that US society places on contributions that only entertain and leave no lasting value, compared to contributions that last - say things like Salk's vaccine for polio. The US society get what it pays for and deserves to - No wonder the US lags most of the world in math and science education and leads in production of baseball pitchers, rock bands, etc.

I likewise think Steve Jobs (of Apple) is worth his $1/year salary (and stock options, of course).

What I have trouble with is the fact that many US CEOs now mutually serve on each others board of directors and help to reward each other with pay far in excess of their value to their companies. (Effectively they set their own salaries via mutual cooperation.)

Even if the company is failing (such as Ford is etc) US CEOs still rake in the big bucks.

Have you no problem with this? If that is not too much, then what about >$5 million "golden parachute" pay offs to leave the company - quite common. what contribution is this to the company? Or does it just reflect a mutual rip-off pack among US CEOs?

If I were king, CEOs would get $1/year (like Jobs does) and only stock options that priced at the current value of their companies stock with relatively long term available for exercise (7 years at least, and no exercisability for at least 3 years as it is too easy to "pump the stock" for a year or two and cash in your options before the true value of the company, which you have ruined by pumping / creative bookkeeping etc, becomes reflected in the stock price. - Ever heard of ENRON? Etc in thousands of lessor cases.) Little wonder US is now increasingly non competive and dollar is dropping in value under these typical US CEOs.

It is ridiculous that US CEO receive more than 10 times the pay of non-US CEOs who are doing so much better for their companies - and bankrupting* many US companies in the process. etc.
------------------------------------
*Not sure that the foreign CEOs deserve all the credit for bankrupting US companies because the US CEOs have been more concerned for themselves than the company they managed in many cases. They got their golden parachute, but what is Joe American to do when the US ECONOMY COLLAPSES?

It is ridiculous that US CEO receive more than 10 times the pay of non-US CEOs who are doing so much better for their companies - and bankrupting* many US companies in the process. etc.

I think I've seen that comment from you on several occasions, Billy. Since it seems to make such a big impression on you, perhaps you know of some comparisons of salaries and perks of the CEOs in other nations of the world? I mean, you must have made such a comparison, else you'd not be so quick to accuse the US of such greed.

I'd also like to see some evidence of CEO salaries bankrupting US companies. I've never heard of such a thing happening ....and that would be big news in the US, don't you think?

They got their golden parachute, but what is Joe American to do when the US ECONOMY COLLAPSES?

We're a private enterprise system of economy, Billy, not a socialist or communistic system. Perhaps you made the mistake of thinking that, huh? But with our system of economy, "Joe American" does what anyone would do in that case ....go find another job!

Baron Max

Neither. I'm a Republican, or at least I will be in 10 years.

Explain the "ten years" part.

He's currently 8 years old? ;)

- N

I have no problem with sports stars making big bucks

And I have no problem with CEO's making big bucks:) It's all perspective.

The two situations are very similar in my opinion. The best CEO's command the highest pay. If a company wants a good CEO, then they have to pony up the money to pay. Alex Rodriguez, for example, signed a $252 million contract with the Texas Rangers. Now, any top notch player looks for a salary of around $18-$20 million a year. SOMEone will pay it---this is economics, some teams want to win. If a company wants a CEO who has proven himself or who they believe will increase profits, they have to step up with the checkbook.

(Edit: I'm sure Yankees fans would disagree that Arod is worth 25 million a year, just like Home Depot stock owners would disagree with the $200 million severance package offered to the former CEO.)

Even if the company is failing (such as Ford is etc) US CEOs still rake in the big bucks.

There are many reasons to disagree with you, but one is the implication that the CEO is solely responsible for how the company preforms. There is no evidnece that Ford Motor Company is doing poorly because of its CEO. It seems that ten years ago, Ford made a decision to push SUV's because gas was cheap. All of their R and D went in to making safer SUV's, and not developing hybrid fuel technology, as the Japanese were doing. Was it the fault of the current CEO that gas prices were down and demand for SUVs was up?

Have you no problem with this? If that is not too much, then what about >$5 million "golden parachute" pay offs to leave the company - quite common. what contribution is this to the company? Or does it just reflect a mutual rip-off pack among US CEOs?

Don't all workers get severance packages when they are laid off or fired, that is comiserate with their salary? This is more of a sign that the company respects its leadership---tell me, how is a company to recruit a new CEO candidate if the last one just got fired without any severance package? What dos that say to the people who want the job? "If you screw up, you're screwed."

If I were king, CEOs would get $1/year (like Jobs does) and only stock options that priced at the current value of their companies stock with relatively long term available for exercise

First of all, thank God you're not king. Second of all, your darling Steve Jobs is about to be in some major shit, for having his board back-date his stock options. So suppose a CEO is given stock options with a 7 year exercise clause and leaves the company. The next guy takes over and runs it into the ground. Then where is the former CEO left? A few years of hard work for a pile of worthless stocks? No thank you.

Little wonder US is now increasingly non competive and dollar is dropping in value under these typical US CEOs.

The US economy is still the strongest economy in the world (according to people who know...economists), and the dollar is dropping because of the trade deficit with China, who sets the price of its currency on the world market. In essence, the Chinese tell us how much their products are worth, as opposed to letting the market determine that. Thus, it is easy to prop up the yaun on the back of the dollar. China also owns billions of dollars and could flood the market at any time, causing a mutual destruction of both our economies.

The pay of CEOs has nothing to do with the strength of the dollar.

I misspelled yaun---yuan. I think. Apologies to any Chinese reading this!

....The pay of CEOs has nothing to do with the strength of the dollar.almost true, but their incompentence sure does.

The Corporate Library, an American corporate-governance consultancy, last year identified 11 large and well known but poorly governed companies, including AT&T, Merck and Time Warner, where the chief executive had been paid at least $15m a year for two successive years even as the company's shares had underperformed. Robert Nardelli received a $210m pay-off when he lost his job earlier this month even though the shares of his company, Home Depot, fell slightly during his six years in charge. Carly Fiorina, ejected from Hewlett-Packard almost $180m better off—including a severance payment of $21.6m—after a lacklustre tenure as chief executive...

From 18Jan Economist article "Survey: Executive Pay - In the money."

This is what I am speaking about - the disconnect between performance and CEO pay. I have nothing against Carly Fiorina, but do not think giving her 21.6 million to leave was good for HP stock holders.

I could be wrong, perhaps she was terribly damaging to the company as CEO.

In that case why the hell did she deserve >30 million per year for running it. - You can not have it both ways.:D

...There is no evidnece that Ford Motor Company is doing poorly because of its CEO....And you of course have evidence that the company is doing well because of the CEO, when it is, so that justifies the outrageous pay.:rolleyes:

Again as in my last post: You can not have it both ways.:D

Why do CEO's of American corporations get paid a few times more than CEOs of comparable European corporations? It's not cost of living.

It's funny that you would quote the Economist, because the person who wrote the article came to a completely different conclusion. Did you read the article?

If you were a baseball player, would you even think about signing a contract that was tied to the preformance of your team?

I told you why Ford is doing poorly---they chose to neglect their small car market in favor of higher profit SUVs. Gas was cheap ten years ago (I remember a buck a gallon), so it made sense at the time. And in the mid nineties, Ford was one of the top manufacturers in the world.

As for Home Depot, don't you think it makes sense that a downturn in the housing market caused the largest seller of home improvement items in the nation to take a slight hit?

This is what I am speaking about - the disconnect between performance and CEO pay. I have nothing against Carly Fiorina, but do not think giving her 21.6 million to leave was good for HP stock holders.

You don't fire someone without giving them a severance package---this is true for everybody.

In that case why the hell did she deserve >30 million per year for running it.

Because that's what they were willing to pay her. If the she leads the company to increase their profit, then she is worth it. If she doesn't LOSE money in a company that's losing all kinds of market share to Apple, it seems a reasonable salary.

And you of course have evidence that the company is doing well because of the CEO, when it is, so that justifies the outrageous pay.

Any more than ARod stepping up to the plate and doing better than 1-14 against the Tigers in the playoffs. The CEO doesn't make the company, but his ass is on the line if something goes wrong.

Why do CEO's of American corporations get paid a few times more than CEOs of comparable European corporations? It's not cost of living.

Maybe the structure of business is different in America?

It's easy to attack CEOs and baseball players because they make so much money. But the fact of the matter is that there are a very limited number of people who can do jobs like these. Because there are fewer people, the price goes up.

We should start a new thread.

hillary

You really should capitalize her name.

You're a fool if you vote for another Bush or Clinton for president.

Democracy my ass, we have a corporate monarchy.

- N

Amen! Whenever I look at Hillary Clinton, I think, "Dont you want a president who's a freak like me?"

Barack Obama seems like a nice guy, and when compared to the Jackass Clintons, Obama's the man for the job!

Barack Obama seems like a nice guy, and when compared to the Jackass Clintons, Obama's the man for the job!

What better reason to vote for someone than "He seems like a nice guy".