THRASHER'S PROFILE

halibabica, what would you say was the biggest detriment to the game's score? From your review, I assume it is the amount of traipsing about you have to do.

I'd just like to comment that I had a huge role in the making of this game, so shame on you SDHawk for failing to mention it. :D

I've heard it said that instead of attracting both of their bases, an Obama-Clinton ticket would REPEL both bases (probably Obama's base more, despite polls, but I guess Hillary's base would disappear because he eats arugula or something), and I agree. Hillary Clinton is the big figurehead for what Obama is fighting against in the democratic party.

Senate majority leader would be a much better position for her.

author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13502#msg13502 date=1209414390
Because Americans hate the idea of universal health care? It really baffles me that a powerful and progressive nation like the US does not have a universal health care system, especially since it pays a greater percentage of GDP towards healthcare than, say, Canada (who isn't exactly running a tight ship on healthcare).

There's no universal health care because the idea is demonized by conservatives who just say "MORE TAXES MORE TAXES" and people buy it. People regularly don't vote in their own interests -- do you really think the poor small-town folk who vote Republican benefit from their pro-corporate policies? People largely vote on social issues ever since Reagan and co. came into town.

Obama's plan is not universal healthcare, but it strives to come close enough. It's not a sea change as much as it is a lowering of rates and fees, so that people can afford it. Hillary's claim that it leaves out 15 million people is dishonest, because those 15 million are considered college students who wouldn't buy healthcare because they *don't want it*.

Hey guys. First post. (I'm one of the higher-ups in the ika community)

I've been knee-deep in political junk recently, and there are a few things you need to understand. Never take something at its face value, especially when so many people are trying to deceive you.

-

author=rcholbert link=topic=974.msg13491#msg13491 date=1209405457
A recent survey of members of congress ranked Obama the most liberal senator, with a rating of ~82.5. Hillary was right behind him with a ~78. The only real difference is Clinton is more hawkish on foreign policy.

author=brandonabley link=topic=974.msg13476#msg13476 date=1209393356
I'm of the opinion that they are basically the same candidate and they should pull straws because all they are doing is sabotaging the entire Democratic party's image which, until a month ago, I was 9000% certain would win the presidency by a ridiculous landslide.

a) That survey is bogus. It's not a reputable organization (Republican claptrap machine), and he is rated more liberal than Bernie Sanders, the SELF-LABELED SOCIALIST SENATOR. Give me a break. (Edit: It's also bogus because it rated the senators on a very narrow, cherry-picked criteria list. One of the bills that made him so "liberal" was for the creation of an independent government accountability office. That doesn't strike me as "liberal" so much as JUST. If they want to say Republicans don't want accountability in their government, be my guest.)

b) They are most definitely not the same candidate. Clinton continues to pour all of her effort into derailing Obama's campaign, while he stands by and tries to pull the narrative toward something that matters (issues). This is a pretty big red flag that Clinton just wants to continue the gridlock we've seen in our Congress ever since the Republican majority was lost. Conversely, Obama at least wants to try to reason with both sides to come to a conclusion. His demeanor and attitude are so much better than Clinton's, and 60% of the country automatically will never like her, so his methodology will be much different.

c) More hawkish, perhaps, but incredibly careless. You don't poke at your enemy by threatening them with nuclear obliteration (Iran) when there's no evidence they even have nukes or are trying to procure them. And even if there was, you keep it to yourself so as not to, say, ruin the entire political climate of the Middle East.

Once the primary season is over, the media (hopefully, but don't count on it) will start to pay attention to McCain's ridiculous flip-flops (his image as a maverick is going to get more and more tarnished), and most educated people are going to see him for the fraud he really is. There's no indication that Clinton OR McCain would be better than Bush, since they both have erratic tendencies that prevent you from counting on them keeping their cool in foreign relations. It's a scary thing to give someone so irritable control over our military.

Also, Hillary has a tradition of saying one thing, and doing another, and pandering to everyone in the process. She's been acting more and more like a Republican lately, agreeing with McCain and using Rovian-style GOP scare tactics to make viewers frown on Obama. The difference is quite crystalline, in my view.

What I really want to tell you is, do some digging on your own. Everything the mainstream media tells you is completely spun out of control so they can keep their ratings going. A contest is better than no contest, so they will overreport any flub by the Obama camp and completely ignore anything Hillary does ("obliterate Iran" unreported, look up "Peter Paul fraud trial", worthless gas tax suspension policy, etc).

This isn't a canned message, I swear. I'll be adding some ika files and hopefully talking to WIP about getting our community up and running, but until then... don't make this decision lightly. You're choosing a president, not an American Idol.