The End of the Democrats?

[finknottle]

In the first paragraph, you say that it is reasonable to guess that she will pick up 500,000 in PR and then in your recap you give her 600,000 and that puts her up by 130,000. So if we use your "reasonable" guess of 500,000, she would only be up by 30,000. Personally, I think that the above are quite optimistic on Hillary's part. Everything besides PR would need to be even and an absolutely huge win in PR would be needed to accomplish it.

 

Even if the above happens, she still wouldn't be able to close much of the gap in delegates.

 

Of course, if she doesn't meet the above, I'm sure that she will come up with some other rationale for her being the nominee.

 

The first batch of numbers are my best guess based on the numbers out there. The second batch are what I think would happen with a few breaks in her favor. (Obviously, things might equally break in Obama's favor.) I wanted to keep the estimation separate from the what-if speculation.

 

Basically I'm predicting that she will just pull ahead in the popular vote (without MI or FL), but it is quite possible that she could wind up 100-200k ahead (or 100-200k behind).

[OCinBuffalo]

what an angry post !!!... did your wife leave you to live with a leftist or what?!!

No but I like messing with leftist women It's funny because I don't remember being angry when I wrote that, it just kinda came out. I don't think I even edited it that much, and I was doing something else while I was writing it(SQL tracing, blah). However, reading it over it's factually correct and that's all that really matters.

Did you ever take into account the veto power Bush has? Kind of hard to get things done with a President that will threaten to veto pretty much anything thrown at him. Recession I believe started before 2006. Gas Prices are EVERYONE'S fault - not just the dems.

 

Gas prices - nothing was done when the problem started. Just think, last year (July 2006) — Prices at the gas pump jumped 104 percent from $1.47 per gallon in January 2001 to $3.00. The average household with children will spend about $3,815 on transportation fuel costs this year, an increase of 100 percent or $1,912 over 2001 costs. Again, that all happened between 2001 and July 2006. Granted we're worse off now. Dems and Republicans are at fault at least from 2006 to now. From 2001 to 2006 I would have to put the majority of the blame on the republicans.

 

Now it would be easy to blame the oil companies (in 2005 the five largest oil companies reported a record $110 billion in profits - could they have put some of that money towards refining? Exploration?). Somehow, someway we have to get to OPEC and knock them back a bit since something like 70% of what we pay at the pump goes in that direction.

 

Bottom line is that something has to be done.

Great, here's the problems with what you wrote:

 

1. Bush's veto power existed BEFORE the election in 2006. It's not some new thing, and the Democrats knew full well that it existed before they made their promises

2. I don't care, and I don't think anybody else does, that they have challenges that have to be overcome. When you sign up for a gig, you sign up, and if there were any potential project killers or things you can't or don't want to handle, it's easy: you don't sign up in the first place. They are the ones who promised that not only WOULD they overcome these challenges, that they COULD overcome them. Are you suggesting that anything you wrote above wasn't known by the Democrats BEFORE they made their promises?

 

All I see here is the lowest form of opportunistic power grabs, and absolutely no results to show for it. They either knew they weren't gonna actually do anything, or they were lying to themselves, but they grabbed the power anyway. We end up worse off than we were, or at the very best no better off than we were.

 

He's bitter

No Molson I'm just annoyed and tired. I'm exhausted actually. I don't think I can take any more phony "indignation" or phony "righteousness" from people like you. I have a huge tolerance for different points of view, I have to because it's necessary at my job. But you and your type have exhausted my tolerance for your brand of BS. Most of what you say and believe is an absolute lie, and is all about scoring political points rather than actually putting forward solutions that are actually going to work.

 

I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt with the Clinton thing and the recount mess. However, right around 3 months after 9/11, with the whole "what did he know, when did he know it" BS, I began to catch on. Rather than taking the opportunity to be part of the solution, or offer anything that can be called a solution on issue after issue, all you have done is try to score political points. Well, we can't eat political points, nor can we use them as fuel for our cars, and political points don't protect us from anything.

 

And guess what? I am not alone in these views by a long shot: or haven't you checked Congress' approval ratings lately? You are lying to yourself, no surprise there, if you actually think that the Democrats are going to make significant gains in Congress this year.

 

And the most ironic part of all? When you get your ass kicked this year(remember when I said things were getting better in Iraq and you called me "delusional", you wanna go round 2 on who's better at seeing things clearly?) or things basically stay the same Congress wise, and especially if McCain gets elected, how much do you want bet you will be blaming everyone else but the Democrats in Congress for that?

[Chilly]

You have another reason why "Mr Personality" didn't want to have a chance to convince the older and blue collar workers of Michigan and Florida to vote for him? Other than his message doesn't deal with the meat and potato issues they're concerned with?

 

The idea that he would "lose worse than he did" is amusing.

 

He would still lose, which is why his campaign didn't want to do it. He knew they would be disregarded if he didn't agree to it, so why should he/

[molson_golden2002]

No Molson I'm just annoyed and tired. I'm exhausted actually. I don't think I can take any more phony "indignation" or phony "righteousness" from people like you. I have a huge tolerance for different points of view, I have to because it's necessary at my job. But you and your type have exhausted my tolerance for your brand of BS. Most of what you say and believe is an absolute lie, and is all about scoring political points rather than actually putting forward solutions that are actually going to work.

 

I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt with the Clinton thing and the recount mess. However, right around 3 months after 9/11, with the whole "what did he know, when did he know it" BS, I began to catch on. Rather than taking the opportunity to be part of the solution, or offer anything that can be called a solution on issue after issue, all you have done is try to score political points. Well, we can't eat political points, nor can we use them as fuel for our cars, and political points don't protect us from anything.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way about people like me being angry. Perhaps I should just ignore it all and shrug my shoulders and say life sucks. A lot of us are annoyed, get in line. I guess that's why we come here and B word about it. I guess its easy to believe the left wing outrage is all phony and about political power, so it goes. You can't change a thing without grabbing power, and to do that you have to say and do things that are rather unbecoming. So it goes. But sitting on your ass and doing nothing simply not to annoy people is cowardly and wrong.

 

This country is really on the wrong track and THAT is frustrating to me. Lots of other people are obviously angry too. The "solutions" you spoke of, in my opinion, were basically curing the disease by killing the patient. I've offered my solutions--which were roundly condemned here, I might add--so it's not like I'm just complaining.

 

Just remember, whether you like it or not big changes are coming. It's being forced upon us by powers beyond our control. The economy, energy prices [the big one], pollution, budget considerations, a changing world order and many other things, I'm sure. Now, as a country we can worry about those things, or we could argue about the "war on Christmas," gay marriage, flag burning, wearing flag lapells or what ever other distrations that are thrown out there. What would you pick?

[PastaJoe]

The idea that he would "lose worse than he did" is amusing.

 

He would still lose, which is why his campaign didn't want to do it. He knew they would be disregarded if he didn't agree to it, so why should he/

 

So Obama only wants to have primaries in states that he has a chance to win? That's a new spin on democracy. I'm sure the voters in Florida and Michigan will flock towards that type of "change" in the general election. The delegates may be disregarded, but the superdelegates will look at the popular vote totals and unwillingness to revote as factors to support Hillary for the nomination.

[Chilly]

So Obama only wants to have primaries in states that he has a chance to win? That's a new spin on democracy. I'm sure the voters in Florida and Michigan will flock towards that type of "change" in the general election. The delegates may be disregarded, but the superdelegates will look at the popular vote totals and unwillingness to revote as factors to support Hillary for the nomination.

 

You think Hillary wouldn't do the same thing?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

So Obama only wants to have primaries in states that he has a chance to win? That's a new spin on democracy. I'm sure the voters in Florida and Michigan will flock towards that type of "change" in the general election. The delegates may be disregarded, but the superdelegates will look at the popular vote totals and unwillingness to revote as factors to support Hillary for the nomination.

 

Where do the Clintonites get the impression that Obama is the one who prevented revotes in FL and MI? As far as I know, the states themselves decided that it was too costly or too late to have a redo. He may have been against some of the re-do proposals but so was Hillary...for example, a caucus instead of a primary.

 

The states themselves screwed this one up by defying the DNC even though they were warned that the results wouldn't count. The states of MI and FL disenfranchised their voters and that's where their citizens' ire should be directed.

[DC Tom]

Where do the Clintonites get the impression that Obama is the one who prevented revotes in FL and MI? As far as I know, the states themselves decided that it was too costly or too late to have a redo. He may have been against some of the re-do proposals but so was Hillary...for example, a caucus instead of a primary.

 

The states themselves screwed this one up by defying the DNC even though they were warned that the results wouldn't count. The states of MI and FL disenfranchised their voters and that's where their citizens' ire should be directed.

 

One could argue, too, that no one was disenfranchised, this being a party matter. Ultimately, the political parties can determine their candidates however they choose - there is no requirement to put it to a party vote.

 

The citizens' anger should more rightly be directed to the Democratic party, for defining a process that denied them input into the party's choice of candidate.

[PastaJoe]

Where do the Clintonites get the impression that Obama is the one who prevented revotes in FL and MI? As far as I know, the states themselves decided that it was too costly or too late to have a redo. He may have been against some of the re-do proposals but so was Hillary...for example, a caucus instead of a primary.

 

The states themselves screwed this one up by defying the DNC even though they were warned that the results wouldn't count. The states of MI and FL disenfranchised their voters and that's where their citizens' ire should be directed.

 

The financing wasn't an issue, the DNC found donors who were willing to cover the cost. Michigan and Florida have primaries, not caucuses. To switch to a different method of voting would make no sense and would just serve to confuse the voters. And the state legislatures and governors were ready to support new primaries to be held in June, but wouldn't agree to do it unless all parties agreed. Hillary agreed, the DNC agreed, but Obama wouldn't agree, therefore it didn't go forward.

[KD in CA]

The financing wasn't an issue, the DNC found donors Hillary supporters who were willing to cover the cost.

 

Fixed.

[finknottle]

Where do the Clintonites get the impression that Obama is the one who prevented revotes in FL and MI? As far as I know, the states themselves decided that it was too costly or too late to have a redo. He may have been against some of the re-do proposals but so was Hillary...for example, a caucus instead of a primary.

 

The states themselves screwed this one up by defying the DNC even though they were warned that the results wouldn't count. The states of MI and FL disenfranchised their voters and that's where their citizens' ire should be directed.

 

'The States' are local politicians who are aligned with one camp or another.

 

There was money - Obama's people raised numerous objections in Florida against any revote arguing (I don't remember the details) that absentee ballots would disenfranchise voters etc.

[Nanker]

The end of the Democratic party?? You mean the party that in all probablity will increase its majorities in both houses of congress? I think the Democrats are in a much better position to accept a loss in November for the presidential race than the Republicans are. If the Republicans lose they will be out of power and heading towards rump status in the country after November if all the Democratic cards fall into place. God have mercy on the Republicans if the Democrats actually manage the country well, using "mainstream values" to do it, or not.

 

The only thing the Democrats have managed well is their well orchestrated war on the incumbent President.

Howard Dean's said no incumbent party has retained the Presidency after a two term president left when there was an unpopular war and the economy is bad. The Dems have pursued a relentless two pronged attack against President Bush at every opportunity and can't wait to fly to Baghdad with C130's full of white flags on Jan 23rd, 2009 once they seize absolute power. The economy was doing great until Nancy Pelosi took over as leader of the rabble, and don't give me that utter nonsense about how great the Clinton years were. If it weren't for the trillions of dollars the private sector and the government were forced to spend to remediate Y2K because Bill Gates never thought no microprocessor would have a need for anything other than a two digit year register Bill Clinton would simply be viewed as a bigger clown than he currently is.

[GG]

Funny debate no doubt. But, people always zero in on the top echelon of a party's leadership without recognizing the machine that makes both parties run. Both have a 100-yr old base that fills every ugly nook of local politics and that base isn't going away anytime soon, no matter how many feel-good legislation will be meted out in DC. If you want to see the probability of the current two party system ending anytime soon, get involved in local politics (just be sure to wash at least twice a day)

[molson_golden2002]

The only thing the Democrats have managed well is their well orchestrated war on the incumbent President.

Howard Dean's said no incumbent party has retained the Presidency after a two term president left when there was an unpopular war and the economy is bad. The Dems have pursued a relentless two pronged attack against President Bush at every opportunity and can't wait to fly to Baghdad with C130's full of white flags on Jan 23rd, 2009 once they seize absolute power. The economy was doing great until Nancy Pelosi took over as leader of the rabble, and don't give me that utter nonsense about how great the Clinton years were. If it weren't for the trillions of dollars the private sector and the government were forced to spend to remediate Y2K because Bill Gates never thought no microprocessor would have a need for anything other than a two digit year register Bill Clinton would simply be viewed as a bigger clown than he currently is.

Since Bush has sucked so bad as President its made it easy for the Democrats to do their job. Lowest approval rating in the history of Gallup polling I see. It's funny that John McCain hasn't really been able to pull into the lead in polls even with the Democrats attacking each other, just wait till Obama or Hillary start pointing out that McCain is running for Bush's third term every chance they get. If McCain isn't ahead in the polls now you have to wonder if he will ever be.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Hypothetical question:

 

It will be stunning if the Democrats manage to lose this election - they have absolutely everything in there favor. And yet...

 

Suppose they manage to blow it. What happens to the party afterwards? I'm thinking it depends on the candidate.

 

 

If Clinton gets the nomination and loses, it will be the usual sort of recriminations: she was too divisive, the democrats have bad luck, we'll get it next time. Maybe the lesson is you don't tick off an important constituincy (the african-american vote), and you work harder to register the hispanic vote. In other words, same as the last few elections, no real change in course.

 

But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, it would likely be due to the defection of the moderate and conservative Clinton supporters. The perceived shift to the left could signal to the remaining moderates there's no future to the Democratic Party - they may see it's loss as the inevitable result of being taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Ah the never ending Rush Limbaugh drivel... I have heard this prediction a couple of times and it makes me laugh... The Republicans and Democrats base are solidly behind them and I agree with a later writer, both groups rely too much on their extremes for support. But it keeps the parties going and then both try and manipulate the middle saying that they aren't extreme...

 

Furthermore, never underestimate the Dems ability to lose a Presidential election. They are good at it. However, from an economic/budget standpoint. I would rather have the Dems in charge of the White House and Republicans in charge if the House and Senate so that both are arguing over who can cut the budget more. It always seems the other way ends up with more spending. Look at now.... Clinton with Delay cut the bureaucracy by a third. Bush has more than doubled that cut in the form of an increase.

 

And there is military waste... don't get me started on the fleecing of the budget by military contractors. Unbelievable how the beltway bandits are making out in DC

[DC Tom]

And there is military waste... don't get me started on the fleecing of the budget by military contractors. Unbelievable how the beltway bandits are making out in DC

 

Not just military. My employer has contracts at HUD, Education, HHS, and Interior. The amount of waste in those departments is stunning. Interior in particular.

 

And on my contract...I've actually heard other companies hire people for contracts and tell them "We don't have anything for you to do yet...just bill 40 hours a week for the next couple weeks and go golfing." The government as a whole is an environment where you can get in trouble for trying to save money.

[OCinBuffalo]

Since Bush has sucked so bad as President its made it easy for the Democrats to do their job. Lowest approval rating in the history of Gallup polling I see. It's funny that John McCain hasn't really been able to pull into the lead in polls even with the Democrats attacking each other, just wait till Obama or Hillary start pointing out that McCain is running for Bush's third term every chance they get. If McCain isn't ahead in the polls now you have to wonder if he will ever be.

Wishful thinking as always. Hey Molson, how about you explain Congress' 10% approval rating, which is now 27 points lower than Bush's. This should be fun. You do realize that you can't simply wish this poor performance away, right? Perhaps it's time show some character and admit they they have done nothing, nothing at all, about the issues that you supposedly care so much about.

 

Where's that energy policy they promised? You know, the reason we absolutely had to elect them or else our economy and environment would suffer catastrophe? It's been a year and a half. I know gubment is historically slow but a year and a half? No excuse for that, none. And why? Because almost all of the Democrats who got themselves elected on "BushBad" have no worldly idea how to do the job. Their isn't one Daniel Moynihan or Joe Lieberman in the bunch, but a whole lot of John Murtha pork spenders or a lot of loud-mouth schit-talkers who are great at complaining but can't even provide a single solution that isn't laughed off by the experts, or anyone else that possesses common sense.

 

Wait, who else does that sound like?

 

Worse, they haven't even tried. They haven't even produced something and MADE Bush veto it, and then taken their case to the people(um, the obvious tactic given Bush's numbers). Right, once again the obvious has apparently eluded them, and you.

 

So sorry but again, there is no excuse for this, certainly not Bush. You are absolutely dreaming if you think Democrats are going to make gains in Congress this year. And, if a Democrat wins the Presidency, get ready to lose Congress all over again in 2010.

 

What's worse than bad ideas? No ideas.

[molson_golden2002]

Wishful thinking as always. Hey Molson, how about you explain Congress' 10% approval rating, which is now 27 points lower than Bush's. This should be fun. You do realize that you can't simply wish this poor performance away, right? Perhaps it's time show some character and admit they they have done nothing, nothing at all, about the issues that you supposedly care so much about.

 

Where's that energy policy they promised? You know, the reason we absolutely had to elect them or else our economy and environment would suffer catastrophe? It's been a year and a half. I know gubment is historically slow but a year and a half? No excuse for that, none. And why? Because almost all of the Democrats who got themselves elected on "BushBad" have no worldly idea how to do the job. Their isn't one Daniel Moynihan or Joe Lieberman in the bunch, but a whole lot of John Murtha pork spenders or a lot of loud-mouth schit-talkers who are great at complaining but can't even provide a single solution that isn't laughed off by the experts, or anyone else that possesses common sense.

 

Wait, who else does that sound like?

 

Worse, they haven't even tried. They haven't even produced something and MADE Bush veto it, and then taken their case to the people(um, the obvious tactic given Bush's numbers). Right, once again the obvious has apparently eluded them, and you.

 

So sorry but again, there is no excuse for this, certainly not Bush. You are absolutely dreaming if you think Democrats are going to make gains in Congress this year. And, if a Democrat wins the Presidency, get ready to lose Congress all over again in 2010.

 

What's worse than bad ideas? No ideas.

Approval ratings mean little in reagrds to Congress as a whole. Its a bi-partisan institution that has the presidency leaning on it heavily. Voters in individual races will decide on the candidate they are given, not on congress as a whole. The winds are blowing favorably for Democrats right now. Democrats running for Congress can still run against 8 years of failed policies.

 

How come you didn't mention Iraq again? Remember how you attempted to bash me because vicory was just around the corner there? Now our troops are shooting up Sadr city, that's sure to win a lot of hearts and minds.

[OCinBuffalo]

Well I'm sorry you feel that way about people like me being angry. Perhaps I should just ignore it all and shrug my shoulders and say life sucks. A lot of us are annoyed, get in line. I guess that's why we come here and B word about it. I guess its easy to believe the left wing outrage is all phony and about political power, so it goes. You can't change a thing without grabbing power, and to do that you have to say and do things that are rather unbecoming. So it goes. But sitting on your ass and doing nothing simply not to annoy people is cowardly and wrong.

And "taking the high road" by choosing to run your mouth without actually taking time to understand the issue at hand or others' views on it, constantly attacking people, and providing no substantive content, or not actually reading, understanding, and considering the source of the articles you incessantly post, is such an attractive set of options over:

 

1. providing viable solutions,

2. contributing good ideas,

3. actually addressing the issue in a manner that works best for all and keeping the cheap shot to a minimum

4. taking a second to think objectively about who is saying what and why

 

What was I thinking questioning your supposed "moral superiority"?

This country is really on the wrong track and THAT is frustrating to me. Lots of other people are obviously angry too. The "solutions" you spoke of, in my opinion, were basically curing the disease by killing the patient. I've offered my solutions--which were roundly condemned here, I might add--so it's not like I'm just complaining.

And how like you to not hold anybody other than Republicans, Independents and rational Democrats accountable for our troubles. As if 70% of the Federal Budget we can't afford isn't currently comprised of far-left liberal entitlement programs. Your solutions have been roundly condemned because they don't make any sense! Excuse us for not wanting to repeat past mistakes of the "geniuses" FDR and LBJ. Or, at the very least we ask that any "solution" be looked at in terms of it's effect beyond the 4 year term of it's Presidential author.

 

But go ahead and play the victim, as though we are picking on you personally and not picking on your ideas. I've got news for you: there are ways to get to universal health care, but they depend a hell of a lot more on what people like me do than on what politicians and lawyers do, and I guarantee none of it has to do with just randomly raising taxes. In fact, macro-economic swings = more money/less money, and especially more un-funded mandates from the Federal level/regulations, will only create a larger problem and will solve nothing, until the root cause issues can be fixed. You want a full explanation? PM me, I dare you.

 

Those of us who actually provide solutions for a living know not to treat our ideas like our kids, have the self-confidence to recognize a better idea than ours when we see/hear it, and incorporate it quickly, because we are paid for results, not "being right". In other words: we have what's known as intellectual honesty and intellectual maturity, and we know it's about winning, not credit.

 

Until you develop those qualities, perhaps you should leave the solution providing to those of us who do it for a living. You can call me "high and mighty", but I put my money where my mouth is and am doing something about this, every day. You can call me cocky, but I sincerely doubt anybody wants to buy something from somebody who thinks their stuff "might work" vs. somebody who knows, and therefore says, it will. If I wasn't confident about this, I wouldn't be doing it and wasting everyone's time.

Just remember, whether you like it or not big changes are coming. It's being forced upon us by powers beyond our control. The economy, energy prices [the big one], pollution, budget considerations, a changing world order and many other things, I'm sure. Now, as a country we can worry about those things, or we could argue about the "war on Christmas," gay marriage, flag burning, wearing flag lapells or what ever other distrations that are thrown out there. What would you pick?

You are talking to a professional change agent, but I am supposed to be afraid of change, or somehow unable to deal with it, or unprepared for it? If you had any idea what I actually do, you'd realize how staggeringly silly that statement is.

 

Yeah, I get distracted by things like lapel pins, or gay marriage. Perhaps it's time for you to realize that those of us who are against wholesale socialism for socialism's sake, and who actually are working to fix things rather than B word all day, are just as smart if not smarter than you are, and certainly nowhere near as petty.

 

I have already picked, Molson, years ago, when I decided to chuck my pampered corporate existence and start doing something reasonable about these problems. And this morning, in 2 minutes, just like every morning 7 days a week(well, not after I go out), I will be acting on that choice.

[OCinBuffalo]

Approval ratings mean little in reagrds to Congress as a whole. Its a bi-partisan institution that has the presidency leaning on it heavily. Voters in individual races will decide on the candidate they are given, not on congress as a whole. The winds are blowing favorably for Democrats right now. Democrats running for Congress can still run against 8 years of failed policies.

 

How come you didn't mention Iraq again? Remember how you attempted to bash me because vicory was just around the corner there? Now our troops are shooting up Sadr city, that's sure to win a lot of hearts and minds.

I talk about no energy policy and you try to change the subject and talk about Iraq. When are you going to realize that nobody is buying these lame tactics, Molson? Where is the energy policy Molson? Where is it? Stop trying to duck the question and show some character for once.

 

Things actually work the opposite of what you are saying here, sorry to say. The fact that Congress has no energy policy is going to hang like a noose around EVERY Democratic candidate, even those who tried to do something about it, and those that are running for the first time, as unfair as that may be, come election time.

 

As far as Iraq goes, you apparently can't admit that you were wrong, not shocking. What is? Apparently you don't know/can't see, that the political progress you say is impossible in Iraq, is about to happen. Go read the news, from multiple sources, not MoveOn.org, like I did yesterday, and let me know when you are done. BTW, that's all I did last time.

 

Now, you wanna go round 2 on who sees things objectively and therefore whose predictions are most likely to be right, vs. who is blinded by ideology? Or are you still smarting from the whipping you took when I told you the surge was going to work and it did or when I told you that the Sunnis were flipping over to us? You can say what you want, but whenever you get done talking, the fact will still be: the surge did what I said it would and the Sunnis dropped a ton of dimes on the terrorists. And now, the Sunnis, if they are paid off in cabinet positions, are about to join the government and get down to business, and they, just like Hillary said we, "have a lot of business to do". Still laughing about that.

 

You wanna make a wager this time? Easy money for me, how about a $1k? I better not, you need that money for your therapy. Look, it appears that you are either so racist or so affected that you actually believe that the vast majority of Iraqis would rather keep screwing with each other rather than raising their family and working at their jobs, the same as us, and putting this all behind them. That goes against human nature and their culture. But, I suppose that's not a shocker either, especially for someone who wants to implement the abortion that is known as full-blown socialism here, which doesn't have a good human nature track record either...and goes against ours.