Obama Camp: John Edwards will be my AG

[jessiecat]

Yeah, but it goes too far. I mean come on, 40 hour work week, and anything over that OT? "Whaaa, whaaa, I worked 42 hours and it's sooooo hard on me, so I deserve more pay for those last two hours!". And it is even worse in Europe. Cry me a river, things are easy enough as it is for workers.

So you don't pay overtime payments for extra hours work, eh? How about
employers social insurance contributions? How about paid maternity leave?
How about training, health and safety, etc., etc., etc.? What are you
running then?
A nice little sweatshop employing children and illegals?

 

[The Yankee]

So you don't pay overtime payments for extra hours work, eh? How about
employers social insurance contributions? How about paid maternity leave?
How about training, health and safety, etc., etc., etc.? What are you
running then?
A nice little sweatshop employing children and illegals?

Nope. We don't hire anyone because it is such a PITA. Just me and my sis everyday, all day, every week, all year.

Your answers are somewhere in here.

Quite frankly, if it is small enough to be run by only two people, it would take lots of extra work to fill out the forms needed and appropriate the taxes needed to hire one person.

 

[JerichoHill]

Edwards as AG would be perfect. Kind of a balance to the corporist giveaways currently going on at the Supreme Court.

Edwards wouldnt have any pull over the SUpreme Court, they're separate from the DOJ

 

[JollyRoger]

Edwards wouldnt have any pull over the SUpreme Court, they're separate from the DOJ

The Supreme Court asks the Solicitor General for the DOJ's opinion on whether to take a case (while sometimes ignoring that opnion). The DOJ also often argues cases as a primary party or on behalf of the U.S. even when the two parties get their own private representation during argument. That being said, I didn't really mean that the DOJ has pull over the Supreme Court. While the Court is out there making all its pro-business decisions, the DOJ, through its prosecutorial discretion can make inroads where the Supreme Court hasn't acted or broaden government enforcement where the Supreme Court has curtailed private actions.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Not in the past two decades or so. Bush certainly didn't give McCain anything, Bill didn't give any of his contenders anything, Bush Sr. gave Jack Kemp all of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. That takes us back to 1988. So for the past 20 years, other than Kerry-Edwards, there has been a single, extremely minor incidence of this occurring. Whatever happened before is more or less irrelevant given how the political landscape changes dramatically every generation or so, and I maintain that despite the Republicans' penchant for invoking Reagan, since they aren't the ones appointing foes now (yet). Bush-Reagan was 28 years ago--or, to put it another way, before everyone alive today under 28 was born. I would deem that to be fairly old history, frankly, as far as American politics goes.

Correction: It was 27 years to this week. Campaign's run even years, administration are sworn in January of odd years.

So you don't pay overtime payments for extra hours work, eh? How about
employers social insurance contributions? How about paid maternity leave?
How about training, health and safety, etc., etc., etc.? What are you
running then?
A nice little sweatshop employing children and illegals?

Are you kidding VWRCAgent or the workers?

The working middle class are the foundation of a strong economy. If they're not doing well then the economy will not hold together. They are the majority of the populace.

I like Edwards, his passion and his charisma. I think he would be a great pick for AG.

I totally agree! I really like John Edwards. I love his economic/health care agenda alot. That was his most appealing asset as a candidate, but he does need some help on other issues, so maybe Attorney General is a perfect fit. I'd vote for that.

 

[The Yankee]

I'll put it this way, at least John Edwards has yet to have instant amnesia the way Alberto Gonzales did.

 

[luiz]

I like Edwards, his passion and his charisma. I think he would be a great pick for AG.

Jesus Christ, what happened to the once sane Godwynn?

John Edwards is a populist, a protectionist and a demagogue. His whole campaign was aimed at the stupid and the ignorant.

He is a disgrace. Beign passionate about wrong ideals is not a merit, I don't think I have to cite some pretty passionate leaders who did a great job in turning their nations into ruins.

Moderator Action: Lets not start this again. You just called a good number of people stupid and ignorant. Cease or do not post. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

John Edwards is a populist, a protectionist and a demagogue. His whole campaign was aimed at the stupid and the ignorant.

He is a disgrace. Beign passionate about wrong ideals is not a merit, I don't think I have to cite some pretty passionate leaders who did a great job in turning their nations into ruins.

Let me guess, you believe in Despotism.

 

[Ecofarm]

Sure they do. And if not watched closely, they'd rape the country blind than ask for handouts. And no, not the less restrictions the better. Less restrictions was tried once. It led to industry wide monopolies and moguls [insert: nannys] who could destabilize entire global economies on whims of fancy or a bit of insider trading...

[insert mine]

Are we talking about welfare/oragnized labor?

Oh, you meant people who work hard?

 

[gallego]

Is Obama going to win if Edwards stays in the race though?

 

[IglooDame]

If Hillary wins the primary, she might put up Barack for VP?

At this point I'm not entirely sure Barack would take it. He's seemed taken a little aback at the Hillary campaign's sharp elbows recently.

Could you imagine a possible AG that would be more antagonistic to the interests of business?

Eliot Spitzer, perhaps?

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Are we talking about welfare/oragnized labor?

Are we talking about misinformed agendas and calling anthills mount Everest? Every labor union in existence could be yes men for Vito Corleone and every person currently on Welfare could exploit the system like its going out of style...and it'd still be less of an impact on our nation, budget, and economy than say...the last few corporate scandals, the Iraq war spending, or countless other factors. Conservatives some years back turned welfare into a dirty word (like liberal or tax...not that they needed much help with the second one) and you're happily drinking the koolaid.

I won't bother appealing to any humanitarian sensibilities over those who desperately need these services, cause quite frankly...I don't care all that much either. But conservatives try to make it out like a massive HORDE of unwashed masses are sucking the system dry, when welfare funding is an insignificant, fraction of a percentage of our annual spending.

And if you're counting medical care into the debate...the reason we pay more is because we don't have a nationalized system. (another quaint conservative myth)

About the only really 'draining' aspect of welfare is social security. And if you touch that you'll have a couple hundred million geriatrics and baby boomers from both parties at your throats. Becomes a bit of a non-starter no matter what someone wants to do with that behemoth.

 

[Stegyre]

At this point I'm not entirely sure Barack would take it. He's seemed taken a little aback at the Hillary campaign's sharp elbows recently.

With the Clintons' take-no-prisoners approach to campaigning, I doubt very much that she'd offer it, although it would be a good move. It was one of the things that Reagan did right -- making peace with opponents -- and one of the things the Clintons and the current administration have done very, very poorly. It's one of the principal reasons I would not want to see a Clinton in the White House, again. (And PRAISE THE LORD (or maybe the 80th Congress) that another Bush term is not possible!)

Eliot Spitzer, perhaps?

OT: Much as I dislike the plaintiffs' bar, I think Edwards would be an excellent AG, a refreshing change from what we've seen, recently (especially most recently ) and, to the extent he may want to go "too far," he will be adequately reigned in by a majority conservative SCOTUS. (A democratic administration would also give those ailing, aging liberal justices the chance they need to retire and be replaced.)

 

[Patroklos]

American buisneses paid 354 billion in taxes in 2006.

I'd imagine they payed 95% of the income American's made that year as well. The "evil corporations" do a 1000 times more good than they do bad, especially since 99% of the bad you hear about is completely made up bull.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8116&type=0

 

[IglooDame]

With the Clintons' take-no-prisoners approach to campaigning, I doubt very much that she'd offer it, although it would be a good move. It was one of the things that Reagan did right -- making peace with opponents -- and one of the things the Clintons and the current administration have done very, very poorly. It's one of the principal reasons I would not want to see a Clinton in the White House, again. (And PRAISE THE LORD (or maybe the 80th Congress) that another Bush term is not possible!)

Agreed.

OT: Much as I dislike the plaintiffs' bar, I think Edwards would be an excellent AG, a refreshing change from what we've seen, recently (especially most recently ) and, to the extent he may want to go "too far," he will be adequately reigned in by a majority conservative SCOTUS. (A democratic administration would also give those ailing, aging liberal justices the chance they need to retire and be replaced.)

A populist AG? It would be... odd. It would be indeed be a refreshing change, and certainly worthwhile to see him go after corrosive corporate-political links, but I'm wondering if there would be other impacts that wouldn't be as welcomed. Does he get McCain-Feingold-ish about free speech? What's his take on the Second Amendment? Torture? Gitmo? The Patriot Act? Eavesdropping?

 

[Stegyre]

ut I'm wondering if there would be other impacts that wouldn't be as welcomed. Does he get McCain-Feingold-ish about free speech? What's his take on the Second Amendment? Torture? Gitmo? The Patriot Act? Eavesdropping?

Fair enough: we don't necessarily know where he stands on many (or all?) of these issues. But for the past few years, I've felt like the man at the center of the Earth: "Hey, I can only go 'up' from here!"

Second Amendment is a bit of a question mark, although one that matters very little to me. (Not to you, I understand: to each his own. I have no qualms with responsible gun owners, it's all those others who get their hands on a gun . . . .)

As for the others -- torture, Gitmo, "Patriot" Act -- Edwards' position can only be a step (or many steps) away from the Bush position . . . and I find it hard to regret that.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Regarding Edwards's positions on issues, they're all on his website, at the difficult-to-remember URL of www.johnedwards.com. (Link to the "issues" page.)

But he'd also be the attorney general of an Obama administration, and Obama would be his boss. The government's position on those issues would be Obama's final decision.

(And before anyone says, "Obama doesn't stand for particular issues! All he ever says are vague statements about "change"! We can't know what he'd do!", allow me to direct you to the equally difficult-to-remember URL of www.barackobama.com, which sets out his positions, in detail, on any number of issues. (Link, again, to the "issues" page.))

Cleo

 

[.Shane.]

What do you guys think about that? I don't like it at all.

No way.. really? Given your choice of a handle I AM SHOCKED.

I don't expect most Repubs/conservatives to approve of any democrat who could serve in Obama's cabinet.

But, if you want to look at it more objectively, in terms of the realm of people Obama could opt for, its a reasonable choice.

 

[amadeus]

No way.. really? Given your choice of a handle I AM SHOCKED.

You should be. Ron Reagan is about as pinko as you are and slightly less irritating.

 

[jessiecat]

Correction: It was 27 years to this week. Campaign's run even years, administration are sworn in January of odd years.




Are you kidding VWRCAgent or the workers?

The working middle class are the foundation of a strong economy. If they're not doing well then the economy will not hold together. They are the majority of the populace.



I totally agree! I really like John Edwards. I love his economic/health care agenda alot. That was his most appealing asset as a candidate, but he does need some help on other issues, so maybe Attorney General is a perfect fit. I'd vote for that.

Well, I wouldn't be having a pop at the workers, would I? His first post
sounded like a rant against good employment practices. I assumed he
was complaining about his employees.
Anyway, as I've said, I like Edwards. If he can't be President, then why
not a good job in a Democrat admin.? He wouldn't be the first liberal A.G.
in history, would he. Remember Bobby Kennedy?