NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/24/Perspective/Democrats_are_to_die_.shtml

A new survey of Democratic voters indicates that in a hypothetical matchup between Sen. Hillary Clinton and former presidential nominee John Kerry, most Democrats would choose suicide over either candidate.

The poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, shows Kerry drawing 21 percent, Clinton 18 percent and various forms of suicide 61 percent.

"Throwing yourself in front of a speeding city bus" was the most popular means of suicide at 22 percent, with "jumping off the roof of a really tall building or bridge" coming in second at 17 percent.

Wow, I had no idea. But it does make me wonder - who is the most probably candidate (all joking aside) that the Democrats will present? And who will the Republicans present?

Or will this next Presidential election be another parade of used and lackluster candidates on both sides?

Hillary vs Jeb!



Comedy value +++ for us outsiders. It'd be like democracy between 2 royal families.

What was that you said...."another parade of used and lackluster candidates" yes yes that's it, as well as amoral vapid self interested liars who do all in their power to serve only their party and not the people as well as fatten their pockets and the pockets of their friends along the way.
We need to destroy the two party system, or at least these two parties.

Steward/Colbert 2008!

Colbert himself implied he was running on his show. :p

In all seriousness, the duo (or anyone currently outside of government) would do better than the outdated people in government now.

Odd how government is ran by the people who least know how to run it... and the people who are 20 years behind everyone else.

Governments are run by people who know best how to run a government and least how to serve their people---destroy the career of politics and rebirth civil service.
Make all politician give over retirement accouns and 401Ks and force them to only receive social security when they retire--I bet they fix it.

Remove their right to grant themselves a fecking raise!!! Attach their pay to the economy and minimum wage---if the economy is up their pay is up if it is down their pay is down--I bet they fix our economy

Make these fecking people responsible for what they do to us and I bet they do much better by us.

And where is a fecking gallows for these dogs ....

FAKE.

Which, like, have you read the rest of the column?


Here's someone who went through the trouble of actually contacting that mysterious "University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute" about an earlier "poll" quoted by - surprise - Andy Borowitz, the guy who alo wrote this one:

http://www.essfingers.com/?p=594

I figured the whole thing was fake. I knew it had to have been but had to find out how the University of Minnesota was involved. Anyway, following is the response I received back via email.

"Thank you for your recent inquiry into the University of Minnesota Opinion Research Institute reference you saw in Andy Borowitz’s column on MSNBC.

After following up with the University News Service, we were able to determine that all the information in the article, including the alleged Opinion Research Institute and its supposed founder, Garland Covey are in fact fictional and were apparently used by Borowitz’s as comedic elements. Neither this institute nor “Dr. Covey” have ever existed at the University of Minnesota.

Again, thank you for your inquiry and sorry for any confusion the story may have caused for you."

FAKE.

Which, like, have you read the rest of the column?


Here's someone who went through the trouble of actually contacting that mysterious "University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute" about an earlier "poll" quoted by - surprise - Andy Borowitz, the guy who alo wrote this one:

http://www.essfingers.com/?p=594

Yes, I know it was a joke. But it does raise the point I'm posting about - does either party really have a proper candidate?

FAKE.

Which, like, have you read the rest of the column?


Here's someone who went through the trouble of actually contacting that mysterious "University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute" about an earlier "poll" quoted by - surprise - Andy Borowitz, the guy who alo wrote this one:

http://www.essfingers.com/?p=594

Maybe if you read my OP where I said, "all joking aside" you would not look like such a moron at this point.

Governments are run by people who know best how to run a government and least how to serve their people---destroy the career of politics and rebirth civil service.
Make all politician give over retirement accouns and 401Ks and force them to only receive social security when they retire--I bet they fix it.

Remove their right to grant themselves a fecking raise!!! Attach their pay to the economy and minimum wage---if the economy is up their pay is up if it is down their pay is down--I bet they fix our economy

Make these fecking people responsible for what they do to us and I bet they do much better by us.

And where is a fecking gallows for these dogs ....

w00t!!!!!!!!

Let them line up on the Skyway Bridge. Coastguard Stand down.

(For those not familiar with the Skyway Bridge it's the bridge going from the city of Tampa over Tampa Bay to city of St. Petersburg)

(Note: This is only intended for sarcasm) :D

Hasn't Kerry said that he isn't interested in standing again?

Anyway, I think that Clinton would be a far better candidate.

Maybe if you read my OP where I said, "all joking aside" you would not look like such a moron at this point.
Oh, two replies. I'm all flattered. And, honestly? Considering you're the OP of this thread, and this is NSG, I couldn't possibly feel less moronic for posting that.

Hasn't Kerry said that he isn't interested in standing again?

Anyway, I think that Clinton would be a far better candidate.

Yes. Especially for proponents of a third party like me. :)

1) Destroy the electoral college. use the popular vote
2) Destroy the party system. Make people vote on candidates based on their ideas, not their party tag.

3) No more religious law. It's really annoying and anti-democratic.

1) Destroy the electoral college. use the popular vote
2) Destroy the party system. Make people vote on candidates based on their ideas, not their party tag.

3) No more religious law. It's really annoying and anti-democratic.

Yeah, that sounds good. Perhaps while we are at it, we could get rid of all the other pesky things that governments spew out, such as Intelegance agencies, practicaly all the legislation in the UK from the last 5-10 years Tony Blair and Alistar Cambell. :D

BTW, I am being perfectly serious.

Yeah, that sounds good. Perhaps while we are at it, we could get rid of all the other pesky things that governments spew out, such as Intelegance agencies, practicaly all the legislation in the UK from the last 5-10 years Tony Blair and Alistar Cambell. :D

BTW, I am being perfectly serious.

And let's do away with all of those pesky drug laws, with the exception of those ones with the Second-Hand-Smoke effect (i.e., the USE of the drug causes harm to passers-by (not the person, the drug itself)). Perhaps sex could be legal according to how Chef puts it plus a stagger system for those above 13 (i.e., 13 can have sex w/ 13-14, 14 w. 13-15, 15 w/ 14-16, 16 w/ 15-17, and 17 is the age where you can do it w/ anyone).

And make more weapons legal (i.e., you can have any weapon money can buy or people can dream (of), with the exception of teh NBCs).

Anything I missed?

Uhhhh, Al sharpton?

Hey, at least the debates would be interesting!




In all seriousness - I think that Bill Richardson would make a pretty good choice out the likely contenders.

2) Destroy the party system. Make people vote on candidates based on their ideas, not their party tag.

Yeah, let's have hundreds of candidates so each one gets less than 2% of the vote -- that's an excellent solution. If you have, for example, 6 liberal candidates and 3 conservative ones, guess who's going to win? You're going to split up the vote so much it would be impossible to tell which ideology is the most widely accepted.

3) No more religious law. It's really annoying and anti-democratic.

If I recall correctly, this isn't Saudi Arabia.

Yes, I know it was a joke. But it does raise the point I'm posting about - does either party really have a proper candidate?The answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. However, does said candidate have the influence and money to get nominated?

Edwards vs. Gulliani

The answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. However, does said candidate have the influence and money to get nominated?

I think it's disgusting that the people who get nominated are the ones with the most money and influence. Democracy has become a richmans hobby.

I think it's disgusting that the people who get nominated are the ones with the most money and influence. Democracy has become a richmans hobby.When was it any different?

When was it any different?

Well you can dream about the poor "real American" managing to win the White House and actually working for the common people. But it is just that. A dream. Politicians are by nature self-serving.

Well you can dream about the poor "real American" managing to win the White House and actually working for the common people. But it is just that. A dream. Politicians are by nature self-serving.Yeah, the only "common man" to make it into the white house went on to slaughter Native Americans.

Yeah, the only "common man" to make it into the white house went on to slaughter Native Americans.

Perhaps not the best example but I think we can safely assume that if we got another president who can be the "common mans president" that we don't have to worry about another attempt at genocide. Perhaps instead we can get a reasonable domestic and foreign policy that doesn't anger so many people? I'm sure we can change our reputation as ignorant bullies.

Yeah, let's have hundreds of candidates so each one gets less than 2% of the vote -- that's an excellent solution. If you have, for example, 6 liberal candidates and 3 conservative ones, guess who's going to win? You're going to split up the vote so much it would be impossible to tell which ideology is the most widely accepted.

Hello, Instant-Runoff voting!

1) Destroy the electoral college. use the popular vote
2) Destroy the party system. Make people vote on candidates based on their ideas, not their party tag.

3) No more religious law. It's really annoying and anti-democratic.

1. Yeah because using representative democracy is so much more inferior to popular votes--that way the eurocentric white america could make english the official language, build walls on our border, curtail 60 years of civil rights progress
2. With you here 100%

3. Yeah, especially that whole pesky "Freedom Of" I hate that law...oh wait thats a right. What other religious laws do we have? No matter just get rid of anything having to with religion and I am sure that will work out...WAIT we are abolishing representative democracy in favor of popular voting so it isnt up to YOU if religious law is abolished it is up tothe Majority---the Majority will dictate the rule of the state over the minority because with no representaive system the Mob Rules.

Steward/Colbert 2008!

Colbert himself implied he was running on his show. :p

In all seriousness, the duo (or anyone currently outside of government) would do better than the outdated people in government now.

Odd how government is ran by the people who least know how to run it... and the people who are 20 years behind everyone else.

Just like the school system.

The best person the Democrats could nominate is Mark Warner.

1) Destroy the electoral college. use the popular vote
2) Destroy the party system. Make people vote on candidates based on their ideas, not their party tag.

3) No more religious law. It's really annoying and anti-democratic.

1) It'd be hard but would show progress
2) Parties would form regardless if they were suddenly destroyed or not. It is only natural for people with similar views to band together

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/09/24/Perspective/Democrats_are_to_die_.shtml



Wow, I had no idea. But it does make me wonder - who is the most probably candidate (all joking aside) that the Democrats will present? And who will the Republicans present?

Or will this next Presidential election be another parade of used and lackluster candidates on both sides?
Why stop the trend now? We've become so accepting of it.

Bah.. Even if it is fake, I find myself in some form of agreement with it. If the dems ran either Hillary or Kerry, I would consider voting 3rd party (or, if Giulliani runs, for Giulliani, seeing as how he's left of either of the two), which is political suicide.

1) It'd be hard but would show progress
2) Parties would form regardless if they were suddenly destroyed or not. It is only natural for people with similar views to band together

Point 2: I meant that the government would no longer recognize the parties... as Washington originally intended.

What was that you said...."another parade of used and lackluster candidates" yes yes that's it, as well as amoral vapid self interested liars who do all in their power to serve only their party and not the people as well as fatten their pockets and the pockets of their friends along the way.
We need to destroy the two party system, or at least these two parties.

can i get an amen!

i could not agree more.

Hasn't Kerry said that he isn't interested in standing again?

Anyway, I think that Clinton would be a far better candidate.


i really hope you dont mean hillary(i'll say and do whatever is politically expediant,i have zero moral courage or conviction,total whore to the system,corrupt investor)clinton?

say it aint so.

if you cant tell....i despise that pos fraud.

I wish that a socialist party would pop up and gain some strength.

I wish that a socialist party would pop up and gain some strength.Wow. Do the work yourself. It's not going to happen just like that.

Wow. Do the work yourself. It's not going to happen just like that.

I'm in High School. If my grades stay where they are and the American Aerospace Engineering industry doesn't collapse, I may one day start a grassroots effort in Seattle.

They need someone who isn't an idiot or a rogue. Howard Dean, Russ Feingold...Jon Corzine(no one will vote for him though)

Howard Dean is an idiot. He has the idea for how to RUN the party, but he couldn't run the country.

Colin Powell+Rudi Giuliani. I'd vote for that pairing in a snap.

I wish that a socialist party would pop up and gain some strength.

Move to Vermont!

I'm in High School. If my grades stay where they are and the American Aerospace Engineering industry doesn't collapse, I may one day start a grassroots effort in Seattle.

You forgot how much Americans despice socialistic ideology, even though so many of them benefit from their reforms. Good luck though, you might as well open up another starbucks there while you are at it.

Steward/Colbert 2008!

Colbert himself implied he was running on his show. :p

In all seriousness, the duo (or anyone currently outside of government) would do better than the outdated people in government now.

Odd how government is ran by the people who least know how to run it... and the people who are 20 years behind everyone else.

In all seriousness, no fucking joke, I pray to god that they run together.

Yes, I know it was a joke. But it does raise the point I'm posting about - does either party really have a proper candidate?

for the dems: John Edwards and Barak Obama. For the republicans -insert fear mongers here-

for the dems: John Edwards and Barak Obama. For the republicans -insert fear mongers here-

Obama is one of two US Senators I know of. Interesting fact.

Obama is one of two US Senators I know of. Interesting fact.

Obama is a good man. I am blessed to have him as a Senator from my state, along with the awesome Richard "Dick" Durbin. I have been fortunate enough to talk with both on a personal level. Gotta love being on the campaign trail with people :)

What was that you said...."another parade of used and lackluster candidates" yes yes that's it, as well as amoral vapid self interested liars who do all in their power to serve only their party and not the people as well as fatten their pockets and the pockets of their friends along the way.
We need to destroy the two party system, or at least these two parties.

I couldnt agree more unfortunatley it doesn't seem like that will happen.

Obama is a good man. I am blessed to have him as a Senator from my state, along with the awesome Richard "Dick" Durbin. I have been fortunate enough to talk with both on a personal level. Gotta love being on the campaign trail with people :)

I would vote for Barrack.

You forgot how much Americans despice socialistic ideology, even though so many of them benefit from their reforms.

I know exactly how much Americans hate socialistic ideology. They also hate fascism, and yet they seem to elect Republicans often. The trick to starting such a party would be to pull people who have already BEEN elected AWAY from the pre-existing parties. That would gain the party some voter CONFIDENCE and a chance to use its ideas in an actual working government environment. After the American people TASTE the rewards it'll only be a short time until the idea took off.

Good luck though, you might as well open up another starbucks there while you are at it.

That's the back-up plan.

Colin Powell+Rudi Giuliani. I'd vote for that pairing in a snap.
I used to have a lot of respect for Colin Powell, that is until he sold his soul to George W. by lying to the UN General Assembly.

Powell regrets UN speech on Iraq WMDs (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm)

The Tragedy of Colin Powell (http://www.slate.com/id/2095756/)

Hillary vs Jeb!

Comedy value +++ for us outsiders. It'd be like democracy between 2 royal families.

You really want me to vote for Hillary don't you?