NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay people, I'm not sure if this has been done in the past, but I'd like to see where most NationStaters stand on the Democratic candidates. If I missed a candidate or you'd like to vote as a write in, just click other and put it in your post. If you wish, we'd all greatly appreciate hearying why you support your candidate.

Kucinich, Because he's a liberal and most aligned with my own views. Love him.

Sadly, I think at this point, its all about NOT getting another Rep into office.
This unfortunatly means going with the person who has the best chance of winning, that also comes closest to my own views.

That would be Hillary.

I'd go with Bill Richardson. He's the least left-wing of them all, and the most likely to get us completely out of Iraq along with Kucinich.

A poll showed Hilary would lose against any Republican currently running if she got the nomination. Obama actually had an edge in the poll and would win against some.

Obama. The only thing I disagree with him on is gun control, everything else I'd support.

Sadly, I think at this point, its all about NOT getting another Rep into office.
This unfortunatly means going with the person who has the best chance of winning, that also comes closest to my own views.

That would be Hillary. Uh Hillary is a closet Republican.
4 more years of a corporate whore except without the idiocy?
Pass.

Obama is my choice, he's only ankle deep in the crap that makes up government corruption, everyone else is up to their waist.

A poll showed Hilary would lose against any Republican currently running if she got the nomination. Obama actually had an edge in the poll and would win against some.

Polls are worthless.
They can be spun to display anything you want.
One such poll I recently saw said that 48% of Americans are pleased at how BUSH IS HANDLING IRAQ.

We KNOW thats not true.

Hillary is the frontrunner amongst Dems.

The Reps dont even have a frontrunner.

The best candidates they have are a Mormon, and a Twice divorced, pro-choice catholic who is hated by NY firefighters.
The christian right wont get behind either candidate.

Get used to the idea of a woman president.

4 more years of a corporate whore except without the idiocy?
Pass.

Didnt say it was a great choice, but its going to be the only one that will prevent another republican president.

Polls have been very accurate in the past.

Didnt say it was a great choice, but its going to be the only one that will prevent another republican president. That above is the vey definition of a Republican president.

That above is the vey definition of a Republican president.

Insinuating Hillary as a "closet republican" is kinda silly.
Insinuating her as a "Corporate Whore" isnt as silly, but neither would it be so, to point that finger at anyone who gets the job.

Sure, Obama or Kucinich might make a better pres, but theres no way either of them are going to get the nomination.

Obama doesnt have the experience, and Kucinich is a liberal, wich unfortunately, is a dirty word these days.

Also, Obama is black, and America isnt quite progressive enough yet to elect a black man as President.

Obama for the health care and because we need another Hussein in power now

I don't care who the heck it is so long as it ain't Hillary!

I personally like Kucinich best, it's ridiculous how the media doesn't focus on the issues and how he just looks like a lecherous hobbit with a hot wife. Kucinich is the author of the bill that would impeach Cheney after all, and her enjoyed a seventy percent approval rationg when he was mayor of Cleveland

bump

I'd like to see Kucinich and Paul as the Democratic and Republican candidates, respectively. I don't agree with Kucinich completely, and have very little in common with Paul, but I'm pretty sure that if push came to shove, I could drop kick either one of them. I believe the ability for me to drop kick the President is a very important check on the office's power.

I like Kucinich and Obama

Obama because he has the audacity of hope and has a better chance of beating Hillary than any of the fringe candidates.

Kucinich. I've heard good things about Gravel, but they seem to leave him out of the debates, so I've never heard him articulate his positions.

I'd like to see Kucinich and Paul as the Democratic and Republican candidates, respectively. I don't agree with Kucinich completely, and have very little in common with Paul, but I'm pretty sure that if push came to shove, I could drop kick either one of them. I believe the ability for me to drop kick the President is a very important check on the office's power.Meh. Just threaten to withhold Ron's fiber pills.

I'm willing to take the hit of "racism doesn't exist any more cuz we got a black in the white house" in return for a president who isn't immediately a complete embarassment.

Obama FTW

I'm leaning towards Dennis Kucinich. Obama would be my second choice.

Sadly, I think at this point, its all about NOT getting another Rep into office.
This unfortunatly means going with the person who has the best chance of winning, that also comes closest to my own views.

That would be Hillary.

I agree with the logic, but disagree with the Democrat that will most likely appeal to the swing voters.

My vote can easily be changed, but in Feb. I'm planning on voting for John Edwards. He is known and post WWII history has shown that Southern Democrats can secure enough votes in the South in order to win elections.

I'm thinking Obama. Though this by default as I'm not really a fan of any of the dems.

Bill Richardson FTW. Hillary is a bitch, Kucinich is a closet fascist (he wants to ban handguns), Obama is all style and no substance, and none of the others are even worth mentioning.

Bill Richardson FTW. Hillary is a bitch, Kucinich is a closet fascist (he wants to ban handguns), Obama is all style and no substance, and none of the others are even worth mentioning.

People who want to ban handguns = fascist?

I'm sorry, I must have missed several steps of that mathematical proof along the way...

People who want to ban handguns = fascist?

I'm sorry, I must have missed several steps of that mathematical proof along the way...

the 1st step to controlling the populace is to ban guns. That way that can't fight back. he's right Kunich is definitely a borderline fascist. Lucky for us he doesn't have a shot in hell of winning.

the 1st step to controlling the populace is to ban guns. That way that can't fight back. he's right Kunich is definitely a borderline fascist. Lucky for us he doesn't have a shot in hell of winning.

So obviously everyone who wants to ban handguns wants to control the populace :rolleyes:

So obviously everyone who wants to ban handguns wants to control the populace :rolleyes:

there's strong evidence pointing that way, yes.

Richardson. I definately feel he's most qualified and likemost of his stancds.

Kucinich is pretty good too, and I fail to see how he's a facist. Although I don't agree with banning hand guns.

Obamas alright I suppose. Gravel and Dodd have made good points but I don't know if I really want them for president, or if they're electable.

I find it telling that the two people who have said "not Hillary" ... can't give a reason.

I think it's significant that the opposition to HRC is so incoherent. If she wins the nomination there's a lot of campaigning and policy speeches to come, and voters will start seeing her as a President rather than a Woman.

Then the polls will change. Both her and Obama are rather special cases, and polls aren't reliable because at this stage, people are opining on gut feeling more than politics.

A poll showed Hilary would lose against any Republican currently running if she got the nomination. Obama actually had an edge in the poll and would win against some.
A poll? Which poll?

White House 2008: General Election (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)

White House 2008: Democratic Nomination (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm)

It would appear that most polls right now would favour Hilary over any Republican?

Not Clinton... call me stupid, but her policy on video games drives me away from her... Same goes for McCain on the republican side.

there's strong evidence pointing that way, yes.

Did you perhaps find this "evidence" at 4:20 this afternoon?

I find it telling that the two people who have said "not Hillary" ... can't give a reason.

However, some of us who have said, "Somebody who will stand a chance ..." and named somebody other than Hillary can (and have) elaborated on why she might not win against a stronger Republican candidate.

She tends to rub moderate conservatives the wrong way. More traditional husbands and wives will still have problems with how she chose to keep a very lose leash on Bill. She also gets a strike from some Southerns, where she left Arkansas to adopt New York as her home. While I don't agree with either point, I'm sure there are some votes that McCain and other Republicans can win that would otherwise go to a moderate to conservative Democrat, but Hillary's past will probably edge those voters away from her.

Now my opinion, I've seen her change over the years ... and while generally that is a quality I admire, I don't trust her. And I know of many other California moderates (swing voters) who feel the same way about her. With the lesser known candidates, we have much less of their pasts to feel they've waffled, so what comes out will stick less.


I think it's significant that the opposition to HRC is so incoherent. If she wins the nomination there's a lot of campaigning and policy speeches to come, and voters will start seeing her as a President rather than a Woman.

Then the polls will change. Both her and Obama are rather special cases, and polls aren't reliable because at this stage, people are opining on gut feeling more than politics.

I agree with both of these points. :)

I know that sounds like my earlier statement isn't as sound. I think we will see voters moving towards her if she wins the nomination. But the process of getting there will damage most all of the candidates heading that way.

What would be nice is if the Democrats all went into a private room and agreed amongst themselves now who is the strongest amongst them, avoiding giving the Republicans more dirty laundry to air.

A poll? Which poll?

White House 2008: General Election (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm)

White House 2008: Democratic Nomination (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm)

It would appear that most polls right now would favour Hilary over any Republican? I'll find it later. I remember reading the article so it must be in my history somewhere.

Not Clinton... call me stupid, but her policy on video games drives me away from her... Same goes for McCain on the republican side.

Heh. Think about it.

President declares WAR ON VIOLENT GAMES, sends the FBI into Walmart to clear out the shelves.

Rest of the world rolls around laughing. Millions of kids become Warez Doodz. The coding talent set to work on a new generation of Unbelievably Depraved Uber-Violent Smellovision Shockers. Existing copies of "violent" games become priceless collectors items. Subversives of all stripes hail the new front of government War On Shit We Can't Do Shit About.

But I have heard your objection a few times now. It's pretty clear that Clinton would benefit from reaching out to the (mainly young) constituency who care about this issue, and making it clear that such nanny-state nonsense is outside the purview of the Presidency. She doesn't have to go back on anything, just say "none of my business."

What would be nice is if the Democrats all went into a private room and agreed amongst themselves now who is the strongest amongst them, avoiding giving the Republicans more dirty laundry to air.

Your post as a whole has massive substance, which as an Aussie I haven't the knowledge to answer. I commend it to other posters.

But this last point I will disagree with. I think the Primaries are a wonderful feature of US democracy, they allow the Party as a whole to debate what they stand for -- it's not just the Candidate, not just the Elected Office, but the Parties who back that Candidate, which needs to be open to examination.

Having just seen "thirty-six faceless men whose qualifications are unknown, who have no electoral responsibility" choose the leader of one of my country's TWO parties, and choose a Nobody* ... I say: cherish your Primaries.

Get rid of the role of States in your Federation. Get rid of electorates. Get rid of the Presidency and the goddamned Senate. But any Party which chooses to use Primaries (by rounds, not by State, obviously) has my blessing. Great idea, without it Party members are just volunteers.

A Party which is not itself democratic, should be viewed with deep suspicion.

* Brendan Nelson, elected by the Coalition Caucus by a secret ballot.

Your post as a whole has massive substance, which as an Aussie I haven't the knowledge to answer. I commend it to other posters.

But this last point I will disagree with. I think the Primaries are a wonderful feature of US democracy, they allow the Party as a whole to debate what they stand for -- it's not just the Candidate, not just the Elected Office, but the Parties who back that Candidate, which needs to be open to examination.

Having just seen "thirty-six faceless men whose qualifications are unknown, who have no electoral responsibility" choose the leader of one of my country's TWO parties, and choose a Nobody* ... I say: cherish your Primaries.

Get rid of the role of States in your Federation. Get rid of electorates. Get rid of the Presidency and the goddamned Senate. But any Party which chooses to use Primaries (by rounds, not by State, obviously) has my blessing. Great idea, without it Party members are just volunteers.

A Party which is not itself democratic, should be viewed with deep suspicion.

* Brendan Nelson, elected by the Coalition Caucus by a secret ballot.

A huge, massive, Ent-sized QFT.

[Glasses flying up in the air, flipping around a few times and coming back down] Wow, my candidate actually came in THIRD in this poll! :eek: :D

I'm for Richardson. In fact, I'm actually walking my talk and I'm going to be canvassing for him in the Nevada Caucus and be a Richardson delegate for Oregon.

I think Kucinich should stop running for the White House, and join the next President's cabinet as Secretary of Peace. He'd get a lot more done and it would be great to have him as head of his proposed Department of Peace. Why let someone less familiar with the Department of Peace concept run it? Get the original author to start it up.

I'm campaigning for Richardson, but I like Obama, too. He's a unifier, and this country needs that in the worst way.

Your post as a whole has massive substance, which as an Aussie I haven't the knowledge to answer. I commend it to other posters.

But this last point I will disagree with. I think the Primaries are a wonderful feature of US democracy, they allow the Party as a whole to debate what they stand for -- it's not just the Candidate, not just the Elected Office, but the Parties who back that Candidate, which needs to be open to examination.

Having just seen "thirty-six faceless men whose qualifications are unknown, who have no electoral responsibility" choose the leader of one of my country's TWO parties, and choose a Nobody* ... I say: cherish your Primaries.

Get rid of the role of States in your Federation. Get rid of electorates. Get rid of the Presidency and the goddamned Senate. But any Party which chooses to use Primaries (by rounds, not by State, obviously) has my blessing. Great idea, without it Party members are just volunteers.

A Party which is not itself democratic, should be viewed with deep suspicion.

* Brendan Nelson, elected by the Coalition Caucus by a secret ballot.

First, thank you. :)

Second, I understand your point, and also agree on the problems of electorates, divisions between Federal and State govt (New Orleans is an example of how that system has some problems), and also find the concept of having two legislative branches cumbersome.

The only thing I'll toss out there for your consider is that US Political Parties aren't public entities. In some states, their primaries are closed to party members only. I'm not sure if there has ever been any legal challenge concerning an individual being denied membership to a party ... hmmm, I wonder.

At the local level, parties tend to reward individuals that are loyal to the party. For example, if I were to run for city council and were a "democrat", if I were active in the local democratic party, I suspect I'd be more likely to find myself endorsed by the local paper. The true outsider who comes in just wanting to change things first has to build a political base (which parties offer).

I know I'm not being clear, but I wouldn't mind bouncing these ideas off you and others. How many of the current candidates have been hard working party members? I think Hillary and Edwards should get some credit for their previous experience with national Presidential campaigns. What about the others?

Oh, I suppose I should also add... Obama originally had my vote, but I just read up on Kucinich, and he most definitely has policies I agree with. He seems like he's done the sensible thing and actually LOOKED at all the issues in-depth before making his decision, rather than making a knee-jerk reaction. My only questions are on his economic management (although with the cutback on military spending he has a lot more freedom) and also on his policies on immigration.

Plus he has a hot wife.

I find it telling that the two people who have said "not Hillary" ... can't give a reason.

Well, take this into consideration:

Back in the '80s, Bush 41 (Senior) was in the White House. One term, four years.

Then, Bill Clinton in the White House, two terms, eight years.

Then, GWB, two terms, eight years. We're up to 20 years.

Hillary runs, takes the Office, at least four years. We're up to 24 years, at least, now.

Think about this: 24 years is an entire generation — where the supreme reins of power in this country are held by TWO families. This is not democracy, it's an oligarchy. Kids graduating college have only known two names in the White House in their entire lives.

No. This is BAD.

I like a fair number of Hillary's stances, and it would be terrific to have a woman President. But, she loses my support on the Oligarchy issue. That left Richardson and Obama as far as I was concerned, and I'm supporting Richardson because he has the most experience of the two, without question. Obama's good now: think of how much better he'd be in 4 - 8 years.

Gravel, because I support him on a number of issues. Sadly he won't win due to be denied from the debates.

Understanding that doing this fractures the debate, and makes it difficult to follow, I will again pick one paragraph from a long post, and reply only to that.

At the local level, parties tend to reward individuals that are loyal to the party. For example, if I were to run for city council and were a "democrat", if I were active in the local democratic party, I suspect I'd be more likely to find myself endorsed by the local paper. The true outsider who comes in just wanting to change things first has to build a political base (which parties offer).

Hmm. It seems to me that what the parties offer is a FAKE political base, a swarm of zombies who PRETEND to be your ardent admirer. Really, you are just their champion, they bow down to you because their superiors do.

This kind of simian heirarchy was inevitable, I guess. Parties should have mechanisms put in place to level the playing-field. It benefits them as a party to be seen as fair, high-minded, above the level of playground bullying.

So, yay the Primaries! A small step perhaps, but a step towards true democracy, devolving the "debate" towards You and Me, not Us and Them.

Kucinich, Because he's a liberal and most aligned with my own views. Love him.

Thats scary.


As with the republicans they all suck and don't match my views. 2008 will see a terrible president no matter who wins.

Well, take this into consideration:

Back in the '80s, Bush 41 (Senior) was in the White House. One term, four years.

Then, Bill Clinton in the White House, two terms, eight years.

Then, GWB, two terms, eight years. We're up to 20 years.

Hillary runs, takes the Office, at least four years. We're up to 24 years, at least, now.

Think about this: 24 years is an entire generation — where the supreme reins of power in this country are held by TWO families.

FAIL.

Hillary and Bill are not related by blood. Your definition of "family" depends on the bogus concept "marriage."

I will read the rest of your post as a courtesy.

This is not democracy, it's an oligarchy. Kids graduating college have only known two names in the White House in their entire lives.

No. This is BAD.

How about Hillary changes her name to Hillary Rodham?

Problem solved.

Your "kids graduating college" can totally relax, and say "wow, man, age of Aquarius is totally kicking in now. Chick in the White House, wow!"
Yeah, sorry. That was a joke. :D

I like a fair number of Hillary's stances, and it would be terrific to have a woman President. But, she loses my support on the Oligarchy issue. That left Richardson and Obama as far as I was concerned, and I'm supporting Richardson because he has the most experience of the two, without question. Obama's good now: think of how much better he'd be in 4 - 8 years.

My dream ticket is HRC/Obama. And Hillary dies in her first term.

OK. No-one takes me seriously now. I'm drunk, and should really be posting as Nobel Hobos, known drunk and mad raver.

Thats scary.


As with the republicans they all suck and don't match my views. 2008 will see a terrible president no matter who wins.

I'm just thinkin', since you spelled "Cryptic" right (I had to check) ...

is U German Nightmare?

TG me if you dispute it. Right here, if you are.

The Reps dont even have a frontrunner.

The best candidates they have are a Mormon, and a Twice divorced, pro-choice catholic who is hated by NY firefighters.
The christian right wont get behind either candidate.

CEL-E-BRATE good times, c'mon!
*dances weasel dance*

They'll just vote Bush again when time comes ... what with him being a "Uniter, not a divider" and all.

Thats scary.


As with the republicans they all suck and don't match my views. 2008 will see a terrible president no matter who wins....

What is so scary about an elf with a 7 ft tall redheaded wife? :confused:

I find it telling that the two people who have said "not Hillary" ... can't give a reason.

- Too nanny-state
- Too tied to corporations and the military industrial complex
- Too secretive
- Changes too much depending on who she happens to be standing in front of
- Voted for the Iraq war, then voted for the Iran bill - giving the same excuse that she now uses to try to explain away voting for the Iraq war.

And the most recent reason I have for not voting for Hillary:
- Point-blank stated that national security is more important that human rights, and seemed proud of it

I could go on, but I really think that's enough for now.

I know I'm not being clear, but I wouldn't mind bouncing these ideas off you and others. How many of the current candidates have been hard working party members? I think Hillary and Edwards should get some credit for their previous experience with national Presidential campaigns. What about the others?

In my mind, being a "hard working party member" isn't a bonus. I don't want a party patsy. I want a real candidate. The president is supposed to lead the country and the party they are a part of. Someone who toes the line isn't an asset there.


I like a fair number of Hillary's stances, and it would be terrific to have a woman President. But, she loses my support on the Oligarchy issue. That left Richardson and Obama as far as I was concerned, and I'm supporting Richardson because he has the most experience of the two, without question. Obama's good now: think of how much better he'd be in 4 - 8 years.

If you count VP in there, there's been a Bush or Clinton in the presidency/vice presidency for 28 years already. This means that one or the other family has been in one of the top two slots in the country for my entire lifetime.

All on its own, it wouldn't be enough to keep me from voting for Clinton if I liked her policies. Along with the rest, it just adds onto the list of problems.

The best candidates they have are a Mormon, and a Twice divorced, pro-choice catholic who is hated by NY firefighters.
The christian right wont get behind either candidate.

Actually, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. He has managed to look past his short-comings and forgiven the man Robertson believes has the best chance of winn...I mean, of promoting traditional, family values.

I'm just thinkin', since you spelled "Cryptic" right (I had to check) ...

is U German Nightmare?

TG me if you dispute it. Right here, if you are.

Why wouldn't I spell it right? Not a hard word. And no, I am not German Nightmare.

...

What is so scary about an elf with a 7 ft tall redheaded wife? :confused:


That anybody likes him.

Actually, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. He has managed to look past his short-comings and forgiven the man Robertson believes has the best chance of winn...I mean, of promoting traditional, family values.

Maybe he's trying to hone in on the Veep angle?
Speaking of traditional family values, who is Phelps shootin' for? What about David Duke?

Maybe he's trying to hone in on the Veep angle?
Speaking of traditional family values, who is Phelps shootin' for? What about David Duke?

Neither have traditional family values. Ignorant racism is not a family value.

Maybe he's trying to hone in on the Veep angle?

Ewww. That's just...ewwww.
If only there were a small, typographical icon that could express my disgust. Oh, here's one. :-|

Ignorant racism is not a family value.
Honestly, and truly, there be proving grounds for that here on NS ... a lengthy history at that.

Honestly, and truly, there be proving grounds for that here on NS ... a lengthy history at that.



Anybody who says racism is a family value is a damn moron who needs to be bitch slapped. Hard and repeatedly.

Ewww. That's just...ewwww.
If only there were a small, typographical icon that could express my disgust. Oh, here's one. :-|
I don't have an icon that'll help (not one that the mods will allow, anyways) ... but i do have a gif that might be appropriate.
http://blog.radioleft.com/geoffimages/rudyforpresident.jpg
Family values FTW!

Anybody who says racism is a family value is a damn moron who needs to be bitch slapped. Hard and repeatedly.

Well, the best we can do is a tongue lashing and some mockery here (witty mockery, not the garden variety type). Gotta be in a reasonable debate setting, though.

Well, the best we can do is a tongue lashing and some mockery here (witty mockery, not the garden variety type). Gotta be in a reasonable debate setting, though.


I'd much rather deck them. Don't assume asshole like phelps and duke speak for the right, they don't. They can die and rot in hell.

Apparently, according to ontheissues.org, I have 53% matchup with Kucinich. Not considering voting for him any time soon, though.

I'd much rather deck them. Don't assume asshole like phelps and duke speak for the right, they don't.I don't. They just serve as examples of a lack of sensibility and restraint, to a degree.
They can die and rot in hell.Or they can try and bring it here, which to all appearances is the case.

I see there are some of you out there called "Democrats" who are running what you call "Primaries" just as the "Republicans" are doing. Well, as I told the Republicans, so now I tell you Democrats: Voting is irrelevant. I am already the rightful ruler of planet Houston, and therefore you have no need of these "elections".

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

...

What is so scary about an elf with a 7 ft tall redheaded wife? :confused:

WHO IS this "elf with a 7 ft tall redheaded wife"? Come to me, elf with a 7 ft tall redheaded wife, if you dare! I defy you! Come! Come and kneel before Zod!...ZOD!

Based on the options, I'd prefer Mike Gravel. Not that he stands a prayer of getting nominated. Not that America could elect him anyway.

Of those who might get nominated... well, it's probably gotta be CLinton or Obama, right? Based on previous form, being black or a woman is going to be more of an obstacle than a benefit... I've even encountered women saying they WON'T vote for Clinton, because they don't want to be seen voting for her, just because she's a woman.

Like a pussy in the Whitehouse would be anything new...

(I'm BSB, btw. When I'm drunk I post as Nobel Hobos)

- Too nanny-state
- Too tied to corporations and the military industrial complex
- Too secretive
- Changes too much depending on who she happens to be standing in front of
- Voted for the Iraq war, then voted for the Iran bill - giving the same excuse that she now uses to try to explain away voting for the Iraq war.

And the most recent reason I have for not voting for Hillary:
- Point-blank stated that national security is more important that human rights, and seemed proud of it

I could go on, but I really think that's enough for now.

Those are good reasons. Thanks.

=========

Why wouldn't I spell it right? Not a hard word. And no, I am not German Nightmare.

OK. For some reason it bugs me when I think someone is "really" someone else, but I'm not sure. You're you, fine!

=========

I see there are some of you out there called "Democrats" who are running what you call "Primaries" just as the "Republicans" are doing. Well, as I told the Republicans, so now I tell you Democrats: Voting is irrelevant. I am already the rightful ruler of planet Houston, and therefore you have no need of these "elections".


Someone needs to tell you: you are the most boring poster on NSG.

Utterly, headbangingly boring.

Running jokes are only funny if they were funny the first time. "Kneel before Zod" ain't fucking funny.

=========

*snip*

Like a pussy in the Whitehouse would be anything new...

*groan*

Bad pun. Extract minimal humour from bad pun, what you have is "Hillary is a girl and will be weak like girls are."

The rest of the post was OK. The punchline was ... pussy.

*groan*

Bad pun. Extract minimal humour from bad pun, what you have is "Hillary is a girl and will be weak like girls are."

The rest of the post was OK. The punchline was ... pussy.

Errr... no, that's not it at all, actually. The joke was more like Hillary has girl parts, and the office has largely been held by people that ARE 'girl parts'. And not in the good way.

Thankyou. Thankyou. I'm here all week. Try the veal.

Based on the options, I'd prefer Mike Gravel. Not that he stands a prayer of getting nominated. Not that America could elect him anyway.

Two reasons:
One, Alaskan (sorta - at one point anyway)
Two, Best.Campaign.Video.Ever.

I was a fan of Richardson...until he proposed major diversions from the Great Lakes to the west.

So I suppose I kinda support Hillary now. I mean, she can't be that bad.

Thankyou. Thankyou. I'm here all week. Try the veal.

Not until I see it pass your lips.

*suspicion*

I assumed that "pussy" meant "pusillanimous" but kinda dumbed-down for Americans. Apparently, it means something rude.
(We are joking, right?)

Not until I see it pass your lips.

*suspicion*

I assumed that "pussy" meant "pusillanimous" but kinda dumbed-down for Americans. Apparently, it means something rude.
(We are joking, right?)

Yeah, it means something rude. It was a close-to-the-line joke, maybe. It plays on the reasons some people would vote in certain directions, and makes a crass gesture in the direction of trivialising it.

Hey, I'm English - we have no sense of humour of which we are aware.

Hey, I'm English - we have no sense of humour of which we are aware.

Usually my sense of humour can make up for that. I just imagine the post being pronounced in a plummy accent by an anemic, chinless twerp in a bowler hat.

All posts are funny if you look at them the right way. :)

That anybody likes him.Not following... you're implying something is wrong with liking him. :confused:

In my mind, being a "hard working party member" isn't a bonus. I don't want a party patsy. I want a real candidate. The president is supposed to lead the country and the party they are a part of. Someone who toes the line isn't an asset there.


While that is something I too would like ... a leader, I think it is human social nature that the people who rise to the top get there either:

1) On their own hard labor,
2) On their hard labor plus the even harder labor of others.

The problem with just being a hard worker, is a small group of slightly less visionary and/or slightly less hard working individuals can be more effective than the one person. A deal will be made, and one of the small group becomes a leader, and keeps the interests of the smaller group close at heart.

That said, I think there is room for the "thoughtful but faithful dissenter". Basically the person that can establish himself has loyal to the party goals, but also coming from an "unseen" political base that also might make him more attractive towards swing votes.

The idea isn't that crazy ... real leaders need to build a public reputation of humility early on in their careers. When they told me that I was thinking of a Colin Powell. Generally people like him and also value his opinions.

I think an appealing political candidate also has to be viewed as the reluctant leader. Hillary has the least humility in my opinion. Obama has heaps of it. I think the Democrats are fortunate that most of their candidates don't seem to be seeking office to make a place in history, but rather because they have a sense of duty to whatever subgroup within the Democratic Party they belong to.

Hey, I'm English - we have no sense of humour of which we are aware.

+5 points for reference. :D

Not Clinton... call me stupid, but her policy on video games drives me away from her... Same goes for McCain on the republican side.

OK, you're stupid. If you don't want to vote for her, at least find a reason that makes a bit of sense, and doesn't make you sound like a slacker idiot. I don't like her because I don't trust her to undo the Millitary Commissions Act and The PATRIOT Act, and restore our civil liberties to what they were before Shrub got his fingers in them.

That's easy. If he were real, he'd be a Democrat, so...

General Zod (Luthor would be his Republican opponent).

I see there are some of you out there called "Democrats" who are running what you call "Primaries" just as the "Republicans" are doing. Well, as I told the Republicans, so now I tell you Democrats: Voting is irrelevant. I am already the rightful ruler of planet Houston, and therefore you have no need of these "elections".

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!



WHO IS this "elf with a 7 ft tall redheaded wife"? Come to me, elf with a 7 ft tall redheaded wife, if you dare! I defy you! Come! Come and kneel before Zod!...ZOD!

HAIL ZOD!


http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/2522/zodhk5.png (http://imageshack.us)

HAIL ZOD!


http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/2522/zodhk5.png (http://imageshack.us)

Hey, you went to the General Zod for President website too! Cool!