NationStates Jolt Archive

Gawd help me - but I'm actually rooting for Hillary. I'm not talking about the false Rush-limbaugh let-her-win-the-primary-so-we-can-defeat-her-later support. I really really want Hillary to by my next president.

(pauses while those who know me recover consciousness)

Here is why; Hillary is the lesser of three evils. If Obama wins it will be a complete catastrophy for Iraq. It will fall into complete chaos. Iran will play him like a cheap fiddle. Europe will have him doing lap dances. Israel will be like a middle-eastern rape victim who is blamed for getting raped.

If McCain wins Iraq will be properly managed but the congress will be a disaster. Republicans will start voting like democrats and we'll see a terrible expansion of government intrusion into our lives. More money will be confiscated through taxes, and even more will be wasted by an inept congress.

If Hillary wins I have confidence she will NOT mismanage Iraq. She is too smart for that. She will also deal fairly responsibly with the middle east. ALSO if Hillary wins the Republicans in congress will act like good ol' fashioned small government republicans. (some of the best republican programs occurred during the previous CLINTON years!) Spending and taxes will stay under contral and the government will not expand as much as if the other two candidates won.

So I proclaim in my most resigned voice, quite surprized to find myself saying this; Vote for the bit.. best candidate. Hillary for Prez!!!

BRING IT ON!

yay, more US election threads here we come. *said in a tired tone of voice*
but if you press me for an answer i say Obama, good night.

Here is why; Hillary is the lesser of three evils. If Obama wins it will be a complete catastrophy for Iraq. It will fall into complete chaos. Iran will play him like a cheap fiddle. Europe will have him doing lap dances. Israel will be like a middle-eastern rape victim who is blamed for getting raped.

If McCain wins Iraq will be properly managed but the congress will be a disaster. Republicans will start voting like democrats and we'll see a terrible expansion of government intrusion into our lives. More money will be confiscated through taxes, and even more will be wasted by an inept congress.

If Hillary wins I have confidence she will NOT mismanage Iraq. She is too smart for that. She will also deal fairly responsibly with the middle east. ALSO if Hillary wins the Republicans in congress will act like good ol' fashioned small government republicans. (some of the best republican programs occurred during the previous CLINTON years!) Spending and taxes will stay under contral and the government will not expand as much as if the other two candidates won.

So I proclaim in my most resigned voice, quite surprized to find myself saying this; Vote for the bit.. best candidate. Hillary for Prez!!!

BRING IT ON!

Actually Nader would be the lesser evil.

With NO ties to any of the current political parties already holdin court in House, Senate, and Congress, he stands a better chance of a true bi-partisan Government including possibly finding a way out of the Iraq Decible that would make both people happy.

I think every poster needs to make his, her or its own thread on who he, she or it will vote for. It's the only way to make sure we have enough threads before the spring. You know, to avoid a sudden thread shortage since noting else happens in the world at present. *Nods*

i would list hillary as last option as a conservative. obama isn't even on the list of options.
i want mccain to win. hw will be the most uniting i think as his is more moderate but conserrvative where it counts. he would be a moron not to continue the bush tax cuts. they aren't the reason the economy is down. it is sub-prime mortages. the bush tax cuts helped make the economy what it was for the first 6 years of his terms.
universal health care is bad. any liberal that wants to argue...all i have to say is look at canada.
mccain is the best on security. which is what we really need right now.

how can you not see a problem.
you have to leave a hosptial after three days of care. the doctors in the public facitlities are mediocre for the most part. the good doctors go into private practice and charge insane prices. if there is a high risk pregnancy near the usa border the women are taken to america for medical attention.
still not seeing it?

universal health care is bad. any liberal that wants to argue...all i have to say is look at canada.

:rolleyes: I'm looking and I'm not seeing a problem.

the good doctors go into private practice and charge insane prices.

So the same as in the US then?

Europe will have him doing lap dances.

:eek: he's discovered the evil plot to corrupt the worlds youth!

*calls the man slaves*

I am sure a conservative would live in a garbage bin and still stay 'at least I am not on welfare'.

how can you not see a problem.
you have to leave a hosptial after three days of care.

no, doctors ask you to leave when you are healthy

the doctors in the public facitlities are mediocre for the most part.

if there is a high risk pregnancy near the usa border the women are taken to america for medical attention.

source? because having spent all my life in public health care I have seen none of these

i think that is the same every way. by advocating universal healthcare you are saying that the middle class which can afford insurance should be forced to go form the best healthcare in the world to some low quality healthcare because they can't afford to go to a good doctor anymore because of the rates good doctors will charge with universal healthcare? i advocate helping those out that are working but still can't afford healhcare. if they aren't working and are able to work they don't deserve healthcare from the governemnt.
every naiton that has universal healchcare has lower quality of care than the usa

Gawd help me - but I'm actually rooting for Hillary. I'm not talking about the false Rush-limbaugh let-her-win-the-primary-so-we-can-defeat-her-later support. I really really want Hillary to by my next president.

(pauses while those who know me recover consciousness)

Here is why; Hillary is the lesser of three evils. If Obama wins it will be a complete catastrophe for Iraq. It will fall into complete chaos. Iran will play him like a cheap fiddle. Europe will have him doing lap dances. Israel will be like a middle-eastern rape victim who is blamed for getting raped.

Iraq already is a catastrophe. Europe will have him doing lap dances? What, by talking and cooperating with European Governments? How terrible :rolleyes:. No US President, EVER, would let Israel get "raped". Hell, Israel won't let Israel get "raped".

If McCain wins Iraq will be properly managed but the congress will be a disaster. Republicans will start voting like democrats and we'll see a terrible expansion of government intrusion into our lives. More money will be confiscated through taxes, and even more will be wasted by an inept congress.

Yes of course, because only the Democrats intrude into your life. The Republicans would never trample over your civil liberties :rolleyes:...ever hear of illegal wiretapping?

If Hillary wins I have confidence she will NOT mismanage Iraq. She is too smart for that. She will also deal fairly responsibly with the middle east. ALSO if Hillary wins the Republicans in congress will act like good ol' fashioned small government republicans. (some of the best republican programs occurred during the previous CLINTON years!) Spending and taxes will stay under control and the government will not expand as much as if the other two candidates won.

Deal responsibly by going to war with Iran?

So I proclaim in my most resigned voice, quite surprized to find myself saying this; Vote for the bit.. best candidate. Hillary for Prez!!!

BRING IT ON!


No. Epic PHAIL...

i would list hillary as last option as a conservative. obama isn't even on the list of options.
i want mccain to win. hw will be the most uniting i think as his is more moderate but conserrvative where it counts. he would be a moron not to continue the bush tax cuts. they aren't the reason the economy is down. it is sub-prime mortages. the bush tax cuts helped make the economy what it was for the first 6 years of his terms.
universal health care is bad. any liberal that wants to argue...all i have to say is look at canada.
mccain is the best on security. which is what we really need right now.

McCcain may or may not be a uniter, but he certainly is not a conservative. He is all about big government. Trouble is - he would unite republicans to the democrat big government bandwagon. No uniter, please. That is why Hillarys is more attractive in this case because she would only unite conservatives AGAINST her.

Universal healthcare is bad, but so is the current system. It seems the more the government gets involved with something the worse it gets... Extracting the government from healthcare would make extracting us from Iraq look like a cakewalk.

Iraq already is a catastrophe. Europe will have him doing lap dances? What, by talking and cooperating with European Governments?
YEAH! THOSE EUROPEON COMMIES HAVE TO LEARN! (Sarcasm) But with all seriousness, Obama is probably the best person from the 2 MAJOR parties in this country.

Yes of course, because only the Democrats intrude into your life. The Republicans would never trample over your civil liberties

It's all very simple. Democrats want a "Brave new world" sort of place, whereas the Republicans want a more "1984" kind of government. (Only SLIGHTLY sarcastic...and thats the scary part :eek:)

Iraq already is a catastrophe. Europe will have him doing lap dances? What, by talking and cooperating with European Governments? How terrible :rolleyes:
The US should cooperate with Europe is exact reciprocity to how they cooperate with us. :rolleyes: Iraq is making huge strides towards improvements - the real catastrophe would be to pull the carpet out from under them simply for domestic political gain.

No US President, EVER, would let Israel get "raped". Hell, Israel won't let Israel get "raped".
naive.

Yes of course, because only the Democrats intrude into your life. The Republicans would never trample over your civil liberties :rolleyes:...ever hear of illegal wiretapping?
logic flaw; If a is true b cannot also be true? The purpose of politicians is to acquire power. So long as they are competing with one another this process is slowed. When they cooperate it is everyone who is not a politician who loses.

Deal responsibly by going to war with Iran?
quote a grand leap to your conclusion. Care to get a running start next time?


No. Epic PHAIL...
OMG. You're in 10th grade. I've been wasting my time talking to a child.

YEAH! THOSE EUROPEON COMMIES HAVE TO LEARN! (Sarcasm) But with all seriousness, Obama is probably the best person from the 2 MAJOR parties in this country.


It's all very simple. Democrats want a "Brave new world" sort of place, whereas the Republicans want a more "1984" kind of government. (Only SLIGHTLY sarcastic...and thats the scary part :eek:)

I'll disagree about the 'brave new world' bumperstick bullshit, but I'm sorry to say I agree that the Republi-kahn party has left their roots of small government in the dust.

This thread was made on the same day that Limbaugh urge his listeners to vote for Hillary. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

Hmmm

The US should cooperate with Europe is exact reciprocity to how they cooperate with us. :rolleyes: Iraq is making huge strides towards improvements - the real catastrophe would be to pull the carpet out from under them simply for domestic political gain.

Fine, tell me what's so bad about the way European's cooperate with you?
1. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKL0372844420080303) 2. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUKL0157942120080301) 3. (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMdZtFsdd9DTT2oTXcVXFvLVl2gw)
Yeah things in Iraq are just peachy? Also AFAIK most people in the US are for a withdrawal of troops. How is doing what the people want you to do "simply domestic personal gain"

naive.

I don't think so. Israel has held it's own against Arab armies and terrorists for the past 50 years and is now the strongest military power in the region, they aren't going to be "raped" by anyone

logic flaw; If a is true b cannot also be true? The purpose of politicians is to acquire power. So long as they are competing with one another this process is slowed. When they cooperate it is everyone who is not a politician who loses.

That doesn't excuse the illegal wiretapping, the secret prisons, torture and deportations...and you say yourself "The purpose of politicians is to acquire power." this doesn't mean t3h ebil Democrats are the only ones that "intrude into your life"

This thread was made on the same day that Limbaugh urge his listeners to vote for Hillary.

Hmmm
Nah, must be a coincidence...
I'll disagree about the 'brave new world' bumperstick bullshit, but I'm sorry to say I agree that the Republi-kahn party has left their roots of small government in the dust.
Your right... We don't have the technology to get a "Brave new world" Type of government, wheras we almost have the technology for a "1984" kind of government
--Urban Transfer Systems (Pink Sheets: UBTF), today introduced its 2way TV video kiosk sales system. The state-of-the-art video conferencing system provides 2way video at 30 frames per second with no delay, full color, no perceptible latency, complete lip sync, and no visual or audio...
Just a few more years...

Fine, tell me what's so bad about the way European's cooperate with you?
Ummm, yeah. You're right. They really love doin things our way o'er there.


1. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKL0372844420080303) 2. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUKL0157942120080301) 3. (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMdZtFsdd9DTT2oTXcVXFvLVl2gw)
Yeah things in Iraq are just peachy? Also AFAIK most people in the US are for a withdrawal of troops. How is doing what the people want you to do "simply domestic personal gain"
That's right. Unless the Iraqis are holding hands singin cumbaya we really have failed miserably and should kill all of our firstborn now. It is obvious that if our troops would just leave the people of Iraq would have a nationwide love fest and al quaida would pack their bags and go somewhere else to terrorize people.
Your end point is - "populism - never wrong!" Such insightfulness!


I don't think so. Israel has held it's own against Arab armies and terrorists for the past 50 years and is now the strongest military power in the region, they aren't going to be "raped" by anyone.
Really? You post three links about terrorist bombings to illustrate Iraq as a 'dismal failure' yet you dismiss 50 years of terrorist bombings as irrelevant in the same post? Maybe you should hold it up to popular vote to see if the world cares more if its arabs instead or jews getting blowed up by terrorists.


That doesn't excuse the illegal wiretapping, the secret prisons, torture and deportations...and you say yourself "The purpose of politicians is to acquire power." this doesn't mean t3h ebil Democrats are the only ones that "intrude into your life"
Which is why I won't vote for McCain. What, are you so invested in being a Democrat you can't accept that both parties suck? The question isn't which one wants to take away your freedoms - it is which freedoms do each want to take? I'd prefer not to give up any. In fact I'd rather have more, not less. Lets keep the parties at each others throats instead of at ours. McCain likely will unite them at OUR throats grabbing for EACH of their preferred freedoms to take from us.

Nah, must be a coincidence...

Your right... We don't have the technology to get a "Brave new world" Type of government, wheras we almost have the technology for a "1984" kind of government

Just a few more years...

my idea of a brave new world government - a government that stays the fuck out of my life. From my wallet to my bedroom. You want a nanny? Move in with your mom. You want a Theocracy? Die and go to heaven.


oh, and btw - my post has more in common with Ann Coulter's support for Hillary Clinton - which she announced 1/31/08. So - you are way off base. Neither one had much to do with my decision. Ignore their unbased suppositions - some people simply cannot graduate beyond the trivial and try to drag you to their level.

my idea of a brave new world government - a government that stays the fuck out of my life From my wallet to my bedroom.
Then vote Libertarian! When I said "Brave New World" I was reffering to the book. If you haven't read it yet, you should. very dystopian.
You want a Theocracy? Die and go to heaven.
Not a bad idea actually...

Then vote Libertarian! When I said "Brave New World" I was reffering to the book. If you haven't read it yet, you should. very dystopian.
OIC. I'll have to check it out. Almost done with my advanced certification and then I can finally read a stack of books I've been accumulating on amazon wish list.

Ummm, yeah. You're right. They really love doin things our way o'er there.

I still don't get what point you're trying to make here...you just keep bashing Europe for apparently no reason, then bash Obama because he doesn't. What's your big problem with US-Europe relations

That's right. Unless the Iraqis are holding hands singin cumbaya we really have failed miserably and should kill all of our firstborn now. It is obvious that if our troops would just leave the people of Iraq would have a nationwide love fest and al quaida would pack their bags and go somewhere else to terrorize people.
Your end point is - "populism - never wrong!" Such insightfulness!

Yes. Unless the Iraqis aren't holding hands and singing together YOU HAVE FAILED MISERABLY. Iraq was repressive and bad under Saddam but at least there weren't car-bombs going off every day in Baghdad. Also IIRC a few months ago some of the Southern provinces (near Basra) where the British had withdrawn, saw a decline in violence. and I'll say it again, If a majority of your own citizens disapprove of a war you should get out of said war.

Really? You post three links about terrorist bombings to illustrate Iraq as a 'dismal failure' yet you dismiss 50 years of terrorist bombings as irrelevant in the same post? Maybe you should hold it up to popular vote to see if the world cares more if its arabs instead or jews getting blowed up by terrorists.

The links I posted were attacks against US soldiers IN IRAQ, not JEWS IN ISRAEL. and as I and you have said Israel has survived 50 years of terrorism, and will continue to survive even if the US slows military aid, IF any either Obama or McCain do that. BTW you haven't provided any sources saying that Obama or McCain would let Israel get "raped", why do you think they would let that happen in the first place?

Which is why I won't vote for McCain. What, are you so invested in being a Democrat you can't accept that both parties suck? The question isn't which one wants to take away your freedoms - it is which freedoms do each want to take? I'd prefer not to give up any. In fact I'd rather have more, not less. Lets keep the parties at each others throats instead of at ours. McCain likely will unite them at OUR throats grabbing for EACH of their preferred freedoms to take from us.

Don't try to turn this around on me. YOU SAID "Republicans will start voting like democrats and we'll see a terrible expansion of government intrusion into our lives" this heavily implies that only the Democrats intrude into your life, which as you have stated is untrue. I'm not defending either party, I'm just saying that you can't just blame the Democrats for something the Republicans do too.

Also, take a look at some of Clinton's policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton) before blindly following her:

On November 15, 2007, when asked "[is] national security more important than human rights?" Clinton responded, "I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America.

Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 when it was first enacted.

Clinton has not signed the American Freedom Agenda's pledge to end the use of military commissions to prosecute war crimes, restore habeas corpus, end torture of captives, end domestic wiretapping without a warrant, and end presidential signing statements

And as an Ebil Democrat she's pro gun-control...isn't that an intrusion into your life and an attack on your civil liberties?

Actually Nader would be the lesser evil.

With NO ties to any of the current political parties already holdin court in House, Senate, and Congress, he stands a better chance of a true bi-partisan Government including possibly finding a way out of the Iraq Decible that would make both people happy.

You must be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding.

Nader, for when you really don't care what your vote does!

New slogan!

You must be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding.

Nader, for when you really don't care what your vote does!

New slogan!

better than
"Be a sheep. Vote Democrat or Republican."

Hillary for Prez!!!

I must respectfully disagree with you there. I think she's a fine leader, but I don't like that Hillary Clinton talks out of both sides of her mouth and people seem to ignore it. (Singular example because I'm too tired to look for more: It's apparently changing the rules in mid-game for Obama to want the superdelegates to follow the will of the voters, but it's apparently NOT changing the rules to force the DNC to seat Michigan and Florida delegates after non-elections.)

I won't vote for John McCain (even though I like most of his domestic policies) because after the Iraq War started, he lost his goddamned mind. We've hit rock bottom just by being there at all. With John McCain you get a shovel. I want the loud noise drowning out the Inauguration to be the giant vacuum sucking all our troops out of Iraq and where they belong.

I like Nader, but I'm not going to take a chance on McCain beating Obama. Obama wins my vote by default.

I
Also, take a look at some of Clinton's policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton) before blindly following her:

On November 15, 2007, when asked "[is] national security more important than human rights?" Clinton responded, "I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America.

Less than a complete quote. She said she agreed completely with the answer of Senator Dodd who spoke before her. She also said "That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests."

If you are going to look at Clinton on the issues, you should do so fairly and fully. Even Wikipedia gave a fuller quote than what you said.

Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 when it was first enacted.

So did John McCain. And Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton all voted for re-authorization of the Patriot Act

Clinton has not signed the American Freedom Agenda's pledge to end the use of military commissions to prosecute war crimes, restore habeas corpus, end torture of captives, end domestic wiretapping without a warrant, and end presidential signing statements

Um. Do you know who the American Freedom Agenda is? What candidates, if any, HAVE signed the pledge?

So did John McCain. And Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton all voted for re-authorization of the Patriot Act

Alright I'm in the wrong on the other two quotes, but I was trying to prove using this one that both parties "intrude on citizens lives" not just the Democrats as the OP said

better than
"Be a sheep. Vote Democrat or Republican."

True.

better than
"Be a sheep. Vote Democrat or Republican."

So voting for someone because (1) they are most qualified for the job and (2) will triumph over others that you don't want to see be President each makes you a sheep?

Baaa.

Alright I'm in the wrong on the other two quotes, but I was trying to prove using this one that both parties "intrude on citizens lives" not just the Democrats as the OP said

Oh, don't worry about that silliness. No one is buying what MS is selling.

I'm too tired to argue anything serious at the moment, but the innate Grammar Nazi in me feels the (probably unwise) urge to point out that when comparing more than two candidates, "least evil" is the more appropriate phrase.

For Ralph Nader, of course, it wouldn't have worked to talk about not choosing the "least" evil candidate, because it would have meant encouraging people not to vote for him.

So voting for someone because (1) they are most qualified for the job and (2) will triumph over others that you don't want to see be President each makes you a sheep?

Baaa.

no, but that's not what you said.

you said, and I quote.You must be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding.

Nader, for when you really don't care what your vote does!

New slogan!

no argument about how Hillary is better than Nader, no argument about any flaws in Nader's plans, nothing to show who would be the better President. just a comment about a vote for Nader is a useless vote.

a sheep argument for voting either Dems or Reps.

everyone is so tied up between Democrat and Republican.. everyone is saying "Vote for the lesser of TWO evils" we had over 3 decades of Democrat and Republican that people forget that there are independants running.

and this year, all you hear is Obama, Clinton, Hukabee, McCain and this is only the primary, hell, it might as well be the General.

People voted for a Democrat Congress and still they complain that nothings getting done. People complain when the Republicans had total power, people complain when the Democrats had total power...

Lets stop the power ping-pong and stop looking only at two parties.

no, but that's not what you said.

you said, and I quote.

no argument about how Hillary is better than Nader, no argument about any flaws in Nader's plans, nothing to show who would be the better President. just a comment about a vote for Nader is a useless vote.

a sheep argument for voting either Dems or Reps.

everyone is so tied up between Democrat and Republican.. everyone is saying "Vote for the lesser of TWO evils" we had over 3 decades of Democrat and Republican that people forget that there are independants running.

and this year, all you hear is Obama, Clinton, Hukabee, McCain and this is only the primary, hell, it might as well be the General.

People voted for a Democrat Congress and still they complain that nothings getting done. People complain when the Republicans had total power, people complain when the Democrats had total power...

Lets stop the power ping-pong and stop looking only at two parties.

QFMFT

Gawd help me - Hillary for Prez!!!

He will have to help you because she won't. :rolleyes:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/Clintonism.jpg

no, doctors ask you to leave when you are healthy

source? because having spent all my life in public health care I have seen none of these

Hush, he's busy sipping kool-aid.

Also IIRC a few months ago some of the Southern provinces (near Basra) where the British had withdrawn, saw a decline in violence.

ROFLMAO!!!!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Thousands of people took to the streets Saturday in Basra, protesting deteriorating security in the southern city where Iraqi forces assumed responsibility for safety last December.

Three poor choices. Don't you just love it. The way the system works, a large group of idiots, malefactors and fanatics, through political infighting, lying and bribery, manages to whittle itself down to a selection of two totally unacceptably candidates who are then presented to the American people as "the best the country has to offer." We are then free to choose between the rock and hard place. Third and fourth options, while available, are completely non-viable. Gotta love it.

A candidate more bellicose then Bush does not interest me, but then again, I am not conservative.

If Hillary wins I have confidence she will NOT mismanage Iraq. She is too smart for that. She will also deal fairly responsibly with the middle east. ALSO if Hillary wins the Republicans in congress will act like good ol' fashioned small government republicans. (some of the best republican programs occurred during the previous CLINTON years!) Spending and taxes will stay under contral and the government will not expand as much as if the other two candidates won.

I'm starting to think in much the same way. Hillary is just too polarizing to get anything done in Congress and I don't think that any Executive Orders, aka Royal Decrees, that she can issue would cause irreparable damage... I just can't quite imagine myself pulling the lever for her, though.

It's understandable, she is the most conservative of the three of them.

I think every poster needs to make his, her or its own thread on who he, she or it will vote for. It's the only way to make sure we have enough threads before the spring. You know, to avoid a sudden thread shortage since noting else happens in the world at present. *Nods*

*smacks with the virtual newspaper.* Bad Gravlen! BAD!

So voting for someone because (1) they are most qualified for the job and (2) will triumph over others that you don't want to see be President each makes you a sheep?

Except that it's not "voting for someone because they are most qualified for the job." It's "voting for someone because they lie more convincingly than the other liars."

Baaa.

Pretty much.

So voting for someone because (1) they are most qualified for the job and (2) will triumph over others that you don't want to see be President each makes you a sheep?

Baaa.

(1)? No.
(2)? Yes.

Only considering the Republican or Democrat when you consider (1) is being a sheep.

Or if you prefer: Kang or Kodos?

Except that it's not "voting for someone because they are most qualified for the job." It's "voting for someone because they lie more convincingly than the other liars."

Pretty much.

Yeah, people are too stupid to be allowed to vote. Screw democracy! :rolleyes:

(1)? No.
(2)? Yes.

Only considering the Republican or Democrat when you consider (1) is being a sheep.

Or if you prefer: Kang or Kodos?

Who are these mythical voters that choose who to vote for based ONLY on party without any other considerations whatsoever?

Surely considering party as a factor is not wrong -- there are very good reasons why John McCain calls himself a Republican and Barack Obama calls himself a Democrat. There is more substance to it that a mere label.

Who are these mythical voters that choose who to vote for based ONLY on party without any other considerations whatsoever?

I've known some. They won't even give a member of another party a second glance.

Also, some state parties require you to sign an oath saying you'll do just that if you want to vote in the primaries.

Surely considering party as a factor is not wrong -- there are very good reasons why John McCain calls himself a Republican and Barack Obama calls himself a Democrat. There is more substance to it that a mere label.

They're general groupings, really. The reasons that Obama calls himself a Democrat might be quite different from the reasons that Clinton or Kennedy or Carter does. The reasons that McCain calls himself a Republican might be quite different from the reasons that Bush or Huckabee or Paul does.

Unless you agree with every plank of a party platform, the particular party is really just a starting point. A decent candidate is unlikely to agree with or follow every plank.

And if you can find significant good and bad in both parties, the label really means little. You need to know exactly which good and bad policies they endorse. What do they personally prioritize?

In the end, I honestly think that voting by party is generally a crutch. It keeps the voter from bothering with looking into the candidates.

i think that is the same every way. by advocating universal healthcare you are saying that the middle class which can afford insurance should be forced to go form the best healthcare in the world to some low quality healthcare because they can't afford to go to a good doctor anymore because of the rates good doctors will charge with universal healthcare? i advocate helping those out that are working but still can't afford healhcare. if they aren't working and are able to work they don't deserve healthcare from the governemnt.


So, if everyone can obtain healthcare, doctors are going to jack up their rates to try and prevent that?

Meanwhile, what if they are working and still can't afford healthcare? Do they deserve it then?


To Mystic:

I'm a bit confused. You think pulling out of Iraq would be a mistake and so you're supporting....Clinton? Do you think she's lying when she promises to pull out?

Who are these mythical voters that choose who to vote for based ONLY on party without any other considerations whatsoever?

Surely considering party as a factor is not wrong -- there are very good reasons why John McCain calls himself a Republican and Barack Obama calls himself a Democrat. There is more substance to it that a mere label.

Is there?

Let me ask you this: If Barack Obama were a Republican, exactly as he is now, would you vote for him?

Let me ask you this: If Barack Obama were a Republican, exactly as he is now, would you vote for him?

If Barack Obama were a KKK member, exactly as he is now, would you vote for him?

That's an absurd question because it couldn't ever possibly happen. Parties (unlike many candidates) take sides: they have policy stances, and their candidates generally must fall somewhere within that framework.

The reasons that Obama calls himself a Democrat might be quite different from the reasons that Clinton or Kennedy or Carter does. The reasons that McCain calls himself a Republican might be quite different from the reasons that Bush or Huckabee or Paul does.

That's right. That's why parties don't nominate candidates based on what they call themselves.

If John McCain is elected, the Democrats will control Congress and the Republicans the White House. From a gridlock perspective, he's your best bet.

That's right. That's why parties don't nominate candidates based on what they call themselves.

And yet the parties have nominated (for some national position) each of those people, despite their varying policy positions and priorities.

And yet the parties have nominated (for some national position) each of those people, despite their varying policy positions and priorities.

Because they fit within a similar overall political framework.

US political parties are broad and diverse policy-wise, but that does not mean that there are no lines. If you staunchly agree with the Democratic Party over the Republicans on most everything, there is virtually never a reason to vote other than party-line (at least for posts that matter.)

Is there?

Let me ask you this: If Barack Obama were a Republican, exactly as he is now, would you vote for him?
No, and I explained why in relation to McCain. It's Harriet Myers.

Why Harriet Myers? When Bush nominated her it wasn't the objections of the opposition party that shot down her nomination for being conservative, it was the religious right for her not being conservative enough. That base is so ingrained in the Republican Party it is able to wage a tougher opposition than the opposition. This is the effect of party, and why party matters. Yes, the Democratic Party has its masters, too, but one of its weaknesses is its strengths in this regards in that there are too many with not enough power which makes the party seem schizophranic. Whoever the nominee is for the Republican Party, be it McCain or Hypothetical Republican Obama, is going to have to rely on that religious right base for support and for that religious right to get anything done with his party members in congress.

The Republicans have to lose this election, and it has to be because of the religious right. When they do, they have two interpretations-that they drifted too far away from them so that they go with more Santorums and Romneys and hopefully suffer even larger defeats, or hopefully dump them like an anchor thats dragging them down.

While the Kodos and Krang thing does have a degree of merit, there are agendas within parties that are markedly different, from minimum wage, health care, the enviroment, foreign policy. Supporting one party or another gives them the numbers they need to push those agendas. While I agree our dominant two party system artificially limits our choices it isn't really a case of a rose smelling just as sweet by any other name.

*Vomits profusely*


If I suppose you're a conservative and the ONLY thing you care about the Iraq issue.. how the hell do you come to the conclusion that Clinton is your choice? Stop undermineing the system damnit!

Because they fit within a similar overall political framework.

In other words, they agree with enough of the planks to count. But what if I, as a voter, don't think the particular planks they agree with are the important ones? Or maybe I think they're the party's failings?

US political parties are broad and diverse policy-wise, but that does not mean that there are no lines. If you staunchly agree with the Democratic Party over the Republicans on most everything, there is virtually never a reason to vote other than party-line (at least for posts that matter.)

It really depends on priorities and where you draw those lines. Even someone who agrees with the Democratic Party on most things can find Democrats they disagree with enough to wish not to vote for them.

Also, another consideration would be the person's tactics. If someone is constantly playing dirty politics, and things like that matter to you, you may choose not to vote for them even if they are currently pushing for policies you agree with.

Personally, I've voted all over the place - based on exactly what priorities a candidate is putting forth. I've voted Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, etc. It depends on the particular position and the particular candidate.

I just find it annoying when people look at you like you're crazy because you're voting for the candidate you think will do the best job instead of the candidate that you think can win(or beat the candidate you don't want to win). Of course living in COnnecticut gives me the advantage of knowing my vote doesn't count. There's freedom in that. :)

I just find it annoying when people look at you like you're crazy because you're voting for the candidate you think will do the best job instead of the candidate that you think can win(or beat the candidate you don't want to win). Of course living in COnnecticut gives me the advantage of knowing my vote doesn't count. There's freedom in that. :)

As a guy in Nevada who alone in my precinct voted for Dodd, I can appreciate your circumstances.

I don't know where the electibility criterion came into play, only that some time around 2003 we were only supposed to cast ballots for people with a decent shot of being elected which, by March 2003, happened to be the establishment candidate.

I just find it annoying when people look at you like you're crazy because you're voting for the candidate you think will do the best job instead of the candidate that you think can win(or beat the candidate you don't want to win). Of course living in COnnecticut gives me the advantage of knowing my vote doesn't count. There's freedom in that. :)

I do that. I haven't voted for a major party candidate since my first vote. But I live in hippie towns where I'm not concerned that the district will go for someone I hate and there is a possibility the minor candidate I voted for might reach watersheds necessary for them to get national money. And I decided that I didn't want to vote against somebody but for people instead. But that's not exactly the same as not voting for someone.

Yeah, people are too stupid to be allowed to vote. Screw democracy! :rolleyes:

Cute strawman. Got anymore?

If Barack Obama were a KKK member, exactly as he is now, would you vote for him?

Um...isn't that what LG just said? :confused:


(Sorry, I just couldn't resist. ;))

Well, Hillary is a conservative. (for all those who just went "OMFG WTFZORZ?!", she actually is center-right if you look from a world view instead of an American-centic one)

Cute strawman. Got anymore?

It wasn't a strawman. If my words were not a fair interpretation of what you said, you should be able to explain why they were not fair.

I just find it annoying when people look at you like you're crazy because you're voting for the candidate you think will do the best job instead of the candidate that you think can win(or beat the candidate you don't want to win). Of course living in COnnecticut gives me the advantage of knowing my vote doesn't count. There's freedom in that. :)
I'm afraid I do that (look at the crazy people, that is, not vote like them). I don't really care in primaries, or even local elections, because it's not like voting for Dennis Kucinich is going to let McCain beat Obama in the Democratic primaries. But in the actual election, there is a virtual guarantee one of the two parties will win, and I think it is illogical and even a little irresponsible to not support the lesser of the two evils.

I'm afraid I don't live in Connecticut, so my vote probably does matter. On the other hand, if I could somehow convince the registrar that I'm black...

I've known some. They won't even give a member of another party a second glance.

Also, some state parties require you to sign an oath saying you'll do just that if you want to vote in the primaries.

They're general groupings, really. The reasons that Obama calls himself a Democrat might be quite different from the reasons that Clinton or Kennedy or Carter does. The reasons that McCain calls himself a Republican might be quite different from the reasons that Bush or Huckabee or Paul does.

Unless you agree with every plank of a party platform, the particular party is really just a starting point. A decent candidate is unlikely to agree with or follow every plank.

And if you can find significant good and bad in both parties, the label really means little. You need to know exactly which good and bad policies they endorse. What do they personally prioritize?

In the end, I honestly think that voting by party is generally a crutch. It keeps the voter from bothering with looking into the candidates.

Meh. I usually know more about the candidates than other voters, but I tend to vote party line.

That doesn't mean I haven't voted for lots of Republicans, but -- given the choice -- I tend to prefer a Democrat.

I don't find both parties equally good and bad. I have a definite preference based on issues, history, etc. That is an educated opinion and shouldn't be dismissed as being merely a sheep.

It wasn't a strawman. If my words were not a fair interpretation of what you said, you should be able to explain why they were not fair.

What I'm saying is people don't vote for the most qualified candidate. If they did, few if any Republicrats would ever be elected.

I don't find both parties equally good and bad. I have a definite preference based on issues, history, etc. That is an educated opinion and shouldn't be dismissed as being merely a sheep.

Indeed. But we weren't talking about you, now were we?

You asked about people who vote based on party alone.

Really? We'd have a Congress filled with Libertarians would we? Perhaps if that party wasn't fundamentally flawed and filled with many kooks, you'd have a point.

Not necessarily Libertarians, but people with more brains than Republicrats.

Meh. I usually know more about the candidates than other voters, but I tend to vote party line.

That doesn't mean I haven't voted for lots of Republicans, but -- given the choice -- I tend to prefer a Democrat.

I don't find both parties equally good and bad. I have a definite preference based on issues, history, etc. That is an educated opinion and shouldn't be dismissed as being merely a sheep.

Yet someone who does exactly the same as you do; learns what there is to know about the candidates...ALL the candidates and has an educated opinion that leads him to vote for neither a Republican nor a Democrat is irresponsible because he didn't vote for the lesser evil?

Yet someone who does exactly the same as you do; learns what there is to know about the candidates...ALL the candidates and has an educated opinion that leads him to vote for neither a Republican nor a Democrat is irresponsible because he didn't vote for the lesser evil?

QFT, LG.

What I'm saying is people don't vote for the most qualified candidate. If they did, few if any Republicrats would ever be elected.

Really? We'd have a Congress filled with Libertarians would we? Perhaps if that party wasn't fundamentally flawed and filled with many kooks, you'd have a point.

Really? We'd have a Congress filled with Libertarians would we? Perhaps if that party wasn't fundamentally flawed and filled with many kooks, you'd have a point.

I want to vote libertarian. I honestly think that if there were enough in congress where ither the Republicans or Democrats would have to swing theim to their perspective to get anything passed, we'd see a lot more meaningful legislation. But for some reason, they only endorse the wackiest members of their party. Why is that?

Indeed. But we weren't talking about you, now were we?

You asked about people who vote based on party alone.

I thought you actually meant what you said, which was:


And if you can find significant good and bad in both parties, the label really means little. You need to know exactly which good and bad policies they endorse. What do they personally prioritize?


Again, I think that the significance of people who vote based on party ALONE is exaggerated at best.

But, assuming there are such people, I presume they do so because they do not find significant bad and good in both parties.

Maybe I've forgotten. When did I say that someone who votes for a third-party candidate is necessarily irresponsible?

You must be kidding. Please tell me you are kidding.

Nader, for when you really don't care what your vote does!

New slogan!


Finding a definition on Dictionary.com that doesn't use the word 'responsible' as part of it's definiton was tricky, but here's one:

irresponsible

adjective
showing lack of care for consequences;

:)

Ugh...I was going to sit this one out, but I find myself increasingly unable to stomach the misinformed bullshit that the slack-jawed American electorate has bought into courtesy of sound bites and general apathy towards actually researching the candidates and their positions.

universal health care is bad. any liberal that wants to argue...all i have to say is look at canada.
Too bad that neither Hillary nor Obama has proposed a system akin to that of Canada's.
i advocate helping those out that are working but still can't afford healhcare.
Funny...that's exactly what their plans advocate! Both Hillary and Obama's plans entailt tax credits and access to the insurance pools that government employees buy into so that families can afford private insurance. See what enlightenment a little research can bring?

Yet someone who does exactly the same as you do; learns what there is to know about the candidates...ALL the candidates and has an educated opinion that leads him to vote for neither a Republican nor a Democrat is irresponsible because he didn't vote for the lesser evil?

Maybe I've forgotten. When did I say that someone who votes for a third-party candidate is necessarily irresponsible?

I do think such a choice is usually foolish, but far from always. Among other things, the most qualified candidates tend to join one of the major parties -- at least when we are talking about major offices.

EDIT: I was critical of those who would vote or have voted for Nader for President. I'll stand by that on multiple grounds, including that he far from the most qualified candidate.

EDIT: I was critical of those who would vote or have voted for Nader for President. I'll stand by that on multiple grounds, including that he far from the most qualified candidate.

What if you voted for him in the hopes of getting The Green Party the 5% national watershed to qualify for federal election funds?

Finding a definition on Dictionary.com that doesn't use the word 'responsible' as part of it's definiton was tricky, but here's one:

:)

Fair point. ;)

But, for the record, that was I joke, but I will stand behind it. I don't think voting for Nader is responsible. That doesn't mean that voting for a third-party or non-partisan candidate is always irresponsible, but just that a vote for Nader was and is.

Fair point. ;)

But, for the record, that was I joke, but I will stand behind it. I don't think voting for Nader is responsible. That doesn't mean that voting for a third-party or non-partisan candidate is always irresponsible, but just that a vote for Nader was and is.

I can't help but wonder if that is because of his stand on the issues and his political background, or because of the 2000 election.

Because one thing I find really odd about blaming him for Gore's loss in 2000 Florida is that Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, John Hagelin and even Howard Phillips had more votes than the margin of victory in 2000 Florida. Nobody blames them. Why is that?

I want to vote libertarian. I honestly think that if there were enough in congress where ither the Republicans or Democrats would have to swing theim to their perspective to get anything passed, we'd see a lot more meaningful legislation. But for some reason, they only endorse the wackiest members of their party. Why is that?

because only crazy people are willing to put that much time, effort, and pride into a losing cause.

in politics at least

the sane ones try to focus on the parts of libertarianism that mean the most to them and have the best chance to get passed. on that basis they become republicans or democrats.

I thought you actually meant what you said, which was:

I did mean that. But I didn't say that you personally can find significant good and bad in both parties, now did I?

Again, I think that the significance of people who vote based on party ALONE is exaggerated at best.

*shrug* I know plenty of such people.

But, assuming there are such people, I presume they do so because they do not find significant bad and good in both parties.

Correction: They do not find significant bad and good in the way both parties are characterized. As a general rule, such people don't spend any more time looking into party platform than they do looking into individual candidates.

They vote based on ideas like, "Republicans are the only ones who will properly fund the military." Or maybe, "Republicans are the fiscal conservatives" (LOL)

Or, there's, "Only Democrats care about [insert minority here]" or "Democrats aren't religious."

And so on...


I do think such a choice is usually foolish, but far from always. Among other things, the most qualified candidates tend to join one of the major parties -- at least when we are talking about major offices.

Are you sure?

I tend to think it's more that the two major parties have a near complete stranglehold on politics - especially at the national level. It's probably fairly often that the truly most qualified person never even reaches the ballot, because both major parties have done everything possible to make sure that only those willing to affix a D or R next to their names and play the party game can even achieve that.

I tend to think it's more that the two major parties have a near complete stranglehold on politics - especially at the national level. It's probably fairly often that the truly most qualified person never even reaches the ballot, because both major parties have done everything possible to make sure that only those willing to affix a D or R next to their names and play the party game can even achieve that.

The two Party system is the general result of a first past the post electoral system. Changing the system to a more proportional system would open up Congress to 3rd parties but it would require politicians to change the system that got them elected and American citizens to vote for parties instead of people. So not likely to happen any time soon.

The two Party system is the general result of a first past the post electoral system. Changing the system to a more proportional system would open up Congress to 3rd parties but it would require politicians to change the system that got them elected and American citizens to vote for parties instead of people. So not likely to happen any time soon.

I'm not just talking about presidential bids here. But yes, a more proportional system there would open things up.

My point was that members of both parties have worked to make sure that party membership in one or the other is pretty much an absolute requirement for advancement in politics beyond the very local level.

The two Party system is the general result of a first past the post electoral system. Changing the system to a more proportional system would open up Congress to 3rd parties but it would require politicians to change the system that got them elected and American citizens to vote for parties instead of people. So not likely to happen any time soon.

No, every attempt to call a Constitutional convention under Article V has failed, probably because the last time one was called the convention exceeded its authority (given by the Articles of Confederation) by writing an all new Constitution and proposing it for ratification under its own authority instead of the Articles'.

As much as I think the current Constitution is a modern failure (no one tell me it's worked for 200+ years, because it hasn't or we wouldn't be in the messes we're in), I have been made to see the right of it by those who reminded me who would be writing a Constitution "appropriate for the modern day." It's a shame because there are a few ideas I'd like to see in it.