[RenegadeRick]

Is the main party in your country invading other countries? What if it was? Would you then vote for the number two party or would you vote for an independent that had no chance of winning?

I wonder how many people vote repub or dem instead of independent simply because of this kind of thinking. I wonder how things could be different if people actually voted for the person they thought would do the best job, instead of the person they considered less evil.

Anyone who didn't vote FOR the Dems in 2004 was voting FOR continued aggression by US in the Middle East.

What makes you think that the dems are for ending the war in Iraq? Hillary supports the war.

 

[SeaPig]

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly denied that she had any intentions of running for president. Imagine my shock when I came across this article today.



So, does this make her a liar? And if so, isn't that a requirement to hold the office anyhow?

Actually, it makes you naive. Everyone knew she was running. Just like so many people knew there are no WMDs and we went into iRaq for oil and money, and on and on. It's not right to believe the lies when they are obvious lies and then call foul later. Come on. Were you really shocked, or is this your way of starting a dumb argument?

 

[LordOpie]

I wonder how many people vote repub or dem instead of independent simply because of this kind of thinking. I wonder how things could be different if people actually voted for the person they thought would do the best job, instead of the person they considered less evil.


What makes you think that the dems are for ending the war in Iraq? Hillary supports the war.

We're not talking about the difference between two parties arguing over health care legislation where one is $2billion and the other is $1.5billion, we're talking about global thermonuclear war.

Seriously tho, if you voted independent last time, you helped Bush stay in office. Are you ok with that?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Were you really shocked...

nope (sorry if my lack of smiley confused you).

...or is this your way of starting a dumb argument?

I can't believe you would say such a thing. I'm hurt <sob> <cry> ...

 

[SeaPig]

I read the back and forth about the value of voting and not voting, or voting your beliefs and going third party, etc. All i can say is look at the last elections, they are not getting us out of iRaq. In fact, Bush is ignoring those votes the overwhelmingly said get out of iRaq.

I believe if we vote the lesser of two evils we only perpetuate the evil that governs both those parties. Do you really think there is much difference between Hillary and McCain? Do you really think that either of these two will fix the foriegn relations dibacle, or fix domestic issues without trying to make their buddies rich? An approach that never puts forward the best ideas, only the most lucrative.

It's not the country that is broken, yet. It's the process and voting is a part of that process. You want an analogy? What about you're driving from where ever you are to Mexico and you realize that you meant to be going to Canada, so you're traveling the wrong direction. You don't now drive slower, you turn around. We need to turn around. Voting the lessor of two evils is not turning around.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Seriously tho, if you voted independent last time, you helped Bush stay in office. Are you ok with that?

My vote went uncounted last time. Are you OK with that?

 

[SeaPig]

nope (sorry if my lack of smiley confused you).


I can't believe you would say such a thing. I'm hurt <sob> <cry> ...

Not trying to be mean. If I was in person you'd see the grin on my face.

What I mean is, just stat the facts. You can stand the Hillary and ever movement she makes plays us for being dumb. If she thought that playing coy would get her votes, then she really doesn't get the average joe and jane on the street.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Voting the lessor of two evils is not turning around.

Amen.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Not trying to be mean. If I was in person you'd see the grin on my face.

and mine too. It looks like this:

 

[SeaPig]

We're not talking about the difference between two parties arguing over health care legislation where one is $2billion and the other is $1.5billion, we're talking about global thermonuclear war.

Seriously tho, if you voted independent last time, you helped Bush stay in office. Are you ok with that?

Show me one state where the independent vote actually was the difference to win the state and get the electorial vote. Don't think it happened.

 

[SeaPig]

and mine too. It looks like this:

Glad we can get along. Sometimes it comes off like someone is a knowit all when you post on line. But, these are just oppinions and conversations that hopefully get the juices rolling independently of the mass media.

 

[LordOpie]

Do you really think there is much difference between Hillary and McCain?

Nope. I think there is a huge difference between Hillary and Bush.

In fact, I dare say McCain is against the war more than Hillary.

My vote went uncounted last time. Are you OK with that?

Yup.

 

[H8R]

Is Hillary a liar?

Does the Pope sh1t in the woods?

 

[RenegadeRick]

My vote went uncounted last time. Are you OK with that?

Yup.

I don't mean "wasted" on an independent. I mean uncounted. Provisional ballot style.

 

[ohio]

Show me one state where the independent vote actually was the difference to win the state and get the electorial vote. Don't think it happened.

Uh, Florida 2000. Duh.

 

[golgiaparatus]

and mine too. It looks like this:

Get a room.

 

[rockwool]

spoken like someone who has zero clue about the reality in US politics.

lthumbsdown:

To clarify my self, US hegemony means the policies it has outside it's borders.

Clinton, Carter (the peace dove...), Kennedy, LBJ, Truman and Roosevelt. They all have been pro US hegemony in other countries, first only in their own "back yard", and after Pearl, the whole world.

 

[rockwool]

Does the Pope sh1t in the woods?

And wipe his ass with the Imam?

 

[Kihaji]

Wow. What a retarded analogy.

But if you want to go that route... It's a like a woman who is forced by family and society to choose between two husbands -- one is verbally mean, the other will likely beat her until dead.


We're not in a situation where we have the luxury of throwing away third party votes right now. I voted for third parties in the past, but I reiterate...

voting third party by Dems is what got Bush into office. Do you think those votes were a good idea?

Actually, the people have been speaking for the last 30 or so years, we dont want either of your candidates. If you look at the (declining up until 2004) voter turnouts, the majority of the people have voted C, None of the above.

Most political analysts would say that it is "voter apathy", I would say it is anything but.


As for voting for the lesser of two evils, no thank you, I believe my vote means more than just picking someone who sucks the least, especially when I have the option of not picking. I refuse to vote for someone I don't believe in.

 

[rockwool]

Man, the only way to make them change is by not sanctioning their actions with your votes. There is no other way. It's like a woman that lives with a husband that beats her; he'll change; he tells me he loves me (and I'm a sucker believing it); I need his comfort; nobody's gonna want me now and I can't live alone for a while...

Wow. What a retarded analogy.

But if you want to go that route... It's a like a woman who is forced by family and society to choose between two husbands -- one is verbally mean, the other will likely beat her until dead.

The important thing in the analogy wasn't the number of people or husbands that treated the woman bad, but the way she finds her self in that kind of situation over and over.

But yes, it could have been done better. Not by me though..

 

[dhbuilder]

Actually, the people have been speaking for the last 30 or so years, we dont want either of your candidates. If you look at the (declining up until 2004) voter turnouts, the majority of the people have voted C, None of the above.

Most political analysts would say that it is "voter apathy", I would say it is anything but.


As for voting for the lesser of two evils, no thank you, I believe my vote means more than just picking someone who sucks the least, especially when I have the option of not picking. I refuse to vote for someone I don't believe in.

that's why it cracks me up to see the "regulars" who live on this forum every day, get so riled up over politics and bush hating etc...

the alternatives to whoever it's trendy to hate at the moment, couldn't have done any better in any particular situation.

the two parties we have in this country so despise each other, that their main agendas are to pretty much to do the exact opposite of what the other is doing.
more time is spent in commities pondering over items in hope of getting enough dirt on someone so that the can grand jury everything to death.
therefore the "political pendulum" never spends a whole lot of time in the middle third of its swing, where most of us operate.

they quickly forget that their main purpose is to represent their constituents.

 

[LordOpie]

computer

 

[RenegadeRick]

...the two parties we have in this country so despise each other, that their main agendas are to pretty much to do the exact opposite of what the other is doing.

I completely disagree. I think their main agendas are to do whatever the multinational corporations want them to. You know... their real constituents.

Any update on the criminal backgrounds of those NY bachelors that got shot by the cops at the strip club? I sure have been waiting a long time...

 

[dante]

To clarify my self, US hegemony means the policies it has outside it's borders.

Clinton, Carter (the peace dove...), Kennedy, LBJ, Truman and Roosevelt. They all have been pro US hegemony in other countries, first only in their own "back yard", and after Pearl, the whole world.

sorry, if you're equating the missile strikes that Clinton authorized in Serbia (that had the approval of most of the rest of the world) with the wholesale invasion of 2 sovereign nations and the resulting bloody civil war in one of them (both?), then you're asking for some fanciful utopia that has probably never existed and never will exist.

a 2 party system sucks, but it's better than the alternatives. a parliamentary system is far, FAR worse. just imagine a 3 party system, where two normal, relatively sane parties each control 49% of the seats, and one lunatic fringe party controls the other 2%. guess who is now the power-broker, gets the good cabinet seats and can basically dictate the direction of the government (while getting all the good pork/benefits). yeah, no thanks. i also personally *like* the fact that our government doesn't fail at least once every 3 years, and usually take the economy down with it. lthumbsdown:

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Any update on the criminal backgrounds of those NY bachelors that got shot by the cops at the strip club? I sure have been waiting a long time...

Yeah, it was all a farse. Cocaine's a helluva drug.

 

[dhbuilder]

I completely disagree. I think their main agendas are to do whatever the multinational corporations want them to. You know... their real constituents.

Any update on the criminal backgrounds of those NY bachelors that got shot by the cops at the strip club? I sure have been waiting a long time...

keep waiting.
heard it on a news broadcast.
you do the research if you want it.

"NY bachelors" ?
that can easily be retitled "typical latenight group troublemaker mentality"

we'll probably soon hear every minute detail when it comes to trial.

i don't care if he was a f...... altar boy.
you take aim with your vehicle, you end up in a pine box.

 

[LordOpie]

"NY bachelors" ?
that can easily be retitled "typical negroes"

we'll probably soon hear every minute detail when it comes to trial.

them people deserve to end up in a pine box.

wow

 

[N8 v2.0]

Clinton and Obama campaigners trade insults
By Edward Luce in Washington
Published: January 22 2007 18:27 | Last updated: January 22 2007

The Democratic party’s presidential campaign got into full swing on Monday with campaign staff for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton already indulging in sniping contests over the relative merits of their candidates.

Campaign workers for Mrs Clinton, who on Monday signed the papers to set up a presidential exploratory committee – the first step before declaring a formal candidacy – made indirect attacks on the relative inexperience of Mr Obama, who entered the race a week ago.

Democratic consultants said the campaign, which already includes five other candidates, most notably John Edwards, the party’s 2004 vice-presidential candidate, was shaping up to be the most intense and long-running in the party’s history.

Polls show Mrs Clinton leading by a wide margin among registered Democrats. “Hillary’s Democratic primary support is climbing while others are stalled or falling,” wrote Mark Penn, Mrs Clinton’s chief pollster, in a memo. “She is not just strong, but the strongest in the field.”

Joe Trippi, who was campaign manager for Howard Dean, who almost took the 2004 Democratic nomination, said both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton had been bounced into declaring their candidacies early by the strength of the other’s campaign.

George Soros, the New York-based billionaire, declared his support for Mr Obama the moment the first-term senator from Illinois signed the papers last week. Mr Soros, who has been one of the most generous supporters of Democratic campaigns in recent years, gave Mr Obama the maximum permitted individual donation.

“Both camps were watching the other sign up big-name donors in each other’s cities [Chicago and New York] and realised there was no time to lose,” said Mr Trippi, who is credited with running the most sophisticated internet campaign of its day.

On Monday night, Mrs Clinton kicked off what she said would be a running national “conversation” with voters via video weblink “about the direction our country is taking”. At the weekend Mrs Clinton will make her first visit to Iowa, the venue of an early caucus in the Democratic nomination early next year, where John Edwards is already the front-runner. Mr Obama is ahead of Mrs Clinton in New Hampshire, the site of the first Democratic primary.

All three leading candidates are planning to launch extensive online operations to build campaign “netroots”, which is considered important to their prospects. Mr Trippi, whose 2004 Howard Dean campaign attracted 650,000 internet supporters, says this time each will register millions.

“This is a completely different moment to 2004,” he said. “Then we didn’t have nearly as many blogs, we didn’t have YouTube, or MySpace. It is a safe bet that one of these candidates will be derailed by some obscure video recording on a cellphone that will be posted on the web.”

But the most intense competition between the candidates is likely to pivot around their Iraq war stances. Mrs Clinton, who last week returned from a visit to Iraq with a plan to launch a congressional resolution to “freeze” the number of US forces there at the January 1 level of 132,000, is probably the most vulnerable.

Having voted in favour of the war in 2002, Mrs Clinton has the most ground to make up among the party’s liberal base. Mr Edwards also voted in favour but has since recanted. Mr Obama always opposed the war.

 

[SeaPig]

Uh, Florida 2000. Duh.

So you say it was in the numbers? Or, are you just stating something you heard. My look into the numbers show a much more cloudy picture and I don't think you can blame the 1,725 final vote difference on those people that voted for Nader or any other independent candidate. Sure, 139 thousand voted for a total of 5 candidates other then Bush or Gore, but a lot voted for Buchanan. This shows that if people hadn't voted independent all those votes wouldn't have gone to Gore. Some would have gone to Bush as well.

Plus what about all the fraud and irregularities that add up to several hundred thousand votes that were not even counted.

I don't think you can blame the loss of Florida on independent voters. Maybe on the fact that Gore really didn't run a good campaign and therefore lost a close and highly complex race.

 

[LordOpie]

Thanks n8!

 

[golgiaparatus]

Of course she is... maybe not because of that... but yes.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

....highly complex race.

Uh huh....f**ktard vs. f**ktard. Sure is complex to me.



Just bustin' yer chops!!

 

[SeaPig]

Uh huh....f**ktard vs. f**ktard. Sure is complex to me.



Just bustin' yer chops!!

I know you're just bustin chops, but you're right. Gore lost, so did Kerry, because they didn't do anything to really distinguish themselves as being all that different from Bush. In reality they might be, but they didn't campaign like it. They simply counted on convention to win them the white house. Look a Gore now, running around acting like he's found the lost Gospel with his new movie and talk about Global Warming. If he'd done that in 2000 he'd have won.

I'm tired of people making my vote for Nader, someone who has spent his entire life fighting for the rights of consumers, as the reason Gore lost. Gore lost because he was a "f..ktard" in 2000 and listened to bad advice and didn't take a stand for anything.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Campaign workers for Mrs Clinton ... made indirect attacks on the relative inexperience of Mr Obama, who entered the race a week ago.

In my opinion, being inexperienced is a benefit in a politician's profile...

He has had less time to have sold out to special interests.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

the two parties we have in this country so despise each other, that their main agendas are to pretty much to do the exact opposite of what the other is doing.

If that were true, our troops would be headed home right now.

 

[ohio]

I don't think you can blame the loss of Florida on independent voters. Maybe on the fact that Gore really didn't run a good campaign and therefore lost a close and highly complex race.

There's no question that if Gore had done his job it never would have been that close, but if you crunch the numbers based on the historical left/right split of independent voters and the (mostly) final count, it goes to Gore by a relative landslide. You'd asked for an example and I gave it.

 

[ohio]

couldn't have done any better in any particular situation.

A turd in a box could have done better in this particular situation.

In some cases the lesser of two evils is DRASTICALLY less evil.

 

[RenegadeRick]

In some cases the lesser of two evils is DRASTICALLY less evil.

but evil nonetheless...

 

[LordOpie]

A turd in a box could have done better in this particular situation.

In some cases the lesser of two evils is DRASTICALLY less evil.

QFE

but evil nonetheless...

must be nice to live in your B&W, crystal clear world.

 

[RenegadeRick]

must be nice to live in your B&W, crystal clear world.

it is.

I had been wondering why people kept spending money on those fancy color TVs. I never could tell the difference. I guess now I understand why.