if mccain would step up to the fucking plate i think he'd be good.

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 12:43 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2007 12:43:29 AM

mccain is too crazy and republicans don't like him. guiliani is not conservative enough for conservatives

12/17/2007 12:43:39 AM

paul won't make it... guiliani wouldn't be bad imo.. i dont care for mccain.

i actually have nothing against obama and hope he makes it, but overall i want a republican in office.

12/17/2007 12:43:50 AM

from what i saw on debates mccain is a crazy narcissist, who is too old and senile to be president

12/17/2007 12:44:33 AM

the thing is, we need someone middle of the road more than ever. we keep fucking ourselves by swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other. someone with more bipartisan support could actually get shit done

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2007 12:44:53 AM

^ agreed

12/17/2007 12:45:36 AM

Quote :

"from what i saw on debates mccain is a crazy narcissist, who is too old and senile to be president "

you gathered that from a debate did you

12/17/2007 12:45:41 AM

well then i think ron paul is right smack in the middle

12/17/2007 12:45:48 AM

plus lacking funds


i don't like how romney tries to look young and slick. makes him look like a sleezeball... he should embrace the gray in his hair instead of dying it jet black

12/17/2007 12:45:49 AM

BUT middle of the road will never fly. especially not these days.

12/17/2007 12:46:10 AM

i think people are focussing on the wrong branch at this time. yes, bush and his administration have been pretty horrible, but congress helped a shitload and the judicial branch looked the other way

12/17/2007 12:46:20 AM

Quote :

"haha, sucks to be a Democrat. You have to choose between a cunt and a nigger."

12/17/2007 12:46:36 AM

dude ron paul is far from the middle... if you arent a paul supports you hate him... he wouldnt get much swing either way with his completely radical approach

12/17/2007 12:46:48 AM

mccain is insane



lulz that ryhmed

12/17/2007 12:46:51 AM

judicial branch didn't look the other way when they put bush in offfffice. maybe they are ashamed

12/17/2007 12:47:29 AM

mccain in the membrane
im mccain, im insane

12/17/2007 12:47:40 AM

i mean it's not like we've had any better in the past 25 years

12/17/2007 12:48:21 AM

the judicial branch looked the other way by ending the recount

and as for radical views, remember the radical colonists?

12/17/2007 12:48:32 AM

Quote :

"except voting for a third party candidate in the US never shakes up politics"

Because too many people continue to think they can't vote for something to cause a change.

As long as the two parties work to keep the blinders on everybody and make it look like there's only 2 big bad parties to choose from in this country people will continue to get shitty awful politicians that don't serve their interests.

Granted they are two different parties, they would be absolutely fucked if people caught on that they could vote for a third party and actually get them into office. That would require the other two parties to change their ways to avoid losing power (and they might serve your interests more as a result!).

It never shakes up politics because a lot of media sources refuse to even acknowledge 3rd party candidates, even ones that are on the state ticket. How the hell are people supposed to know what they stand for if those candidates are refused from even appearing in the major televised debates? People tend not to know about these alternative ideas/ways of doing things if they can't hear about the ideas in the first place.

It seems to easy to just dismiss third party candidates as an option due to the recent history of politics in this country, but that's just a quitting, bullshit way of looking at things. Dismissing them out of hand due to history is just what the two main parties would want you to do, and it's in part what the media encourages. This way of thought eliminates threats to the political system as it is in Washington, because it's so easy for them to keep dissenting voices and new ideas from being heard at those debates.

If more people would recognize that what's going on is fucked up and that a vote for a real change of power will have immense benefits, even if the results aren't immediate, then we can turn around this cycle of piss poor politicians in this country. The more people that vote for them the more attention they get. The vote probably won't put that 3rd party candidate into power immediately, but it'll probably shake up the two big parties in a good way. The same way that competition is healthy in numerous sectors of our economy, the same way it will be helpful for our political system. It's all down to whether or not you choose to check the other box on election day.

12/17/2007 12:48:42 AM

itd be interesting to have ralph nader as president.

12/17/2007 12:49:22 AM

yeah, this country needs radical views to save it from itself
are yall just looking for someone to continue this country in the same direction?

12/17/2007 12:49:30 AM

seriously, we're going in the direction no matter what. I could write a fuckin 200 page essay on why we are the way we are and why nothing is going to change no matter who is the president

12/17/2007 12:51:33 AM

if you don't have hope then i don't want you voting at all

12/17/2007 12:52:01 AM

i agree w/ the whole third party thing. the only reason i wrote that third parties never shake up politics in the US is because they don't. i agree i think that people shouldn't focus on the two parties. but give that argument to anyone and they will lecture you about voting for a 3rd party candidate. they'll say it takes votes away from a viable candidate. i WANT to get rid of the two party system. i think people have just gone too far to either side or have become too apathetic to even vote at all

12/17/2007 12:52:30 AM

^^ok buddy

just for you



















































-

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2007 12:52:44 AM

OBAMA

I hate CLINTON

12/17/2007 12:53:01 AM

Quote :

"Because too many people continue to think they can't vote for something to cause a change. As long as the two parties work to keep the blinders on everybody and make it look like there's only 2 big bad parties to choose from in this country people will continue to get shitty awful politicians that don't serve their interests. Granted they are two different parties, they would be absolutely fucked if people caught on that they could vote for a third party and actually get them into office. That would require the other two parties to change their ways to avoid losing power (and they might serve your interests more as a result!). It never shakes up politics because a lot of media sources refuse to even acknowledge 3rd party candidates, even ones that are on the state ticket. How the hell are people supposed to know what they stand for if those candidates are refused from even appearing in the major televised debates? People tend not to know about these alternative ideas/ways of doing things if they can't hear about the ideas in the first place. It seems to easy to just dismiss third party candidates as an option due to the recent history of politics in this country, but that's just a quitting, bullshit way of looking at things. Dismissing them out of hand due to history is just what the two main parties would want you to do, and it's in part what the media encourages. This way of thought eliminates threats to the political system as it is in Washington, because it's so easy for them to keep dissenting voices and new ideas from being heard at those debates. If more people would recognize that what's going on is fucked up and that a vote for a real change of power will have immense benefits, even if the results aren't immediate, then we can turn around this cycle of piss poor politicians in this country. The more people that vote for them the more attention they get. The vote probably won't put that 3rd party candidate into power immediately, but it'll probably shake up the two big parties in a good way. The same way that competition is healthy in numerous sectors of our economy, the same way it will be helpful for our political system. It's all down to whether or not you choose to check the other box on election day."

yes.

Spiral of silence.



anyway, obama over hillary.

I just despise Giuliani and McCain.

12/17/2007 1:02:23 AM

Quote :

"Because too many people continue to think they can't vote for something to cause a change. As long as the two parties work to keep the blinders on everybody and make it look like there's only 2 big bad parties to choose from in this country people will continue to get shitty awful politicians that don't serve their interests. Granted they are two different parties, they would be absolutely fucked if people caught on that they could vote for a third party and actually get them into office. That would require the other two parties to change their ways to avoid losing power (and they might serve your interests more as a result!). It never shakes up politics because a lot of media sources refuse to even acknowledge 3rd party candidates, even ones that are on the state ticket. How the hell are people supposed to know what they stand for if those candidates are refused from even appearing in the major televised debates? People tend not to know about these alternative ideas/ways of doing things if they can't hear about the ideas in the first place. It seems to easy to just dismiss third party candidates as an option due to the recent history of politics in this country, but that's just a quitting, bullshit way of looking at things. Dismissing them out of hand due to history is just what the two main parties would want you to do, and it's in part what the media encourages. This way of thought eliminates threats to the political system as it is in Washington, because it's so easy for them to keep dissenting voices and new ideas from being heard at those debates. If more people would recognize that what's going on is fucked up and that a vote for a real change of power will have immense benefits, even if the results aren't immediate, then we can turn around this cycle of piss poor politicians in this country. The more people that vote for them the more attention they get. The vote probably won't put that 3rd party candidate into power immediately, but it'll probably shake up the two big parties in a good way. The same way that competition is healthy in numerous sectors of our economy, the same way it will be helpful for our political system. It's all down to whether or not you choose to check the other box on election day."

yes

Quote :

"i agree i think that people shouldn't focus on the two parties. but give that argument to anyone and they will lecture you about voting for a 3rd party candidate. they'll say it takes votes away from a viable candidate. i WANT to get rid of the two party system. i think people have just gone too far to either side or have become too apathetic to even vote at all"

yes



oh and,

Quote :

"OBAMA I hate CLINTON"

12/17/2007 8:29:34 AM

obama...

ABC - Anyone But Clinton

12/17/2007 8:30:38 AM

glad obama isn't going to be vice president

cause then some black guy would just shoot the president

12/17/2007 8:40:53 AM

Quote :

"the thing is, we need someone middle of the road more than ever. we keep fucking ourselves by swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other. someone with more bipartisan support could actually get shit done"

The funny part is that Clinton G Dawg was pretty middle of the road. Economically, he moved the democrats to the right a lot.


I don't know if hillary would do the same.

12/17/2007 9:31:08 AM

And I repeat: Somebody send this shit over to the soap box.

12/17/2007 9:35:41 AM

I'll probably vote for Hilary if she is nominated, but I've been wanting Obama to run for president for years, so I'm definitely supporting him.

12/17/2007 9:39:50 AM

Of the two, Obama hands down. The last thing I want to see is a Hilary vs Guliani presidential race... that would be like deciding whether to kill someone with a wrench or a lead pipe. It doesn't really matter, because either way the country is going to get fucked.

12/17/2007 9:45:17 AM

Regarding the discussion above about 3rd parties, I think it's on the money. What I think would be interesting is requiring each party to submit at least 2 candidates; i.e., a presidential showdown would have dem vs dem vs rep vs rep. I think it would provide people with more shades of choices and less mudslinging; the candidates would be challenged to distinguish themselves more than i'm teh dem and i'm teh rep.

Primaries don't really give this opportunity because they're more of a our club vs their club sort of thing and the choices are not on the table at once for the whole nation to consider.

Of the two though Obama >> Clinton. Really intrigued by Ron Paul though.

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 10:06 AM. Reason : -]

12/17/2007 10:05:11 AM

Neither of those pictures are very flattering. Anyway I will vote for anyone against Hillary.

She is a power grubbing spinstress.
She said congress was being run like a plantation (I'm not disputing that congress is crooked or anything, just using the word "plantation" as a simile is in poor taste).
She didn't leave her philandering husband.
She was elected on coat tails.

But most of all, I just don't like her. I'd like to imagine it's not because I am naturally pre-disposed, as some feminists might argue, to not trust strong-willed and ambitious women. But God I want to choke that bitch.

I liked McCain back in 2000 but he didn't get a nomination, so I am hoping he will this year.

Another thing. Everytime I hear Ron Paul I can't help but picture Rupaul.

[Edited on December 17, 2007 at 10:15 AM. Reason : another thing]

12/17/2007 10:12:59 AM

Hillary because 8 more years of Bill!!!!!!!(a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill!) The economy under Bill was so so great....now it sucks.

12/17/2007 10:22:37 AM

McCain is a fucking nutjob compared to what he was in the year 2000.

12/17/2007 10:31:01 AM

William Hung has my vote

12/17/2007 10:32:24 AM

12/17/2007 10:39:27 AM

Quote :

"Hillary because 8 more years of Bill!!!!!!!(a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill!) The economy under Bill was so so great....now it sucks."

dot-com bubble burst led to loss of thousands of jobs and economy took a dive. interestingly bill was the president during the time of this bubble.

12/17/2007 10:41:07 AM

Of course, the president really doesn't control economic trends at all... so a good or bad economy under a certain president can mostly be attributed to luck.

12/17/2007 10:43:49 AM

Thats gotta be sarcasm, but shit happens. I'd like to think it's a combination of the two. But economies never seem to do really well when a country is at war.

12/17/2007 10:57:04 AM

^Seriously? Look at the economy during the World Wars. ...Of course, that was when the US actually tried to stay out of international conflicts, and if we did join in, we had the backing of our entire country.

(Side note: Ron Paul supports a non-interventionist policy.)

12/17/2007 11:06:25 AM

Quote :

"The economy under Bill was so so great....now it sucks."

ahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

REMEMBER KIDS, PRESIDENTS = ECONOMY!!!111

12/17/2007 11:14:58 AM

obama

12/17/2007 11:19:29 AM

Quote :

"guiliani isn't all that bad"

You're a funny guy.

12/17/2007 12:18:26 PM

Quote :

"Seriously? Look at the economy during the World Wars. ..."

Wars can certainly stimulate economies. But the war in Iraq is nowhere near the scale of WWI or WWII. Our economy was a collaborative effort aimed mostly to win the War in Europe. People bought bonds, car companies made solely tanks/jeeps/etc, gas was rationed, people even collected bacon grease. All we've had is more taxes/debt and old hippies with bumper stickers.

Quote :

"Of course, that was when the US actually tried to stay out of international conflicts"

Ever heard of the Great White Fleet? Or how we acquired a few commonwealths? We were all up in people's shit already.

Quote :

"if we did join in, we had the backing of our entire country."

I'll go ahead and plug the whole Pearl Harbor and 9/11 argument. We were pissed off and needed somebody to beat. You can't attack an idea for God's sake.

[Edited on December 18, 2007 at 4:12 PM. Reason : messed up code]

12/18/2007 4:11:42 PM

we so need a democrat in office

12/18/2007 4:13:26 PM

this thread is like one of those questions where your buddy is like "if you had to have sex with someone who would it be: Bea Arthur or Betty White" and you're like "neither" and they're like "no you have to pick one, somebody has a gun to your head" and you're like "neither"

12/18/2007 4:14:41 PM