| StoneColdClassicQueen 05.02.2008 23:22 |
Did any of you vote? If so reply now, and I would like to know your political views. FYI, my father voted for Hillary Clinton (spell check name..). I would've voted for Clinton, I agree with her views. |
| Winter Land Man 05.02.2008 23:38 |
StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: Did any of you vote? If so reply now, and I would like to know your political views. FYI, my father voted for Hillary Clinton (spell check name..). I would've voted for Clinton, I agree with her views.No. There's too much fuss in all that shit. I refuse to vote, or attend, or dance with anyone in any party. I'm democratic. But, Hilary Clit's views on health insurance, SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| DavidRFuller 06.02.2008 00:46 |
If I register to vote I get put into the jury duty pool, so....fuck that. I would've voted for Ron Paul (everybody else sucks ass) but he really has no chance. |
| Deacon Fan 06.02.2008 01:56 |
The weather was too bad. |
| Raf 06.02.2008 06:16 |
! Jake ! wrote: Hilary ClitHow come I never noticed that possible abbreviation for her name? It made my day! :)))))))))))) |
| Poo, again 06.02.2008 07:49 |
The American two-party system is no good. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.02.2008 09:07 |
DavidRFuller wrote: If I register to vote I get put into the jury duty pool, so....fuck that.If you have a driver's license or library card, you're already put into the jury duty pool. Vote. It won't change your juror status. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 06.02.2008 09:26 |
Anyone but Hillary.... Clinton supporters are no better than Bush supporters.... |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.02.2008 10:55 |
McCain talks out of his ass. Huckabee wants religion to play a more integral part in US government. Romney flip-flops as much if not more so than Kerry was accused of doing. Obama's wife is a racist who only now has toned down the rhetoric Clinton is more of the same... though the Clinton years weren't all that bad... unless you were a Rebublican. :-) Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the option to choose the one who will do the least damage. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 06.02.2008 10:55 |
Diversity - An old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 06.02.2008 11:01 |
Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.02.2008 11:45 |
No, I did not vote in the primaries. In my state, the primaries were a couple of weeks ago. To be honest, there were two reasons I did not vote in the primary elections: 1) I see no point in it. Wait until the parties have actually picked a candidate, then you can argue that there is something worth voting for. I understand the point of direct primary voting systems, but I view them as a waste of time for the most part since you are only voting for someone who "might" get the nomination and then you have to vote again in November, possibly for another person. 2) I couldn't be arsed with actually going to the polling station (the high school here in town). I've got 3 papers due, a Plan B I was supposed to finish in December I haven't gotten finished yet, and I'm teaching a class that I have NO experience with at all so I have to do tons of background research just to be able to keep a step ahead of the undergrads. These things are far more important to my future than who gets the nomination for the candidacy for the presidency. |
| YourValentine 06.02.2008 12:15 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. |
| john bodega 06.02.2008 12:26 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Quite a resume’. Sounds more like an organized crime family’s rap sheet.Not really... to me it sounds like the usual politicans CV! Really, what's the difference between a crook like Nixon and a hero like JFK? One of 'em got caught. They all do dodgy deeds. Some do 'less' dodgy deeds... and some of them even have high and mighty ideals that are admirable, but at the end of the day - you don't get anywhere in government unless you get put there by someone. That's party politics for you I guess! |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 06.02.2008 13:21 |
YourValentine wrote: You copy-pasted all this from an article called " MORE REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY "SCUMBAG" CLINTON(S") on a stupid website called "Democrat equals Socialist" which features other rubbish like comparing Huckabee's son to a mass murderer because he "killed a stray dog", oh well. linkHey sugar, Can you argue any of the above points? Does is really matter where the facts come from? Didn't think so....it's all true, and that's just from when she was in the White House. Obama 2008. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.02.2008 14:07 |
^^ Yet another reason primaries are a waste of time. You get idiots who just buy into whatever someone tells them, without stopping to think that "Gee, maybe the person who provided this information has an axe to grind. Maybe I should do my own research into these issues and find out what the real answer is." I detest people who are just blindly following mantras without questioning. For all of this information about Hilary, there is just as much on all of the other candidates, and frequently if you weren't too lazy to actually do a bit of research, you discover that the "facts" presented are not always black and white. For instance, frequently websites like this who are gunning for a candidate will take one bill that their opponent voted against and run something like this: Candidate A voted down a bill that would have given health care to children. Therefore Candidate A doesn't care about your children. However, the truth is not always crystal clear. Most of the time, if you do the research, Candidate A voted against the bill because of some "riders" attached to it...like maybe 5 million dollars to some county in Wisconsin to buy electronic cow milking machines or something ridiculous like that. Just out of curiosity Haystacks, since you are very clearly an Obama supporter, have you done any research on any of the crap you spewed out into the public sphere here? I didn't think so. |
| DavidRFuller 06.02.2008 14:13 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Thats the case in some areas, not everywhere.DavidRFuller wrote: If I register to vote I get put into the jury duty pool, so....fuck that.If you have a driver's license or library card, you're already put into the jury duty pool. Vote. It won't change your juror status. |
| TRM 06.02.2008 14:17 |
My Blog is not stupid, it just says things that you don't want to hear... |
| YourValentine 06.02.2008 14:44 |
"Does is really matter where the facts come from?" Of course it matters where the information (not sure about facts) comes from. I certainly would be very careful to post stuff from such a dubious website as my own opinion! I do not know much about Hilary Clinton but the title of that article is enough to make me doubt the integrity of the author - it looks exactly like posts from a well known Queenzone troll. Edit: In fact Maggie already said it all much better. |
| Micrówave 06.02.2008 14:52 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Uh, not true. Registering to vote IS the way they compile that. You have the OPTION of NOT registering to vote at most Transportation Departments here. When you get your drivers license issued or renewed, there used to be a form. Now it's an option. I seriously doubt the library is tied into that same system, they can't even get past the Dewey Decimal System. Haystacks: I can't stand Hilly as much as you, but this one:DavidRFuller wrote: If I register to vote I get put into the jury duty pool, so....fuck that.If you have a driver's license or library card, you're already put into the jury duty pool. Vote. It won't change your juror status. Haystacks Calhounski wrote: - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.'I don't think the First Lady had the power to choose. She might have recommended her to Bill, through a "friend", but blame needs to be widespread on that one. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.02.2008 14:54 |
DavidRFuller wrote:New York isn't everywhere? Ah. Bummer.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Thats the case in some areas, not everywhere.DavidRFuller wrote: If I register to vote I get put into the jury duty pool, so....fuck that.If you have a driver's license or library card, you're already put into the jury duty pool. Vote. It won't change your juror status. :-) |
| The Black Queen 06.02.2008 14:54 |
I'm voting for Obama come pres. election time. *ducks* |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 06.02.2008 15:07 |
YourValentine wrote: "Does is really matter where the facts come from?" Of course it matters where the information (not sure about facts) comes from. I certainly would be very careful to post stuff from such a dubious website as my own opinion! I do not know much about Hilary Clinton but the title of that article is enough to make me doubt the integrity of the author - it looks exactly like posts from a well known Queenzone troll. Edit: In fact Maggie already said it all much better.Hillary has/will do herself in...nothing that I can say, post, paste, whatever, is going to have anything to do with it. Yes, dear, all of the things posted, and more, are 100% true about Hillary. It amazes me teh short memories that people have regarding that woman. It really does. Of course, she refuses to come clean with her White House records, won't let them see the light of day until 2012... Clinton supporters are sheep, just as Bush supporters are. This coming from a guy who voted for Bill once, and Bush as well. I consider myself a moderate Republican. Obama's political views are polar opposite of mine, but I don't care. He is the ONLY viable candidate out there, period, regardless of party. How can anyone, with a clear consience and a straight face, vote for another Clinton? Have you been paying attention? Really? Then, you get these people, as above, who will put their fingers in their ears as to the truth about their candidate, and try to discount it, just because of the site they may have seen it on. (For your info, I've never been to that website in my life, still haven't...) If that site said "The sky is blue", would you discount that as well??? Obviously, dear, you frequent that site...don't you? All of the info on Hillary's actions is out there. Again, how anyone could vote for her is beyond astounding....it's more of the same that we've had for the past 20 years.... |
| Poo, again 06.02.2008 15:30 |
Meh, vote for communism. |
| YourValentine 06.02.2008 15:47 |
"Obviously, dear, you frequent that site...don't you?" No, I don't - I just googled a part of your tirade. Btw - googling this list brought up some 20 other websites with the same tirade, one is called "The Life And Crimes of Hilary Clinton" - apparently they all copy the same blabber - speaking of sheep... I only watch the Presidential elections with the same interest as all politically interested people - it has an impact on our lives who runs the White House. I am not surprised about the witch hunt Hilary Clinton is exposed to - it was the same with Margaret Thatcher and the same with Angela Merkel. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.02.2008 17:44 |
Clinton supporters are sheep, just as Bush supporters are. It is interesting that you say that, Haystacks. What exactly is it to be a sheep, in your definition? I'm curious to know what you think it means to be a Clinton "sheep" or a Bush "sheep". Once you think about that, maybe you should think about the reasons you are voting for Obama. Have you thoroughly educated yourself on ALL of his stances? ALL of his points of view? Can you explain for us WHY you support him, other than "he is the only viable candidate out there"? Can you provide specific examples? If not, what makes you any better than a sheep for Bush or Clinton...you are an Obama sheep if you can't do the things I mentioned above. And if that is indeed the case, I fail to see why you are any better than a Clinton or Bush sheep...in the end, you are still a sheep. Ball is in your court now. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 06.02.2008 18:04 |
I don't really CARE what all of Obama's positions are....the President on the US is a figurehead, and Obama will put on the best face for this country for the next 8 years. Simply put, and I'll type it slow so that you get it.... He is not a Clinton. He is not a Bush. He is the only one that has a chance to beat McCain. Hillary will get beat in the general election. Obama can win the general election. He is the only candidate who has the ability to bring people of both sides together, versus driving them apart. Remember, too. I voted for McCain in the Republican primary in 2000. I like the guy. I really do. America needs Obama. That's it. Quite simple, really. Game. Set. Match. |
| Ha-nah! 06.02.2008 18:46 |
Even though I am not 18 I would LOVE for Obama to win! He seems very level headed, and is the type of person who will take other parties views into consideration. Hilary is cocky, and Obama is defninately the best choice. |
| sparrow 21754 06.02.2008 19:35 |
honestly i just want bush out of office. i dont care who the president is, as long as they do a good job cleaning up the mess he left. go ahead, try and tell me how 'i need to vote, its important, blah blah blah' if i have to pick anyone, so far, obama looks good. i dont know much about politics anyway, so...meh i dunno. just remember, they may not be in office for 8 years. there is the possiblity of only being there 4 years. there wont be an idiot (hopefully) repeating the same mistakes. hopefully we have learned from history. |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 06.02.2008 20:50 |
Wow :O thanks for all your views guys!!! Well, I really don't mind that much about voting for a president anymore, but I just want a Democrat to win. Republicans ruin things in my viewpoint. Quick Question: My older brother says that the citizens don't actually choose the president. He said that the Electorial College does. He hasn't told me anything else, so if anyone knows, how does that work?? Any more info on the Electorial College?? Thanks for all your replies!!! :D 9 more days and I'm 15 :) >< |
| Mr.Jingles 06.02.2008 21:48 |
No matter who wins, Clinton, McCain, or Obama, nobody will be able to clean up that shitload of mess that Bush left. It would take decades to bring the country back in it's too feet and heading in the right direction. At least we're close to getting rid of the only guy who would be a worst president than Bush... Huckabee |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.02.2008 22:18 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: No matter who wins, Clinton, McCain, or Obama, nobody will be able to clean up that shitload of mess that Bush left. It would take decades to bring the country back in it's too feet and heading in the right direction. At least we're close to getting rid of the only guy who would be a worst president than Bush... HuckabeeJingles, you are so right. My concern about McCain over Clinton or Obama, though, is that there will be no hope of balance in the Supreme Court once he starts appointing judges. With the right-wing extremists bush has already settled in there, we need a democrat to select judges who swing closer to the left. |
| YourValentine 06.02.2008 22:27 |
"the President on the US is a figurehead, and Obama will put on the best face for this country for the next 8 years." That is totally wrong. The President is not a figurehead, he is the most powerful person in the world. The political views of the future President are very important. One real good thing about Obama is that he has sparked a great political interest in the American youth which is new and very good and important. The views of Obama seem a bit blurry and he does not have that much experience, i.e. he will need people to rely on and these people are not up for election. It seems that his best and most liked feature is his inexperience because he is not yet infected with the "Washington corruption". However, if I had to choose between a nice looking, clean pilot with zero experience and an old dirty, cynical pilot with thousand hours of flight experience I would probably choose the plane navigated by the old cynic :) About the Electoral College: it's true that the President is not elected by popular vote. People vote for members of the EC by state, i.e. in a state with fewer inhabitants your vote counts more because fewer people are enough to elect one member into the EC. If you live in a small state your vote can count up to 4 times as much as the vote of a citizen in a big state like California, for example. The winner-takes-it-all rule (majority vote) means that all votes in a state go to the EC members representing the candidate with the majority vote in that state while the votes for the other candidate not not count at all. For example President Kennedy won the majority of the EC although Nixon won the popular vote because Nixon won some smaller states with a very high majority while Kennedy won California with only a small majority but took all EC votes, anyway. |
| Maz 06.02.2008 23:00 |
YourValentine wrote: For example President Kennedy won the majority of the EC although Nixon won the popular vote because Nixon won some smaller states with a very high majority while Kennedy won California with only a small majority but took all EC votes, anyway.Your overall point is correct, of course, but the specific example is off, YV. Kennedy won both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Only twice in the US has the president won the EC and not the popular vote - 1876 and 2000. In 1824, the winner of the popular vote (Andrew Jackson) did not win the EC, but no one won a majority of the EC that year. As a result, the 2nd place finisher eventually won after the vote went to the House of Representatives. This concludes the history lesson for today :) |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 06.02.2008 23:04 |
Thanks YourValentine! Politics are so hard to understand :/ and they frustrate me. It's nice to have someone clear things up :) I love starting topics that get lots of replies and many different opinions :D |
| Maz 06.02.2008 23:04 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: He is the only one that has a chance to beat McCain. Hillary will get beat in the general election. Obama can win the general election.Democrats are outvoting Republicans nearly 2-1 in the primaries this year. Obama's supporters within the party tended to skew young, and I don't see them jumping to vote McCain if Obama is not the nominee. In addition, McCain is irritating the evangelicals within the Republican Parry (James Dobson came out today and said he wouldn't vote for him at all and wouldn't vote in the election as a result). Taking into consideration the high Democratic turnout, plus the conservative anger at McCain, do not count Clinton out as "unelectable." And, no, yesterday I did not vote for her either. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.02.2008 23:04 |
Game, set and match? Pfft...you wish it was that easy. The only reason it took me so long to respond is that we got one foot of snow dumped on us today and I had to get home from campus and I do have a paper I have to write by Friday. I'm on a break from that, and will prove that it is not a "Game, Set and Match" situation. I'll take your points apart one by one, so that you get it: 1) the President on the US is a figurehead Oh really? I wasn't aware that was the case. He only has the power to launch the military (granted for a short time before he must get authorization from Congress, but for 30 days he can have complete control, and a hell of a lot of damage can be done in 30 days); he also has to prepare and submit budget reports for the federal government (Congress has to approve it, but it cannot initiate the process...only the executive can do that). I would like to see the government try to run without a budget. The President is also the only person who can enter into treaties with other countries; again Congress must approve it, but if Congress approves it and the President doesn't sign it, same affect; the treaty is not entered into. He is not bound to the will of Congress if they want him to sign it and he doesn't want to; they can't force him. The Queen of England is a figurehead....the President of the US is far from it; as if you needed another example, look how much damage Bush has done in 8 years. If the President was merely a figurehead, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Power is diluted throughout the system, you are right about that...but it's supposed to be that way. Ever heard of "Checks and Balances of a Democratic System?" I would hope so, seeing as your profile says you are from the US; if you are you are truly showing your ignorance right now. 2) Obama will put on the best face for this country for the next 8 years This is merely a statement of opinion; no more valid than a statement of opinion from me or Barb or Microwave or anyone else on this forum. Therefore this statement is totally invalid for any form of logical argument (which is what I was asking you for). It's also presumptuous....you assume he will not only be elected, but that he will be re-elected for a second term when that is over. Do you know what happens when you assume? 3) He is not a Clinton. He is not a Bush. I'm taking these two together because it is more of the same as above. First off, these are two of the most DUH statements I've ever seen in my life. Of course he is not Clinton or Bush. He's also not Guiliani or McCain or Freddie Mercury. He is Burak Obama. The point has been established, and means nothing, because who you are means nothing in the office of the Presidency. What you believe in, what you stand for, and your opinions are what matter. Moving on from such nonsense.... 4) He is the only one that has a chance to beat McCain. Hillary will get beat in the general election. Obama can win the general election. You know this? For certain? It seems to me a claim like this completely goes against any kind of logical sense, since you can't make this claim until after the election has actually happened, and it also has to play out exactly like you said it would. So if you want to continue to claim this, you had better be able to produce the time machine you used to jump into the future and see the election going exactly this direction (and I wish you would so we could skip the whole having an election thing...saves money, time and aggravation). Oh wait...you can't. OK then, this point is also invalid. 5) He is the only candidate who has the ability to bring people of both sides together, versus driving them apart. Oh really? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but his running against Hilary seems to be doing a pretty damn good job of splitting up the Democratic party. If he was such a "uniter" than division wouldn't be occurring....the party would |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.02.2008 23:09 |
6) America needs Obama. That's it. Quite simple, really. So now you claim to KNOW what America needs? If that is the case PLEASE run for President right now, because if you KNOW what America needs, then you could give us exactly what we need as Americans and we can all live in a land of milk and honey again. More of the same...this is an OPINION statement. Your opinion is not valid in any kind of logical debate unless it is backed up with facts, and NOTHING you have presented this far has come anywhere close to having a fact in it. Until and unless you can back up all of your wonderful opinions with facts, nothing you say is any more valid than anything anyone else says. Including sheep who merely follow what someone else says and then scream it at people as if it's fact. Until you have something more intelligent to contribute, I believe the game, set and match belong to me. |
| Music Man 06.02.2008 23:22 |
America needs more education and less idiots. Isn't it strange how "the economy" is on everyone's top ten issues list, when only one in ten people likely knows what the Federal Reserve is? Isn't it also strange that, despite the importance of the economy, most politicians refuse to elaborate beyond a first-grader's understanding of it (i.e. nothing)? 1) Economics is not intuitive. If anything, it can be one of the least intuitive - no, counterintuitive - fields to ever exist. 2) The general population will never understand economics broadly enough to make an informed decision on the matter. Instead, they will rely on their intuition. What is the solution to this epidemic? Until it's solved, it doesn't matter who's the best choice for America - no one will pick him. |
| YourValentine 07.02.2008 07:35 |
I think you are right pointing out the importance of the economy. I would not pretend to understand the global economy and I have serious doubts that a national government has really that much influence as they used to have. I saw numbers about trillions of dollars worth being traded at the stock markets - three times as much as the combined global GNPs of all economies - this is such a huge bubble of unreal speculation that it's really asked too much from an average voter to have an educated opinion about the economy. Just two weeks ago we had a landslide loss at the European stock markets for no particular reason - billions of dollars were lost within 5 hours just because there was a snowball effect of panic sales generated by automatic computer sales. You lose your job because someone in Asia programmed their coputer to sell away shares at a certain price drop - who is supposed to stop this madness? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 07.02.2008 08:58 |
Well, the economy certainly is an issue whether people understand it or not. For me, there are other issues just as important, if not moreso. Our border security - against terrorists as well as yet more illegal aliens Our infrastructure Repairing our image around the world Less righteous judges on the supreme court bench Protection of a woman's right to choose Stopping the war in Iraq in a responsible way that doesn't leave the average Iraqi despising the US. A balance of "Made in" products, like made in France, made in Canada, Made in the USA... and tons less Made in China. Of course, bringing down health care costs is an issue, too, as is limiting our dependence on foreign oil, addressing the effects of carbon emissions and overbuilding of wetlands, bluebelts and other drainage areas. There isn't one candidate who can fulfill all the needs America has, especially when you consider the damage this pathetic and arrogant administration has caused here and around the world. But there is one candidate I feel will address most of the issues that matter to me. So I voted for her. ;-) |
| magicalfreddiemercury 07.02.2008 09:00 |
Double post. Sorry. |
| Erin 07.02.2008 10:52 |
YourValentine wrote: The winner-takes-it-all rule (majority vote) means that all votes in a state go to the EC members representing the candidate with the majority vote in that state while the votes for the other candidate not not count at all.Electoral college...BOOOO!!! Being in SC, my vote doesn't count, if I don't vote Republican. :-( I didn't vote in the primary either, btw. I have a bad feeling that it doesn't matter who gets the Dem. nomination. I don't think America has the balls to elect a woman or a black man as President. Hopefully, I'm wrong, though. |
| greaserkat 07.02.2008 15:34 |
Where's Thomas Quinn when you need him?? |
| Mr.Jingles 07.02.2008 20:06 |
Erin wrote:I second that.YourValentine wrote: The winner-takes-it-all rule (majority vote) means that all votes in a state go to the EC members representing the candidate with the majority vote in that state while the votes for the other candidate not not count at all.Electoral college...BOOOO!!! Being in SC, my vote doesn't count, if I don't vote Republican. :-( I didn't vote in the primary either, btw. I have a bad feeling that it doesn't matter who gets the Dem. nomination. I don't think America has the balls to elect a woman or a black man as President. Hopefully, I'm wrong, though. GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!! |
| ***Marial-B*** 08.02.2008 03:21 |
greaserkat wrote: Where's Thomas Quinn when you need him??Cassie, we're claiming you here!!!! |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 08.02.2008 14:04 |
Oh dear... I've got ol' sugar britches all worked up, don't I? Too funny, though....here you have a registered Republican willing to vote for Obama (I'm not the only one, believe me), and here we have some Liberal wanting to fight about it. Sad. But, her blathering about takes up more space than my thoughts on the matter, so she must be right....the libs shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. You'd think they'd know better... Obama '08. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 08.02.2008 23:28 |
^^ **laughs** Except you seem to think you know me, and you don't. If you had read any of the thread above, you'll have noticed I wrote that I didn't vote in the primaries when my state had them. I don't want to fight about anything, I am merely trying to have a debate; which anyone who knows me knows that I love to do. Merely trying to improve the intellectual climate around here. If you bothered to know anything about me, you'll also know I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative either. I am a political observer; a bit like a watcher in Highlander. I observe and record, and never interfere. |