Author Topic: The Democrats have Hillary and Obama... (Read 1497 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 23, 2007, 04:26:57 PM »

I'm going to write in Bush just to piss the liberals off.

I can just imagine being at a party when the question is asked, "Who did you vote for?"

PanzerIV · « **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2007, 07:56:49 PM »

Reagan just wasn't an actor, he served in the Army(but couldnt go overseas in ww2 because of near sightedness), he was a Governor of California.

McFarland · « **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2007, 08:01:00 PM »

He was also a radio broadcaster. And one of our best presidents.

AWMac · « **Reply #33 on:** July 23, 2007, 10:21:06 PM »

The Liberals feared Ronald Reagan.

We need more Men in the Whitehouse like him.

Todays Senate and House is full of Chickens, Limp Roosters and Casterated Bulls...neither has the Balls Reagan had.

Mac

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #34 on:** July 23, 2007, 10:32:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. uber and toad...

I guess the only real choice for you guys is billary or osamabama?

It is easy to get a republican vote for ron paul.. it is easy to get them to waste their vote and get a democrat elected...

notice no democrats are saying that they want RP?

Doesn't that tell you that there really is a difference in the parties?

lazs

Its just a damn shame that too many people dont vote for the ones they think would do the best job.
But rather for the ones that stand the most chance of winning regardless of how good or poor of a job they think they might do.

Kinda sad really

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #35 on:** July 23, 2007, 10:37:37 PM »

Speaking of all this. has anyone else noticed that you deem to hear about the democrats and who is running for that party about 10 times as much as you are hearing about the republicans.

Seems to me the media is presenting them to the public as being the only choice
Almost as if it were planting a thought into the subconcious of the people

Admittedly I havent been following the various parties or for that matter. the news in general all that closely as of late. But it seems as though every time I do hear about it. Its about the democrats.
And with only a brief mention of the republicans. kinda like. "oh by the way"

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #36 on:** July 23, 2007, 11:15:35 PM »

Voting 3rd party in a presidential election is pointless. Even when Perot took a big chunk out of GHWB's chances the Republicans didn't learn a damned thing, nothing changed at all. If you're moderate, conservative, or moderately conservative, you'll never get anything from the Democrats, except maybe a healthy dose of grief. And voting for a 3rd party candidate won't get the attention of the Republicans most likely to see your point of view. Skuzzy is absolutely right, change begins at the grass roots level. Change begins in local elections, state level at the most. It just ain't happening at the national level, there's no momentum and no traction to be had there. Start grooming your locals to be good solid servants of the people, and then move them up. And remember, the ONLY time the Democrats even move towards the center a little is when they get an bellybutton whipping at the polls in a major way.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #37 on:** July 23, 2007, 11:25:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Speaking of all this. has anyone else noticed that you seem to hear about the democrats and who is running for that party about 10 times as much as you are hearing about the republicans.

Seems to me the media is presenting them to the public as being the only choice
Almost as if it were planting a thought into the subconscious of the people

Admittedly I haven't been following the various parties or for that matter. the news in general all that closely as of late. But it seems as though every time I do hear about it. Its about the democrats.
And with only a brief mention of the republicans. kinda like. "oh by the way"

Well, to be honest, the Republicans are on cruise control. And they're also waiting to see if/when Newt and Fred crash the party. Guliani and Romney are standing pat, McCain is foundering rapidly, and Duncan Hunter as good as he is won't make it because he's too conservative and he's second tier. So in all fairness, the Republicans aren't really making any news.

Fred will be the next big news item from the Republicans. And he's being smart by not declaring too soon. Look for him to announce formation of an exploratory committee rather than jumping in. It keeps him from being over exposed, to either side. Fred is the most viable candidate, although he may not be the best man for the job among the candidates. He can get elected, and the best can't. With luck we get Fred and either Duncan or Newt.

The Democrats on the other hand are having "debates", raising massive amounts of money, and "making news". Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are working towards cutting the rest out, and quietly taking shots at each other when it is convenient and easy. The top three are working towards trimming the field, while keeping each other in check. Keeping their enemies closer.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #38 on:** July 24, 2007, 12:09:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Voting 3rd party in a presidential election is pointless. Even when Perot took a big chunk out of GHWB's chances the Republicans didn't learn a damned thing, nothing changed at all. If you're moderate, conservative, or moderately conservative, you'll never get anything from the Democrats, except maybe a healthy dose of grief. And voting for a 3rd party candidate won't get the attention of the Republicans most likely to see your point of view. Skuzzy is absolutely right, change begins at the grass roots level. Change begins in local elections, state level at the most. It just ain't happening at the national level, there's no momentum and no traction to be had there. Start grooming your locals to be good solid servants of the people, and then move them up. And remember, the ONLY time the Democrats even move towards the center a little is when they get an bellybutton whipping at the polls in a major way.

With all due respect. and not intending to be offencive to you personally. But really more of a general statement for all

But Voting for only one of the two big parties even though they would not do as good a job simply because they are perceived as being the only ones with a chance to win is mindless.
It is nothing more then agreeing to be a lemming for more of the same.
THAT to me is a wasted vote. Just as if you had not voted at all.
Because if all you do is vote for one of the big two. Nothing really changes and not so much as even a voice of dissent is made.
Just go with the flow even if you really dont care for the flow

THAT to me is the wasted vote

Change begins when people start to not follow the same old same old.
When people in good concience can no longer vote to accept the standard as acceptable.

I think we can all or at least a good deal of us can agree that the standard is no longer acceptable. I know I can no longer find it as such.

Should I decide to vote 3rd party. Even if I loose I do so knowing that I personally have voiced my opinion of dissatisfaction with the norm.
I wasnt just a lemming or sheep who simply rolled over and went with the flow

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #39 on:** July 24, 2007, 08:13:13 AM »

I'm not offended.

But casting a "protest vote" in a secret ballot system that will be ignored is just a silly non effort to me. It just doesn't get the message across. The two major parties look at third party votes as either a joke or an annoyance from the fringe. They look at them as votes they'd never get anyway. It might make you "feel better", or feel like you're "doing something", or you're "making your voice heard". It might even make you feel like you're not one of the "sheeple". But you'd do just as well to spit in the Pacific and hope it changes the tide.

You'll get more out of directing your efforts towards change at the local level and trying to make that change work its way up. The local and state level is where you can make a difference, and it'll go from there.

lazs2 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2007, 08:23:08 AM »

virgil... for the most part I agree with you with one minor point in contention..

I do feel that the republicans listen more. They put themselves on the line more for principal.. they are doing it now.

I feel that if enough republicans were to vote for a libertarian... the country would lose of course because a democrat would get in but... the republicans would get the message. They have listened on gun rights and now immigration even when it hurt em...

I would hope that a large chunk voting libertarian would swing them more toward a policy of freedom and individual rights.

democrats will never waver from the socialist path they are on.. democrats won't vote for a libertarian.. they thought of any more freedom than marrying a same sex partner or killing the unborn or smoking pot just scares the crap out of em... the thought of being responsible for themselves is alien to them.

lazs

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2007, 08:36:24 AM »

If I remember correctly. Lincoln was a third party candidate.

It can be done.

I beleive this election, like few others before it in our history presents one of the best opportunity for a 3rd party to not only be relevant. But actually win it.

All one needs to do is look at the landscape of national dissatisfaction combined with the clowns both parties are putting up to realise that.
Should someone like a Ron Paul jump and join the libretarians for example and present a fresh message and a message of hope for the future (much like Regan did) as opposed to just standing around condemning the past. which is all anyone seems to be willing to do these days.

That person would stand a real chance of upsetting the balance and getting in.

Even though he didnt win Perot proved it is possible
Perot could have done it if he wanted it badly enough.
Problem is I dont think he really wanted to be president.
which is why he did he jump in and out and in again routine.
I think he didnt really want it and when he saw he actually had a chance at winning. he did what he could to ruin that chance while still making a game of it.

Even if a 3rd party doesnt get in. I dont agree they see it as votes they would have lost anyway. a percentge of them yes. but not all. And with elections being won by close margins. They can no longer afford to over look those votes as simply votes they wouldnt have gotten.

They have to look at where those votes went. And why.
Again. so long as all anyone does is vote for one of the big two. Nothing will change. And you will get exactly the government you deserve.

It is only when more and more people begin to jump ship from the big two that anyone can expect to see any changes.

It wont happen if everyone thinks as you say "its a silly non effort."
Voting for one of the big two is a silly non effort because it does nothing at all

lazs2 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2007, 09:13:28 AM »

perot proved my point.... That you can affect republicans but that democrats are on a path to socialism that will not waver.

Perot hurt repulicans.. it is rare that a third party is lefty enough to hurt the democrats tho. No libertarian will ever hurt a democrats chances of winning. You would have to run castro to take votes away from a democrat.

Even ron paul himself proves my point.. he is a libertarian.. he knows there is no way to win anything as a libertarian and he knows that individual freedom in the democratic party is like holy water to a vampire...

He is running as a republican. libertarian principals are much much more in tune with republican ideas than with democrat ones.

I can't imagine any real libertarian or constitutionalist or individualist ever voting for a democrat.

lazs

AKIron · « **Reply #43 on:** July 24, 2007, 12:59:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
But casting a "protest vote" in a secret ballot system that will be ignored is just a silly non effort to me.

Much worse than just silly. Many democrats are itching to move our society to socialism as fast as they can and view a majority vote as permission to set full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. Perhaps they should have this attitude if we are foolish enough to put 'em in charge.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #44 on:** July 25, 2007, 08:28:15 AM »

Dont know if anyone else watched the CNN debate the other night with the Youtube questions.
But someone brought up a good point.

Does anyone else realise that if Hillary gets elected. (And I think there is a very strong possibility of that happening.)
The country will have been run by the same two families for 24 years?(28 if she gets elected to two terms)

Personally I beleive the Dems are going to win on 08. I just dont see the republicans no matter who they put up short of Jesus Christ himself complete with proof of walking on water, turning water into wine etc has having much of a chance after the last 8 years.

As for the independants. I know alot of Democrats both looking and willing to vote 3rd party should someone come out the forefront.

Actually most of the people I personally know are sick of both parties and are willing to go 3rd party.

Each side has hurt themselves enough to give a 3rd party a chance.
People hate Bush and the republicans due to the war.
And people are disgusted with the Democrats for being all talk in getting out of the war.

But. if as Laz says. a 3rd party hurts the Republicans more then the democrats.
Then perhaps its time the republicans start rethinking and reshaping themselves.

Which to me is a good thing. Then the third party vote is indeed not a wasted vote after all. Because it will force change.

Still less silly then just voting for one party or another just to keep things the way they are or to keep the other side from getting in.

that isnt just silly
thats mindlessness