Super Tuesday (and the other primaries)

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Democratic candidates you vote for <3 Nancy Pelosi who <33333's George who <3's McCain. I just through the Ron Paul bit in for fun.

You lost me.

If McCain selected Huckabee as his running mate, would you still feel this way?

Probably because that won't change what he does.

Everytime you speak I wonder how the fuck you made it through highschool/college w/o being shot by one of your teachers for the good of humanity. And "i'm with limbaugh" says enough about you to end any debate you might add from here on out. Fucking tool.

Personal attacks strengthen arguments! But agreeing with someone makes them a tool eh?

[Delta_9]

I don't see where the placing the blame comes into the McCain issue. At least for me, I don't plan on voting for a man that is already in the hands of lobbyists. McCain is as much a Republican as Lieberman is a Democrat.

[sunb1ind]

I'm with Limbaugh on this one, if McCain gets the nomination I'd rather a democrat ruin things with liberal policies, let them take the credit. I'll be voting for whoever gets the Dem nomination if McCain gets the republican nod.

Everytime you speak I wonder how the fuck you made it through highschool/college w/o being shot by one of your teachers for the good of humanity. And "i'm with limbaugh" says enough about you to end any debate you might add from here on out. Fucking tool.

QFMFT Sometimes I don't know why I am so nice.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I don't see where the placing the blame comes into the McCain issue. At least for me, I don't plan on voting for a man that is already in the hands of lobbyists. McCain is as much a Republican as Lieberman is Democrat.

Well if you think what Hillary/Obama will do is bad for the country then why not let them do it? McCain, it would seem, will be doing the same thing, so let the Democrats take credit for it, not a Republican.

[Saga]

This doesn't have as much to do with politics as it does with the Republican party's image, but haven't the scandals within the Republican party (Craig, forget the other one but he was coming on to a 17 year old boy or something, might have been an intern, I forget) in the past couple years, coupled with the overall terrible reign of the Bush administration negatively warped the view of the Republican party as a whole? I don't think McCain bringing about some change to the core values that have really made the Republican party shine the last few years is such a terrible thing.

[Delta_9]

Well if you think what Hillary/Obama will do is bad for the country then why not let them do it? McCain, it would seem, will be doing the same thing, so let the Democrats take credit for it, not a Republican.

Because it is a lose-lose. Republican or democrat, what does it matter? They will both lead the country in the wrong direction. If he doesn't get the chance to screw up, then how will he be held accountable for it and have an end result of having the party's platform readjusted?

QFMFT Sometimes I don't know why I am so nice.

You're not.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Well if you think what Hillary/Obama will do is bad for the country then why not let them do it? McCain, it would seem, will be doing the same thing, so let the Democrats take credit for it, not a Republican.

Because it is a lose-lose. Republican or democrat, what does it matter? They will both lead the country in the wrong direction. If he doesn't get the chance to screw up, then how will he be held accountable for it and have and end result of having the party's platform readjusted?

Hmm, the goods a point you make. It might be a good thing if McCain screws up and the party changes its platform. Two Republicans screwing up in a row though? (If you think Bush did.) That's a bit much to overcome. I'd rather a liberal get the nod, and the credit, which would still give the Republican party a chance to reassert/reaffirm its beliefs.

I don't think McCain bringing about some change to the core values that have really made the Republican party shine the last few years is such a terrible thing.

I don't think there's anything wrong with change, but if that change is McCain's change, why not just change to one party system?

[sunb1ind]

QFMFT Sometimes I don't know why I am so nice.

You're not.

Hey, I try to somewhat educate while I do my bashing atleast. That's pretty damn nice of me to take my time out to, just maybe, teach someone about ironing

edit:

why not just change to one party system?

Holy shit, he's catching on!

[Charla]

I'm with Limbaugh on this one, if McCain gets the nomination I'd rather a democrat ruin things with liberal policies, let them take the credit. I'll be voting for whoever gets the Dem nomination if McCain gets the republican nod.

Everytime you speak I wonder how the fuck you made it through highschool/college w/o being shot by one of your teachers for the good of humanity. And "i'm with limbaugh" says enough about you to end any debate you might add from here on out. Fucking tool.

According to my calculations, there are parts of the country where Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity/etc. are considered intelligent, reasonable and respectable pundits. Scary, I know.

One-party system is obviously a hyperbole, or else Swamp just hasn't heard about how

McCain has many traditionally Republican views. He has a strong conservative voting record on pro-life[201] and free trade issues, favors private social security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care. McCain also supports school vouchers, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, and welfare reform. He is generally regarded as a hawk in foreign policy. When a questioner said, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded, "Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so."[202]

Yup, no difference at all there.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I also heard about McCain-Feingold. Opposing tax cuts. Every time someone questions his policy he pulls the "you're insulting a war hero" card just like Hillary plays the gender card. There was also that comment at the last debate "I was a leader because I supported my country, not because I wanted to make a profit." Since when does a conservative think turning a profit is a bad thing? That's straight out of the Democratic class warfare rhetoric book. Another thing I heard about is McCain-Lieberman. And then there's the whole amnesty deal.

He doesn't support liberal policy across the board, but it's enough for me.

Edit: I'm not so sure about him supporting school vouchers either, I could have swore in one of the debates he said he was against school vouchers.

[Deftscythe]

Imagine a one, or rather no party system. People getting elected to office based on their policy and character as opposed to party affiliation, and then using the power of those offices based on their conscience and not party standing. Wouldn't that be novel.

[Delta_9]

Imagine a one, or rather no party system. People getting elected to office based on their policy and character as opposed to party affiliation, and then using the power of those offices based on their conscience and not party standing. Wouldn't that be novel.

If only. But in American we just vote out of spite and not logic.

[Xavier]

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[pohibaba]

If we all voted out of logic, we'd have a Libertarian President, but that'll never happen.

[Correction]

Imagine a one, or rather no party system. People getting elected to office based on their policy and character as opposed to party affiliation, and then using the power of those offices based on their conscience and not party standing. Wouldn't that be novel.

If they used the power and made decisions based on their conscience they would fail to represent the people who elected them. At which point they become emperors and not democratically-selected leaders.

Now imagine if they got permission to vote their conscience, but it didn't line up with those of all 300 million people in our country, some of whom decide to go find other people to represent them in government, instead, so that they could locate leaders who were more trustworthy to make decisions more in line with their value system.

Oh shit we just made a second political party. Damn you inevitability and human nature!!!

[Xavier]

RON PAUL!

What has amazed me so much is that in almost every republican debate, Ron Paul has said the most profound, accurate, insightful things about various issues and was just ridiculed by his opponents as misinformed and out of touch.

Ron Paul criticized our foreign policy and cited a few blunders as examples for the current tension with the Middle East, and was immediately derided by people like Rudy telling him he was wrong, and that the tension is purely from Islamic fundamentalists intent on attacking us out of jealousy. Shits backwards.

[Deftscythe]

Imagine a one, or rather no party system. People getting elected to office based on their policy and character as opposed to party affiliation, and then using the power of those offices based on their conscience and not party standing. Wouldn't that be novel.

If they used the power and made decisions based on their conscience they would fail to represent the people who elected them. At which point they become emperors and not democratically-selected leaders.

Now imagine if they got permission to vote their conscience, but it didn't line up with those of all 300 million people in our country, some of whom decide to go find other people to represent them in government, instead, so that they could locate leaders who were more trustworthy to make decisions more in line with their value system.

Oh shit we just made a second political party. Damn you inevitability and human nature!!!

First of all, this was obviously meant to be taken very seriously since it's way out in the realm of hypotheticals.

Secondly, how would someone get elected if their conscience didn't line up with the majority of their constituency? Also if there's one thing all politicians want it's to stay in power. They would pander just like the ones we have now.

[Delta_9]

RON PAUL!

What has amazed me so much is that in almost every republican debate, Ron Paul has said the most profound, accurate, insightful things about various issues and was just ridiculed by his opponents as misinformed and out of touch.

Ron Paul criticized our foreign policy and cited a few blunders as examples for the current tension with the Middle East, and was immediately derided by people like Rudy telling him he was wrong, and that the tension is purely from Islamic fundamentalists intent on attacking us out of jealousy. Shits backwards.

Obviously he's a traitor to the crown. I'm willing to bet if he was out spoken as he is now 4 years ago that he would be torn apart (probably limb from limb) from both sides. Hopefully in another 10 years this kind of mind set will fade away but I doubt it. No one wants to hear about their flaws or the past! Because we can't learn anything from past fuck ups, now can we.

If they used the power and made decisions based on their conscience they would fail to represent the people who elected them. At which point they become emperors and not democratically-selected leaders.

What? So they get elected based on their policy and conscience but as soon as they take their seat they no longer represent these ideals? Oh wait.. kinda sounds familiar.

[Xavier]

Imagine a one, or rather no party system. People getting elected to office based on their policy and character as opposed to party affiliation, and then using the power of those offices based on their conscience and not party standing. Wouldn't that be novel.

If they used the power and made decisions based on their conscience they would fail to represent the people who elected them. At which point they become emperors and not democratically-selected leaders.

Now imagine if they got permission to vote their conscience, but it didn't line up with those of all 300 million people in our country, some of whom decide to go find other people to represent them in government, instead, so that they could locate leaders who were more trustworthy to make decisions more in line with their value system.

Oh shit we just made a second political party. Damn you inevitability and human nature!!!

First of all, this was obviously meant to be taken very seriously since it's way out in the realm of hypotheticals.

Secondly, how would someone get elected if their conscience didn't line up with the majority of their constituency? Also if there's one thing all politicians want it's to stay in power. They would pander just like the ones we have now.

You haven't suggested anything that we don't already have. Your hypothetical "no-party" system would in actuality function eerily similar to the current two party system. All you've done is removed labels.

[Charla]

I also heard about McCain-Feingold. Opposing tax cuts. Every time someone questions his policy he pulls the "you're insulting a war hero" card just like Hillary plays the gender card. There was also that comment at the last debate "I was a leader because I supported my country, not because I wanted to make a profit." Since when does a conservative think turning a profit is a bad thing? That's straight out of the Democratic class warfare rhetoric book. Another thing I heard about is McCain-Lieberman. And then there's the whole amnesty deal.

He doesn't support liberal policy across the board, but it's enough for me.

Edit: I'm not so sure about him supporting school vouchers either, I could have swore in one of the debates he said he was against school vouchers.

And this, folks, is why we invented the term knee-jerk. Also, half of the country appears to be using a very novel definition of amnesty.