Ok, I watched the debate and I definitely would not vote for any of those Democrats. Their radical socialist redistribution of wealth plans and socializing all heath care scares the hell out of me. They all seem to have a certian animosity to corporations in general and blame them for destroying the country. The beauty of health care in a free country is that if I don't like the care I get, I can go somewhere else. If I don't like Dennis Kucinich's health care, well, that's all I have. It's too bad if my surgery doesn't make his list of "vital" operations. The whole notion rests on the idea that politicans know what is better for us more than we do and if we dare go against them, they will punish us. Why on earth would anyone trust any one of those nine people more than the free market that has brought us these amazing medical achievements?
I just find their rationales to be against basic human freedom. They are basically saying to corporations "We don't think you should be able to have a for-profit health-care business. If you start one, we will put you in jail with the force of a gun." Talk about unconstitutional.
So, back to the question. If I had to vote for one of them, I would vote for Lieberman. He seems to be the most down to earth even though his whiny voice annoys me.
I don't know if I'd place my vote on Bush. Right now I'm leaning towards Gary Nolan (L)
Of course they are. Maybe you should bring this up at this week's session.
Where does that put the moldy ham sandwich? I'd gladly vote for a moldy ham sandwich on the Republican ticket rather than any of the nobodies running as Democrats.
Actually, usually I'd agree with you. But this is a special case. All of those candidates are better than Bush. This time around I'll vote for the popular opponent.
and people on the other side of the fence didn't feel that way about Clinton or Gore? come on. this mindset ensures that we'll always have a two party system. if you think that 1 canidate is BETTER than the others, VOTE for them!
if you say, "well, yeah, these choices all suck but i really hate that guy" we'll never make any headway.
All of them are running around my state and will be until January. I keep getting cards in the mail saying where they will be and how they want me to show up for whatever rally they are having. After I finish my finals, I'll probably go and see what they have to say.
John Kerry will be the front runner up here I think, just because of the close proximity to Massachusetts. Then again, Howard Dean and John Edwards have just about lived up here for the past few months and Howard Dean is close as well.
I think there are too many candidates running at the moment with no clear front runner. I'm sure that Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire's primary will make a big difference in who will get the nomination, just because they will thin the field quite a bit.
The messages of the Democratic party are being diluted with so many candidates, so I hope we see a few of them who have no chance bowing out shortly.
Actually, usually I'd agree with you. But this is a special case. All of those candidates are better than Bush. This time around I'll vote for the popular opponent. It is much more important at this point to get rid of the worst president in history than it is to worry about pushing a multi-party system.
I don't think you noticed that Al Sharpton was in that list.
I don't think you noticed that Al Sharpton was in that list.
Huh? Al Sharpton is way better than Bush. Infact, he's better than most of the other Democratic candidates and probably has a very high chance of beating Bush if he can mobilize the minority votes like he has in the past. The Democratics won back the Senate in 1988 because of his and Jesse Jackson's efforts to mobilize voters.
Lierberman, although too conservative for me, is still better than Bush. And who's the loner that voted for Gephardt?
Huh? Al Sharpton is way better than Bush. Infact, he's better than most of the other Democratic candidates and probably has a very high chance of beating Bush if he can mobilize the minority votes like he has in the past. The Democratics won back the Senate in 1988 because of his and Jesse Jackson's efforts to mobilize voters.
Lierberman, although too conservative for me, is still better than Bush. And who's the loner that voted for Gephardt?
no shit. that guy has absolutely no chance in hell of winning the presidency, let alone the democratic nomination. have you ever really followed al before he announced his presidential campaign? he may have since tried to camouflage his image, but he's an opportunist of the highest level. he makes don king look like the poster child of honesty and integrity. a truely lovely fellow. how can he unite the party when he even makes very liberal white guys nervous. sorry, try again.
no shit. that guy has absolutely no chance in hell of winning the presidency, let alone the democratic nomination. have you ever really followed al before he announced his presidential campaign? he may have since tried to camouflage his image, but he's an opportunist of the highest level. he makes don king look like the poster child of honesty and integrity. a truely lovely fellow. how can he unite the party when he even makes very liberal white guys nervous. sorry, try again.
Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans in a statistically significant way when controlling for the business cycle and other cyclical factors.
And if you're going to jump in with "I said I was kidding"
Yes I will state that I was kidding, because I was. Note the copious use of smilies near the end of my post. The whole "I haven't heard of them" was a satirical jest at the current state of the Democratic Party. ShawnPatrickJoyce understood. Do you?
Quote:
I'll simplify it to this:
I've heard of most of them. But I still wouldn't vote for them.
Most != all
That's how.
Yes, I've heard of all of them.
But you still have no idea why I won't vote for any one of them, apart from your assumptions.
Comments
I just find their rationales to be against basic human freedom. They are basically saying to corporations "We don't think you should be able to have a for-profit health-care business. If you start one, we will put you in jail with the force of a gun." Talk about unconstitutional.
So, back to the question. If I had to vote for one of them, I would vote for Lieberman. He seems to be the most down to earth even though his whiny voice annoys me.
I don't know if I'd place my vote on Bush. Right now I'm leaning towards Gary Nolan (L)
Originally posted by alcimedes
no no, wrong picture.
lol. He will fix the country and in his spare time he will talk to your dead realtives.
Originally posted by alcimedes
no no, wrong picture.
Biggest douche in the universe.
Originally posted by tonton
All of those candidates are better than Bush.
Of course they are. Maybe you should bring this up at this week's session.
Where does that put the moldy ham sandwich? I'd gladly vote for a moldy ham sandwich on the Republican ticket rather than any of the nobodies running as Democrats.
Actually, usually I'd agree with you. But this is a special case. All of those candidates are better than Bush. This time around I'll vote for the popular opponent.
and people on the other side of the fence didn't feel that way about Clinton or Gore? come on. this mindset ensures that we'll always have a two party system. if you think that 1 canidate is BETTER than the others, VOTE for them!
if you say, "well, yeah, these choices all suck but i really hate that guy" we'll never make any headway.
... Dan thinks Bush is a liberal democrat now!
John Kerry will be the front runner up here I think, just because of the close proximity to Massachusetts. Then again, Howard Dean and John Edwards have just about lived up here for the past few months and Howard Dean is close as well.
I think there are too many candidates running at the moment with no clear front runner. I'm sure that Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire's primary will make a big difference in who will get the nomination, just because they will thin the field quite a bit.
The messages of the Democratic party are being diluted with so many candidates, so I hope we see a few of them who have no chance bowing out shortly.
Originally posted by tonton
Actually, usually I'd agree with you. But this is a special case. All of those candidates are better than Bush. This time around I'll vote for the popular opponent. It is much more important at this point to get rid of the worst president in history than it is to worry about pushing a multi-party system.
I don't think you noticed that Al Sharpton was in that list.
Originally posted by job
I wouldn't vote for any of them.
I'm with you.
Originally posted by trick fall
If Leiberman is the Democratic candidate I'll be voting third party again.
I'm finding myself leaning this way. Anyone who promotes censorship is bad.
Originally posted by agent302
I'm finding myself leaning this way. Anyone who promotes censorship is bad.
You shouldn't say that!
Originally posted by Outsider
I don't think you noticed that Al Sharpton was in that list.
Huh? Al Sharpton is way better than Bush. Infact, he's better than most of the other Democratic candidates and probably has a very high chance of beating Bush if he can mobilize the minority votes like he has in the past. The Democratics won back the Senate in 1988 because of his and Jesse Jackson's efforts to mobilize voters.
Lierberman, although too conservative for me, is still better than Bush. And who's the loner that voted for Gephardt?
Originally posted by Existence
Huh? Al Sharpton is way better than Bush. Infact, he's better than most of the other Democratic candidates and probably has a very high chance of beating Bush if he can mobilize the minority votes like he has in the past. The Democratics won back the Senate in 1988 because of his and Jesse Jackson's efforts to mobilize voters.
Lierberman, although too conservative for me, is still better than Bush. And who's the loner that voted for Gephardt?
You must be talking about another Al Sharpton.
Originally posted by Outsider
You must be talking about another Al Sharpton.
no shit. that guy has absolutely no chance in hell of winning the presidency, let alone the democratic nomination. have you ever really followed al before he announced his presidential campaign? he may have since tried to camouflage his image, but he's an opportunist of the highest level. he makes don king look like the poster child of honesty and integrity. a truely lovely fellow. how can he unite the party when he even makes very liberal white guys nervous. sorry, try again.
Originally posted by running with scissors
no shit. that guy has absolutely no chance in hell of winning the presidency, let alone the democratic nomination. have you ever really followed al before he announced his presidential campaign? he may have since tried to camouflage his image, but he's an opportunist of the highest level. he makes don king look like the poster child of honesty and integrity. a truely lovely fellow. how can he unite the party when he even makes very liberal white guys nervous. sorry, try again.
Originally posted by tonton
Again:
And if you're going to jump in with "I said I was kidding"
Yes I will state that I was kidding, because I was. Note the copious use of smilies near the end of my post. The whole "I haven't heard of them" was a satirical jest at the current state of the Democratic Party. ShawnPatrickJoyce understood. Do you?
I'll simplify it to this:
I've heard of most of them. But I still wouldn't vote for them.
Most != all
That's how.
Yes, I've heard of all of them.
But you still have no idea why I won't vote for any one of them, apart from your assumptions.
Assumptions which are false.