Why vote for a Bush-wannabe when I could just vote for Bush?
I want someone who will fight for gay rights, at least TRY to stop/slow the War on Drugs and protect my speech/fair use rights in addition to supporting a strong military and a more results-oriented approach to foreign affairs.
Liberal or conservative, give me someone with balls and knows who they are and I'll consider them.
Quote:
Lieberman is about as close to Dubya foreign policy-wise as you'll get... and I think it's all because of politics. I don't trust him. In fact I dislike him.
Well, it's because Lieberman is a conservative.
As far as the economy goes, I don't think presidents really have any important impact on the economy so as long as the guy doesn't want to move our currency to the Peso I don't really give a shit.
And since the republicans own the machines they count the votes too. So who cares which candidate a democrat votes for? The votes will go to Jeb, Hagel or whatever republican is running in the race anyway.
Oh, and 'trade secrets' are certainly more important than an accurate vote count, right?
Quote:
-- Problems with Florida's new touch-screen equipment have been amply documented. To cite just two: Votes cast for the Democratic candidate for governor in one precinct during last fall's gubernatorial race were credited to Jeb Bush because of a "misaligned" touch screen. No one knows how many votes were misrecorded. In city council elections in Palm Beach last March, when a losing candidate challenged the results, a local judge denied the challenger and his consultant, Mercuri, the opportunity to inspect the machines, citing the rights of the manufacturer, Sequoia, to protect its trade secrets.
-- Bev Harris, a Seattle publicist who has become a leading muckraker on voting-technology issues via her "Black Box Voting" Web site, uncovered some disturbing facts (since confirmed by other sources) about Sen. Chuck Hagel, R- Neb.: He was part owner and former chairman and chief executive of the company that made all the equipment that counted the votes during his last two runs for office, yet he failed to list his ties to the company on federal disclosure forms.
Though not a candidate, Sen. Clinton is also sure to grab attention in the 2004 Democratic presidential race. In nearly every national poll in which her name is included, she leads the Democratic field. In the Quinnipiac Poll in February, she topped her nearest rival, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, 42% to 15%.
I hope she runs in 2008 and/or accepts a vice presidency offer for 2004. She'd be a great running mate for Al Sharpton or Howard Dean.
To state again, this comment was made as a satirical jest. It was to make fun of the current state of the Democratic Party. It. Was. Satire. And. Was. Not. Meant. To. Be. Taken. Seriously.
Quote:
"I've heard of most of them"
Uh, I meant:
"I've heard of all of them"
Like you yourself said, Most != all so I agreed with you.
Comments
I want Howard Dean with the foreign policy of Dubya.
WINNER!
Then vote for Lieberman.
Eh... no.
Why vote for a Bush-wannabe when I could just vote for Bush?
I want someone who will fight for gay rights, at least TRY to stop/slow the War on Drugs and protect my speech/fair use rights in addition to supporting a strong military and a more results-oriented approach to foreign affairs.
Liberal or conservative, give me someone with balls and knows who they are and I'll consider them.
Lieberman is about as close to Dubya foreign policy-wise as you'll get... and I think it's all because of politics. I don't trust him. In fact I dislike him.
Well, it's because Lieberman is a conservative.
As far as the economy goes, I don't think presidents really have any important impact on the economy so as long as the guy doesn't want to move our currency to the Peso I don't really give a shit.
Oh, and 'trade secrets' are certainly more important than an accurate vote count, right?
-- Problems with Florida's new touch-screen equipment have been amply documented. To cite just two: Votes cast for the Democratic candidate for governor in one precinct during last fall's gubernatorial race were credited to Jeb Bush because of a "misaligned" touch screen. No one knows how many votes were misrecorded. In city council elections in Palm Beach last March, when a losing candidate challenged the results, a local judge denied the challenger and his consultant, Mercuri, the opportunity to inspect the machines, citing the rights of the manufacturer, Sequoia, to protect its trade secrets.
-- Bev Harris, a Seattle publicist who has become a leading muckraker on voting-technology issues via her "Black Box Voting" Web site, uncovered some disturbing facts (since confirmed by other sources) about Sen. Chuck Hagel, R- Neb.: He was part owner and former chairman and chief executive of the company that made all the equipment that counted the votes during his last two runs for office, yet he failed to list his ties to the company on federal disclosure forms.
Though not a candidate, Sen. Clinton is also sure to grab attention in the 2004 Democratic presidential race. In nearly every national poll in which her name is included, she leads the Democratic field. In the Quinnipiac Poll in February, she topped her nearest rival, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, 42% to 15%.
I hope she runs in 2008 and/or accepts a vice presidency offer for 2004. She'd be a great running mate for Al Sharpton or Howard Dean.
After I smoke a salami in my hat.
Originally posted by Existence
From the Washington post:
I hope she runs in 2008 and/or accepts a vice presidency offer for 2004. She'd be a great running mate for Al Sharpton or Howard Dean.
Hillary will never run as a vice-presidential candidate because:
A. She wants the spotlight.
B. No one will run with her being the running mate because she would try to take over the campaign.
I do think she will run for president in 2008 or later.
Originally posted by tonton
"I've never heard of them"
To state again, this comment was made as a satirical jest. It was to make fun of the current state of the Democratic Party. It. Was. Satire. And. Was. Not. Meant. To. Be. Taken. Seriously.
"I've heard of most of them"
Uh, I meant:
"I've heard of all of them"
Like you yourself said, Most != all so I agreed with you.