Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 12 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 2 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 >
Topic Options
#35335 - 01/24/08 07:12 PM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Check out the legacy of George W Bush before you complain about Hillary having ambition and wanting power, just like every other presidential hopeful.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#35339 - 01/24/08 09:39 PM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
Check out the legacy of George W Bush before you complain about Hillary having ambition and wanting power, just like every other presidential hopeful.
You don't really mean to say "Bush is so bad, he makes Ms. Clinton look good by comparison; therefore one ought to vote for her", do you?
_________________________

Top
#35342 - 01/24/08 11:17 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
You don't really mean to say "Bush is so bad, he makes Ms. Clinton look good by comparison; therefore one ought to vote for her", do you?

Bush is so bad he makes a drunken, one-armed, dyslexic chimpanzee look good. My point to LtL, which you pretty much made earlier, is that to not vote for someone because "...they want power and will do anything to get it..." basically means that there will never be a candidate that you would vote for. It's a pointless reason.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#35344 - 01/24/08 11:57 PM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
 Originally Posted By: RAF
But, Ltl, are you seriously saying that if the election next November came down to a choice between Hillary and McCain, you'd vote for the the conservative guy from Arizona?


LtL, it's essential to prevent four more years of Republican misrule. If the prospect of a Clinton nomination makes you mad enough to think about letting one of the Republican clown show become President, think about the Supreme Court. Think about over 4000 pointless American deaths and over 10,000 permanently maimed for no reason. Think about war with Iran. Think about global warming. Think about the abuse of science. Think about our loss of freedoms. Think about the abuse of the Constitution. As a woman, think about being told you have no control over your body.

Do the right thing. This is not the year for sulking and doing something stupid like voting for another inept Rethuglican.


I don't agree that it's the right thing to vote for someone who I believe has far fewer principles than even a typical politician has. If it comes to a choice between her and someone like Huckabee I'll have to consider my options, but I'll be strongly inclined to vote for a third party candidate knowing that they couldn't possibly win. Rewarding the democrats with my vote despite their incredible poor showing as a minority party is hardly the way to bring change, and I just can't abandon my principles to the extent of voting for her.

Luckily for me, I am now living for the first time in my life in a state with a presidential primary that is early enough to actually matter so I'll be going to the polls Feb 5th to try and avert the situation of her getting the nomination in the first place. Unluckily, noone whose politics match well with mine has any chance of winning...

Top
#35345 - 01/25/08 12:04 AM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
You don't really mean to say "Bush is so bad, he makes Ms. Clinton look good by comparison; therefore one ought to vote for her", do you?

Bush is so bad he makes a drunken, one-armed, dyslexic chimpanzee look good. My point to LtL, which you pretty much made earlier, is that to not vote for someone because "...they want power and will do anything to get it..." basically means that there will never be a candidate that you would vote for. It's a pointless reason.


I totally disagree. There are lots of candidates I dislike on the issues but who are sincere enough in their beliefs and stances that they aren't willing to say or do absolutely anything to get elected. Bush I hate for all sorts of reasons including the fact that he's indescribably stupid and politically pretty much my polar opposite but the j*ck*ass is pretty darn consistent.

I also should have mentioned earlier that I don't believe Hillary has much of any chance of winning a general election. As much as I don't like it, moderates/independents decide elections in this country, and I believe the republicans can easily bring out enough ammo against Hillary to sway the independent 1/3 against her, especially if they don't nominate someone who's completely obviously a wacko as well.

Top
#35346 - 01/25/08 12:06 AM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
I'll be strongly inclined to vote for a third party candidate knowing that they couldn't possibly win.

My sentiment as well. Vote for losers; they'll never disappoint you.

LtL, it's essential to prevent four more years of Republican misrule.

I'd rather vote for Ron Paul than for any of the Democratic candidates.


Edited by oenophore (01/25/08 11:22 AM)
Edit Reason: Kucinich just dropped out
_________________________

Top
#35347 - 01/25/08 12:56 PM Re: Vote [Re: RAF]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
 Originally Posted By: RAF
<<a mind, soured, yet seeking for popularity, and eaten to a honeycomb with ambition, yet weak, confused, uninformed, and ignorant." How many candidates does this describe?>>

Yeah, I know, but Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter dropped out of the race. \:D

But, Ltl, are you seriously saying that if the election next November came down to a choice between Hillary and McCain, you'd vote for the the conservative guy from Arizona?


I know this question is not directed at me, but...yes.

Top
#35348 - 01/25/08 02:00 PM Re: Vote [Re: AOR]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
#35355 - 01/25/08 06:44 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Virtually all politicians profit from their position. We know Bill, did and I assume Hillary will too. GW took advantage from family position in school, the military, and in business before entering politics. As president he has pretty much proclaimed himself king disregarding human rights, civil rights, the legislature, and the public. He hasn’t made a little profit, his administration is completely driven by power, and the use of that power to remain in power, and increase the wealth of a close large and “friendly” business community.

Insert markc’s post. I agree completely.

I’m not the Hillary fan I wish I could be, but certainly don’t think there is any comparison between her and the Republican Political machine. Hillary is doing what she feels it will take to get elected and unfortunately I think there is some truth to the fact that it is necessary to be elected. I also feel there is some reason to think she may be a better president after she is elected than from campaign. I am sure that I would agree with far more of her decisions as a president than I have with our current administrations.

Sure I wish there were someone I fully supported, but if that person were running they would not be elected. In this election I’ll settle for any Democrat who can run against the party in power now.


Edited by mworking (01/26/08 01:02 AM)

Top
#35363 - 01/28/08 04:02 PM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I am not a Hillary fan. I withheld my vote entirely in her last Senate race; I could not vote for her opponent, but I have found her tenure in the Senate to be frustrating and bordering on cowardly, and I don't understand her popularity.

She has about a safe a seat as one can get, and yet I have yet to see her take a position that entailed any political risk whatsoever. Her vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq is a prime example. Her floor remarks gave plenty of reasons why it would have been a mistake to use force at that time, but she said she was voting yes anyway because she was taking the president "at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible" (despite the evidence at the time that this administration was not to be taken at its word on anything). But the language of the resolution had no such requirements; it was essentially a blank check to the administration. Any competent lawyer knows that if you don't have the language, you don't have the deal, and I think she's too smart not to know what she was doing.

Also, there was a substitute offered by Senator Levin that would have required Bush to at least attempt the diplomatic approach in the UN that Clinton said she wanted, but she voted against it. Why did she vote against an authorization mandating the approach she approved of and for an authorization that didn't? To me it seems obvious: it was calculated political cover for her next election, because going to war was by far the more popular option and she'd look bad if she voted no and the war went well. Now, that's not necessarily something to be ashamed of; many of her more experienced colleagues made the same calculation. But instead of coming clean about it, she says she was mislead. She might have gotten my vote, and the votes of many others, if she admitted that it was a failure of leadership early in her political career, that she had learned from her mistake, and as president she would never let it happen again.

And when it became safe to be against the war, she turned against it. She gave Rumsfeld a good dressing-down in his final year in office, but she said things others had been saying for years instead of saying it years ago when it might have mattered. And Rumsfeld was probably the most disliked member of the cabinet. Taking him on was hardly a profile in courage.

When she was asked recently about she'd address the fiscal problems of Social Security, she said she wouldn't raise the benefits age, and she wouldn't raise the wage tax cap. Well, what would she do? Appoint a commission. We don't need a commission to tell us what we (and prior commissions) already know, that a SS fix will require raising the benefits age, raising taxes, cutting benefits, or some combination of those options. I think she won't admit to any of those options out of fear that she'll lose votes from some constituency or other, but the failure to address the problem doesn't inspire any confidence in me for her. (In fact, it's not her responsibility to save SS; it's the public's responsibility to say what we're willing to do to save SS if we think it's so important. But Clinton, and many others, fail us by failing to ask us if we're willing to take action on SS and many other issues where public action is required to create the change the public says it wants.)

Clinton said she favored a statute to ban flag desecration, but opposed a constitutional amendment on the subject, without which a statute would almost certainly be struck down. This strikes me as a pretty blatant inconsistency, an attempt to avoid alienating her upstate and downstate constituencies.

Her fundraising for her last Senate campaign was borderline offensive, if not actually over the line. She wrote she might be Swift-boated and would need money to respond, so please give now. But her appeals disregarded the possibility that she wouldn't be Swift-boated (as turned out to be the case), failed to explain why she couldn't ask for money after any such Swift-boating, and neglected to mention that she'd win even if she were Swift-boated because she barely had an opponent. Do you know she ran the most expensive Senate campaign in the country, spending over $40,000,000? That money wasn't about winning the Senate race, in which she got 67% of the vote; it was about setting up her presidential run--which of course wasn't mentioned in any of her fundraising appeals. I think this lack of candor was dishonest.

Still, if she were the Democratic nominee, I would vote for her over any of the Republicans who think that any problem we face can be solved with tax cuts that miraculously pay for themselves. I also share MarcC'c concerns about civil liberties, the environment, and the Supreme Court (though I'm one of those pro-choicers who think choice isn't necessarily constitutionally protected). But I think the nation needs a fundamental restoration of the relationship between the people and their government, and I don't see Clinton as the best person to provide the necessary leadership for that to happen. She seems too willing to play the game as it exists if it works in her favor, rather than changing the game which might entail some risk but could transform politics for the better. That last point doesn't make her any worse than any of the Republicans, but I think either Obama or Edwards are better choices.

It's odd to me that some people think she's the only candidate that could win (strong enough to withstand the Republican attack machine), while others think she's the only one who could lose (polarizing, energizing the otherwise dissatisfied Republican base and alienating moderates). I think she'd be in a tough race against McCain, while a McCain-Obama race would be fascinating (as would a McCain-Edwards contest).

Top
Page 2 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored