President.... who?

So what does everyone think about the current line up? I know I feel a bit overwhelmed with being bombarded with the negative shots they throw at each other. They all seem to have something good to offer...

I dont know..

I usually vote Republican, but can't bring myself to vote for McCain given his stance on the war. Plus I think he is too damn old. So by default, it is looking like Obama to me.

Hillary is still my favorite and I haven't quite allowed myself to give up hope for her, but it's beginning to look as though the party and the press are determined to make Obama the nominee. I have some reservations about him, but he's a lot better than McCain.

Clearly not a bright move on Hillarys part was to say she was under fire blah blah - yet they have pictures of her at that landing strip smiling with kids.. Unfortunately its hard for people to lie anymore because of cameras, emails, IMs, texts.. people save that now a days to protect themselves! Smart move I think

Nig, Im in a similar boat...I'm usually republican, but I can't vote for mcCain on the following issues:

* his stance on the War
* McCain could quite possibly do more damage to this economy than even Bush had


I'm voting Hilary in Nov. I don't think Obama is real. There's alot of very unchallenge assertions about Obama's real religion and even if he really is a christian...the type of christianity coming out of his church is no different than the 'islam' currently coming out of the middle east.

The end game for either sects is that the White Man is to blame and the White man has to pay.


Sorry...I can't vote for someone like that.

The best and brightest minds in this country never run for office. Becoming a politician means ass kissing and being beholden to special interests.

frank wrote:

Nig, Im in a similar boat...I'm usually republican, but I can't vote for mcCain on the following issues:

* his stance on the War
* McCain could quite possibly do more damage to this economy than even Bush had


I'm voting Hilary in Nov. I don't think Obama is real. There's alot of very unchallenge assertions about Obama's real religion and even if he really is a christian...the type of christianity coming out of his church is no different than the 'islam' currently coming out of the middle east.

The end game for either sects is that the White Man is to blame and the White man has to pay.

Those are exactly my feelings about Obama Frank, but I honestly think the Democratic Party intends to make sure Obama is their candidate. They're looking at what they perceive as strengthening their party in that he's getting so many young and black people who have never voted before to register as Democrats. I think they all know that Hillary would make the best president, but right now their looking more at what their party needs than what this country needs. I think the only way she'll be allowed to win it is if she wins the rest of the primaries so that it'll be obvious that they're taking it away from her with the super-delegate.

Of course the media is going to make sure they do everything they can to sway the primary votes in favor of Obama.

I will vote against McCain though.

AR wrote:

The best and brightest minds in this country never run for office. Becoming a politician means ass kissing and being beholden to special interests.

Good point, Ed. and it's true. The big misconception is that a president is a stronghold of moral fiber...but the fact remains that in order to become president, you have to agree to a tremendous amount of 'special interest' or else you will never gain enough support to be in a place to become president.

Just look at the two extremes of presidential candidates that were so resolute on their issues that they refused to bow to one iotta of special interest....Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. Both candidates (despite being so politically left and right, respectively) refuse to accept 'guidance' from special interests...and both candidates will never amount to anything political...

I truly believe that in order to get yourself in a position to actually become president (meaning having a chance at winning a party's nomination), you have to cater to at least a few interests that will result in a watering down of your position on some things....the end result, is a president that never makes real, hard changes.


That's part of the reason why so many people are so disenfranchised with the political process. When do politicians ever actually keep campaign promises? It rarely happens...what you end up seeing is a president, governor, mayor, etc...that tempers his/her message once the rights of the office have been bestowed. Combine that with opposition in the legislative branchs of the respective government...and there's very little real change that is affected to people.


Have presidents made differences in the past? sure...but I would submit that most presidents have done more damage than good, with the differences they make....perfect example of 'difference making presidents that have done bad' include LBJ, Ford, Carter, Bush(41), Bush(43). The positive difference makers in the past 50 years really only makes up three presidents, in my eyes...Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton....and even so, one can argue that each one of those 'positive' presidents still fucked up enough to make any regular joe's life an utter failure.

frank wrote:

AR wrote:

The best and brightest minds in this country never run for office. Becoming a politician means ass kissing and being beholden to special interests.

Good point, Ed. and it's true. The big misconception is that a president is a stronghold of moral fiber...but the fact remains that in order to become president, you have to agree to a tremendous amount of 'special interest' or else you will never gain enough support to be in a place to become president.

Precisely, and that's why our whole system of campaigning, campaign finance, and lobbying should be done away with. Nobody should be elected president because they had more money at their disposal and no special interest should be able to by favor.

It sucks, but it's what we've got.

ohsherrie wrote:

Precisely, and that's why our whole system of campaigning, campaign finance, and lobbying should be done away with. Nobody should be elected president because they had more money at their disposal and no special interest should be able to by favor.

It sucks, but it's what we've got.

You can't take away all that stuff without taking away essential freedoms that allow it to happen. Bad side effect of freedom, but necessary nonetheless.

Regardless, it's a very disappointing political year. There's no one remotely worth voting for on either side and I don't plan on simply voting for someone in order to vote against the other candidate. Bad reason to vote, in my opinion.

conversationpc wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

Precisely, and that's why our whole system of campaigning, campaign finance, and lobbying should be done away with. Nobody should be elected president because they had more money at their disposal and no special interest should be able to by favor.

It sucks, but it's what we've got.

You can't take away all that stuff without taking away essential freedoms that allow it to happen. Bad side effect of freedom, but necessary nonetheless.

Regardless, it's a very disappointing political year. There's no one remotely worth voting for on either side and I don't plan on simply voting for someone in order to vote against the other candidate. Bad reason to vote, in my opinion.

Soccer moms want rock stars.
Bitter old men want war mongers
No one wants Hillary

We are screwed.

conversationpc wrote:

You can't take away all that stuff without taking away essential freedoms that allow it to happen. Bad side effect of freedom, but necessary nonetheless.

Regardless, it's a very disappointing political year. There's no one remotely worth voting for on either side and I don't plan on simply voting for someone in order to vote against the other candidate. Bad reason to vote, in my opinion.

Really good point PC !

I'll go with ME for President.

I fucking hate politics. Music and sports are my thing.

conversationpc wrote:

Regardless, it's a very disappointing political year. There's no one remotely worth voting for on either side and I don't plan on simply voting for someone in order to vote against the other candidate. Bad reason to vote, in my opinion.

How has this been any different than any other presidential election since 1984?

I do not vote party but more for the person I feel will do the best job.However, I will not just cast a vote for the sake of saying I did so--My thoughts are this 1) I can't vote for a person that stood by and let the country basically make a fool of her for forgiving her piece of shit husband for disgracing the office of President by having an affair. 2) I will not vote for a man that's middle name is Hussian and first name rhymes with Osama and 3) I will not vote for an old shit that is willing to immediately push the "red" button at the drop of a hat so I'm writing in Goofy.

Here's the issue I have with people recusing themselves from voting because they can't wrap their arms around a particular candidate....especially those people who would otherwise 'vote againts a candidate'.

By not voting...either for OR AGAINST someone, you are essentially giving a vote to the oposing side (that is opposite your viewpoint). Now for me, this means shit. I live in, what is very much, a blue state. It will ALWAYS be a blue state...so voting red here is sorta like taking a piss in the ocean. It's not going to make one bit of difference. Now, this year, I'm voting blue...so again, it's not going to fucking matter. But it's still worth noting in certain states, your vote doesn't really do shit....


However, if I were living in one of those 'real close' states...like Florida or Ohio....not voting is simply idiocy. Go ahead and stand on your principles and go "no one is worth voting for"....the 'worse' guy will get the nod as a result.

In those scenarios, a vote against someone is an extremely valid thing to do.

frank wrote:

Here's the issue I have with people recusing themselves from voting because they can't wrap their arms around a particular candidate....especially those people who would otherwise 'vote againts a candidate'.

By not voting...either for OR AGAINST someone, you are essentially giving a vote to the oposing side (that is opposite your viewpoint). Now for me, this means shit. I live in, what is very much, a blue state. It will ALWAYS be a blue state...so voting red here is sorta like taking a piss in the ocean. It's not going to make one bit of difference. Now, this year, I'm voting blue...so again, it's not going to fucking matter. But it's still worth noting in certain states, your vote doesn't really do shit....


However, if I were living in one of those 'real close' states...like Florida or Ohio....not voting is simply idiocy. Go ahead and stand on your principles and go "no one is worth voting for"....the 'worse' guy will get the nod as a result.

In those scenarios, a vote against someone is an extremely valid thing to do.

I agree that if you absolutely are agaisnt one you should vote the other. I just don't have a bunch of faith in either one.

Goddess wrote:

frank wrote:

Here's the issue I have with people recusing themselves from voting because they can't wrap their arms around a particular candidate....especially those people who would otherwise 'vote againts a candidate'.

By not voting...either for OR AGAINST someone, you are essentially giving a vote to the oposing side (that is opposite your viewpoint). Now for me, this means shit. I live in, what is very much, a blue state. It will ALWAYS be a blue state...so voting red here is sorta like taking a piss in the ocean. It's not going to make one bit of difference. Now, this year, I'm voting blue...so again, it's not going to fucking matter. But it's still worth noting in certain states, your vote doesn't really do shit....


However, if I were living in one of those 'real close' states...like Florida or Ohio....not voting is simply idiocy. Go ahead and stand on your principles and go "no one is worth voting for"....the 'worse' guy will get the nod as a result.

In those scenarios, a vote against someone is an extremely valid thing to do.

I agree that if you absolutely are agaisnt one you should vote the other. I just don't have a bunch of faith in either one.

me either

VA has pretty much traditionally been a Red state but not overwhelmingly so. I'm encouraged that since 2004 we've voted in a Dem Governor and some Dem state and federal senators and representatives.

I got very angry when Bush corrupted the 2000 and 2004 elections and said I was giving up because nobody's vote meant anything if the results could be manipulated like that. But I knew by not voting I was giving away what little voice I did have in the matter, so I couldn't let it go.

ohsherrie wrote:

VA has pretty much traditionally been a Red state but not overwhelmingly so. I'm encouraged that since 2004 we've voted in a Dem Governor and some Dem state and federal senators and representatives.

It seems to me that the political landscape is changing considerably. The south, which used to be democrat strongholds, are just not so anymore. The opposite change is happening in states like VA and NH, which were traditionally red states...they're very blue these days.

frank wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

VA has pretty much traditionally been a Red state but not overwhelmingly so. I'm encouraged that since 2004 we've voted in a Dem Governor and some Dem state and federal senators and representatives.

It seems to me that the political landscape is changing considerably. The south, which used to be democrat strongholds, are just not so anymore. The opposite change is happening in states like VA and NH, which were traditionally red states...they're very blue these days.

I think the biggest reason for the changes in the south came about during the Reagan years because of Falwell's Moral Majority BS and the NRA lobby against the Brady bill. In the south it's become almost unchristian not to be republican and the NRA has all the rednecks convinced that the Democrats are going to take all their guns away.

Liam The Pariah wrote:

I'll go with ME for President.

I fucking hate politics. Music and sports are my thing.

I am so glad you are not like your brother....where did he get that from?!? you and your mom are SO sweet!

NurseCrys wrote:

Liam The Pariah wrote:

I'll go with ME for President.

I fucking hate politics. Music and sports are my thing.

I am so glad you are not like your brother....where did he get that from?!? you and your mom are SO sweet!

Well. I get that from my mom's side of the family. Oh wait...I'm republican and I have 2 gay uncles. OH SHIT.
Honestly...I REALLY DO hate politics. Drives me fucking INSANE. Listening to these dipshits talking about something they know NOTHING about. Dem or Rep...doesn't matter...they're all morons.

ok...I think I'm done now.

ohsherrie wrote:

I think the biggest reason for the changes in the south came about during the Reagan years because of Falwell's Moral Majority BS and the NRA lobby against the Brady bill. In the south it's become almost unchristian not to be republican and the NRA has all the rednecks convinced that the Democrats are going to take all their guns away.

Well, aren't they?!

frank wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

I think the biggest reason for the changes in the south came about during the Reagan years because of Falwell's Moral Majority BS and the NRA lobby against the Brady bill. In the south it's become almost unchristian not to be republican and the NRA has all the rednecks convinced that the Democrats are going to take all their guns away.

Well, aren't they?!

Nah, just the ones that have no purpose other than killing people.