Hillary won't get the nomination

Damocles said:
I didn't say that at all. In fact, I stated that she is a long shot from socialism.

This is more of your belief that every person fits into a special box that you can discern from voter registrations. If I have an "R" by my name it means I think Hillary is a socialist. I don't. I think her spending policies are even worse than Bush's, that does not mean that I think she is a socialist.

Try and snap yourself out of the box of prejudice and assumed belief and actually read a post or two of mine ocassionally...

;)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I don't have the time! lol
 
Onceler said:
I'd LOVE it if a 3rd party could actually be competitive in America.

The fact is, 3rd parties continue to lose ground in the days of the billion dollar campaign. They're pure fantasy at this point.

I'd be just as effective writing in a vote for Gore, even if he's not running. It's useless. Voting 3rd party is a cocktail party vote, so you can say "I didn't vote for either of those losers..."
Click to expand...
They are only "fantasy" because so many say, "It is a waste of a vote to vote third party."

You've fallen for the mantra. Stop it.
 
Onceler said:
I'd LOVE it if a 3rd party could actually be competitive in America.

The fact is, 3rd parties continue to lose ground in the days of the billion dollar campaign. They're pure fantasy at this point.
Click to expand...

It's the fault of groupthink morons who all view third party votes as a waste. If everyone who thought thought about voting 3rd party actually did, then they would be viable, if not dominant.

I hope Hillary starts a war with Iran and you have to sit here defending it or regretting it for the next four years.
 
Onceler said:
I'd LOVE it if a 3rd party could actually be competitive in America.

The fact is, 3rd parties continue to lose ground in the days of the billion dollar campaign. They're pure fantasy at this point.

I'd be just as effective writing in a vote for Gore, even if he's not running. It's useless. Voting 3rd party is a cocktail party vote, so you can say "I didn't vote for either of those losers..."
Click to expand...

Well, for some people it is, yes. Usually we call them "libertarians". And greens.

I basically feel the same way, but everyone has a point they can pushed up to, and she's pushed me past mine.
 
Damocles said:
They are only "fantasy" because so many say, "It is a waste of a vote to vote third party."

You've fallen for the mantra. Stop it.
Click to expand...


Sorry; I deal in reality. My changing my attitude about that reality, and believing something that isn't true, ain't gonna change things one iota...
 
Onceler said:
Sorry; I deal in reality. My changing my attitude about that reality, and believing something that isn't true, ain't gonna change things one iota...
Click to expand...
Instead you perpetuate the myth and project it on others. Calling them insane for voting how they believe. They should hold their nose and vote for the "lesser evil". No matter how you look at that, you are voting for evil.
 
Warren said:
It's the fault of groupthink morons who all view third party votes as a waste. If everyone who thought thought about voting 3rd party actually did, then they would be viable, if not dominant.

I hope Hillary starts a war with Iran and you have to sit here defending it or regretting it for the next four years.
Click to expand...


The point is, that everyone doesn't do that. It's fantasy to think they will, and you're deluding yourself if you think they will. As I said - third parties are losing ground, not gaining.

Personally, I hope no one starts a war with Iran. I know that I will not defend it if they do.
 
Damocles said:
I just think people are delusional if they think she isn't a neocon.
Click to expand...

I think she's a hawkish, centrist Dem. You and superfreak I believe are on record saying she faking being a centrist, and will govern as a liberal lefty.

Which time were you right? ;)

Being a hawkish Dem, in my book, is not the same as being a Paul Wolfowitz, a Dick Cheney, or a John Podoretz.

Hillary is too hawkish for my taste. But, to put her in the same category as Paul Wolfowitz, is the rhetorical equivalent of those republicans who are proclaming that even if bush fucked up by invading iraq, that "Gore and Democrats would have done the same"
 
Cypress said:
I think she's a hawkish, centrist Dem. You and superfreak I believe are on record saying she faking being a centrist, and will govern as a liberal lefty.

Which time were you right? ;)

Being a hawkish Dem, in my book, is not the same as being a Paul Wolfowitz, a Dick Cheney, or a John Podoretz.

Hillary is too hawkish for my taste. But, to put her in the same category as Paul Wolfowitz, is the rhetorical equivalent of those republicans who are proclaming that even if bush fucked up by invading iraq, that "Gore and Democrats would have done the same"
Click to expand...
Give me a link to me saying she is a lefty.

Please.

I would say she is more left than her hubby.
 
Nobody knows what kind of President Hillary would be except Hillary.

You are gambling with the country's future pulling the lever for a calculating, unprincipled hack because you think 3rd parties are a "waste" of a good vote.
 
I think it's safe to say that most Nader voters chose not to "hold their nose," and stuck with principle.

Bravo, Nader voters. Now, we have over a million refugees, over 100,000 dead, many more wounded and are in up past our eyeballs in the Middle East, probably for many years.

Sometimes, the lesser of 2 evils is just that...
 
Onceler said:
I think it's safe to say that most Nader voters chose not to "hold their nose," and stuck with principle.

Bravo, Nader voters. Now, we have over a million refugees, over 100,000 dead, many more wounded and are in up past our eyeballs in the Middle East, probably for many years.

Sometimes, the lesser of 2 evils is just that...
Click to expand...

Yeah that's all Nader's fault.

We've clearly found an area where your views are beyond Dano-ridiculous.
 
Warren said:
Yeah that's all Nader's fault.

We've clearly found an area where your views are beyond Dano-ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Please. If 600 Nader voters in Florida think in terms of REALITY and not in terms of FANTASY, we are not in Iraq right now.

That's a pretty big difference. What did they accomplish, again? Which of Nader's principles have been advanced over the past 8 years?
 
Onceler said:
I think it's safe to say that most Nader voters chose not to "hold their nose," and stuck with principle.

Bravo, Nader voters. Now, we have over a million refugees, over 100,000 dead, many more wounded and are in up past our eyeballs in the Middle East, probably for many years.

Sometimes, the lesser of 2 evils is just that...
Click to expand...

Well, yeah that's the thing.

I wouldn't do it if I lived in Florida.

And Damo, you are just hounding people here to vote third party, because when push comes to shove you'd rather have ANY Republican than any Democrat, and the only way the R's win is if the D party splits, and you know it and I know it, and probably everyone here knows it, so give me a break ok? :)
 
He showed the Democrats that they have to offer more than not being Republicans to win an election these days.

If that's not progress to you then we don't have anything further to discuss.
 
Warren said:
Yeah that's all Nader's fault.

We've clearly found an area where your views are beyond Dano-ridiculous.
Click to expand...


No a lot of liberabls blame Nadar, and then there are those who don't, and those who don't can get very nasty about those who do.

I am one of the ones who do blame him. He's a liar, first of all! He promised he wouldn't campaign in swing states, but he did exactly that. He's broken campaign finance laws, he's an egotist.

Fuck Ralph Nadar.
 
Darla said:
Well, yeah that's the thing.

I wouldn't do it if I lived in Florida.

And Damo, you are just hounding people here to vote third party, because when push comes to shove you'd rather have ANY Republican than any Democrat, and the only way the R's win is if the D party splits, and you know it and I know it, and probably everyone here knows it, so give me a break ok? :)
Click to expand...

Lol and you'd clearly rather have a Democrat. I'd rather have a system in which we have 4 or 5 significant parties and no single one ever achieve majority on its own.
 
Warren said:
He showed the Democrats that they have to offer more than not being Republicans to win an election these days.

If that's not progress to you then we don't have anything further to discuss.
Click to expand...

He showed hundreds of thousands to their early, and eternal graves.

That's what he showed.

Don't get me started on Ralph Nadar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top