Who will you vote for in the 2008 primary? Options

[pebkac]

Sadly, I had to leave Kucinich out as he's not going to be on the ballot in Texas. Thus, I haven't quite decided who I'm going to vote for.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Jan 22 2008, 11:02 AM

[Spectatrix]

Since I doubt that Ron Paul will be a viable candidate by the time our primary rolls around, probably Barack Obama.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jan 22 2008, 11:13 AM

[impala454]

He might not win, but if Thompson is on a ballot handed to me, he gets my vote.

[Hartmann]

Since I doubt that Ron Paul will be a viable candidate by the time our primary rolls around, probably Barack Obama.

Is there a reason why you'd make the jump from a constitutionalist to a democratic candidate who wants to do just about the opposite as Paul?

Neither Obama nor Clinton look very good and their frenzy during the debate last night gave me a headache. I really wanted to hear what they planned to do, and there was little discussion of it.

[Spectatrix]

Pretty simple, really. I dislike all of the republican candidates other than Paul (well, Thompson may be ok, but he's not a viable candidate either). They're all big government, religious right patsies. Just... no.

Of the democrats, only Obama and Clinton are viable candidates and I will NOT vote for Clinton. The only scenario under which I'd vote for Clinton is if it were her vs. Huckabee in the main election.

I haven't watched the debates recently, but I have read about them, and I agree that the mud-slinging is getting obnoxious.

[impala454]

Pretty simple, really. I dislike all of the republican candidates other than Paul (well, Thompson may be ok, but he's not a viable candidate either). They're all big government, religious right patsies. Just... no.

If you think Thompson is for big government, you have been misinformed big time.

[Spectatrix]

Nah, that's why I said he might be ok.

[jwttu]

If you think Thompson is for big government, you have been misinformed big time.

She's saying that shes considering Thompson because he isnt for big government like all the other major republicans

[impala454]

Oooh I gotcha.

[Spectatrix]

Righto. But I don't think either he or Paul are viable. That might change, though. *shrugs*

[pebkac]

I think I'm going to end up voting for Obama. His healthcare plan is the one I like the best (although I don't think it's the best).

[impala454]

Honestly, I think the only republican that could win the primary and beat Obama is McCain, and even that would be a very close election. I really do think Thompson still has a chance at the primary, but we'll see. Still lots to go.

[Seeker]

Ron Paul/Mike Gravel

[Mommy]

Mike Huckabee/Hillary Clinton





































wouldnt you like to know if I am joking or not

[theIncredibleEdi...]

They all suck....once more, I will be voting for Doctor Who.

[2wolUTT]

McCain.



Who the hell voted Paul?

[impala454]

there's a bunch of Ron Paul supporters on here.

[Spectatrix]

Well scratch the Thompson idea... he withdrew from the race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/?GT1=10757

[theIncredibleEdi...]

Well scratch the Thompson idea... he withdrew from the race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/?GT1=10757

He shoulda stuck with Law & Order

[impala454]

Doh... oh well. Change me to McCain then. Maybe Huckabee... I'll have to do more research now I suppose.

[2wolUTT]

Well scratch the Thompson idea... he withdrew from the race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/?GT1=10757

Damn his wife is a banger.

[blaarg]

Democrat X would be anyone of the Republican candidates.

As long as all of them (excluding Ron Paul) is running on a pro-Iraq War platform, they will never win...

[Hartmann]

Democrat X would be anyone of the Republican candidates.

As long as all of them (excluding Ron Paul) is running on a pro-Iraq War platform, they will never win...

That's a big assumption.

The surge is working yet the Democrats don't really even cover the war in their debates.

[impala454]

Democrat X would be anyone of the Republican candidates.

As long as all of them (excluding Ron Paul) is running on a pro-Iraq War platform, they will never win...

Bush did

[pysex]

i dont' know where my vote is going


ron pual unfortunately doesn't have a chance




my guess is that its going to swing for mccain but romney has a chance

[Psykopath]

i dont' know where my vote is going
ron pual unfortunately doesn't have a chance
my guess is that its going to swing for mccain but romney has a chance

Why Romney, if I may ask?

That guy seems like another Rick Perry to me...

[pysex]

Why Romney, if I may ask?

That guy seems like another Rick Perry to me...

i meant the primary...not my vote

i detest rick perry and anyone that looks like him

but romney has a lot of pull out here

[impala454]

There were rumors on the radio down here that Perry would actually be his running mate if he won the primaries...

[Psykopath]

There were rumors on the radio down here that Perry would actually be his running mate if he won the primaries...

Oh motherfucking hell, that would be HORRIBLE.

But it would guarantee a loss for them.

[pysex]

There were rumors on the radio down here that Perry would actually be his running mate if he won the primaries...

yeah if romney wants to behead his campaign

[impala454]

Hey don't shoot the messenger... just doin the right thing, passin the rumor along

[pebkac]

yeah if romney wants to behead his campaign

You say that like he hasn't done that already.

[chook]

i'd vote ron paul, but I registered democrat, so probably Hillary.

[Spectatrix]

What state are you in?

[blaarg]

Bush did

That was four years ago when the war was just starting to turn sour.
Four years later with everything we know now that we didn't know during the 2004 election and with close to a 70% opposition rate with over 60% saying we need withdrawal within the year, I think anyone running on a pro-War ticket has no chance, imho.

[impala454]

The war had been going on for nearly two years when Bush won his second election. There was still nearly the same amount of troops there, and still melodramatic Bush hating reporters posting the death count every day.

And nobody is running their race on a "pro-war" ticket. That's a terribly simplified way to put the subject. You make it sound like any candidate who doesn't say they'll bring all the troops home on inauguration day is hell bent on keeping the war going the whole time they're in office.

[pebkac]

The war had been going on for nearly two years when Bush won his second election. There was still nearly the same amount of troops there, and still melodramatic Bush hating reporters posting the death count every day.

And nobody is running their race on a "pro-war" ticket. That's a terribly simplified way to put the subject. You make it sound like any candidate who doesn't say they'll bring all the troops home on inauguration day is hell bent on keeping the war going the whole time they're in office.

Well, there's a pretty much direct relationship between support for a war and number of soldiers lost. The higher the number, the less likely people are to support a war. Thus, a candidate who takes a pro-war stance is less likely to be supported now than during the 2004 election.

Regarding candidates running on a pro-war ticket, I do partially agree with you that the situation is over-simplified. However, there are candidates that are making the argument that the war was initially justified and I do think that for the reasons mentioned above they will definitely be punished for it at the ballot box.

At any rate, I believe that the country has soured for the time being on the Republican party due to Bush (whether that's fair or not). I'm pretty sure that whoever wins the Democratic primary will likely be our next president unless:

1) They're just a terrible candidate or
2) Someone VERY charismatic wins the Republican primary

While #1 is definitely possible considering the Democratic party's history (John Kerry anyone?), the three front runners are all very good politicians and I don't see that happening. If the Republican nominee turns out to be the next Ronald Reagan, I could see #2 happening, but I don't see anyone on the Republican ticket that's capable of that.

DISCLAIMER: Although I'm a liberal, I'm not making this post to advocate the Democrats over the Republicans. That's just my analysis of the 2008 election.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Jan 24 2008, 11:49 AM

[impala454]

Again though, nobody is taking a "pro-war" stance. It's whether they want to finish the job, or just leave the place hanging and bring everyone home early. And it looks as though the war has been going well lately, as I haven't heard a peep about it on the news in a long time. Honestly, I don't think the war is the issue that makes or breaks this election.

[jwttu]

right now the economy is getting more attention than the war

[blaarg]

Again though, nobody is taking a "pro-war" stance. It's whether they want to finish the job, or just leave the place hanging and bring everyone home early. And it looks as though the war has been going well lately, as I haven't heard a peep about it on the news in a long time. Honestly, I don't think the war is the issue that makes or breaks this election.

pro-War=for the War
All Republican candidates (minus Ron Paul of course) have stated that they support (synonym=for) the War in Iraq.
I don't see this as an oversimplification. I see it as an appropriate label.

The statement of them wanting to "finish the job" is just doublespeak.

And it's sad that the War isn't the issue that makes or breaks the election because of how it effects other aspects of this country...

[Spectatrix]

Kucinich is out. CNN breaking news.

[Psykopath]

Kucinich is out. CNN breaking news.

lolz

[Spectatrix]

lolz

Kucinich is out officially. Better?

[impala454]

pro-War=for the War
All Republican candidates (minus Ron Paul of course) have stated that they support (synonym=for) the War in Iraq.
I don't see this as an oversimplification. I see it as an appropriate label.

It is oversimplification. you seem to think that bringing home all the troops immediately is the only way it will end well.

The statement of them wanting to "finish the job" is just doublespeak.

And calling a candidate "Pro-war" isn't? Sure sounds bad to me.

And it's sad that the War isn't the issue that makes or breaks the election because of how it effects other aspects of this country...

So if Hilary wins and brings the troops home, she wont fuck up my healthcare? Or tax the shit out of me so illegal mexican kids can go to school for free? I fail to see the correlation.

[2wolUTT]

[pebkac]

Again though, nobody is taking a "pro-war" stance.

Doesn't mean the American public won't see them as having a pro war stance though.

[pysex]

please don't elect the shedemon

[Mommy]

Or tax the shit out of me so illegal mexican kids can go to school for free? I fail to see the correlation.

You complain in one thread about the $600 we are getting back, but then you complain about dems taxing the hell out of us. just seems odd. I mean, I dont know what my stance is on either, but I like getting money back and i like not having to pay a whole lot in the first place. just an observation. dont hurt me

[chook]

What state are you in?

AZ

[impala454]

Doesn't mean the American public won't see them as having a pro war stance though.

You give the American public way more credit than I do then.

[impala454]

You complain in one thread about the $600 we are getting back, but then you complain about dems taxing the hell out of us. just seems odd. I mean, I dont know what my stance is on either, but I like getting money back and i like not having to pay a whole lot in the first place. just an observation. dont hurt me

Haha no worries.. but how is it odd? The $600 isn't a tax refund, it's a free handout. A handout to include those who didn't pay taxes. If the democrats wanted my vote they'd simply have modified the standard deduction in such a way that everyone got $600 more back towards their tax refund. But the American public is brainwashed into thinking that tax cuts are bad and only help rich people.

[pebkac]

You give the American public way more credit than I do then.

You may be right. I guess we'll just have to see in the general election.

[impala454]

How would the outcome of the election determine your credit of the general public's intelligence?

[pebkac]

How would the outcome of the election determine your credit of the general public's intelligence?

I was talking more along the lines of our opposing ideas of who is likely to win the election.

[impala454]

How did you get my idea of who is going to win the election based on our discussion of people's views of the various semantics used to portray a candidate as being a warmonger?

[blaarg]

I've obviously missed something in the past two months because Impala went from being afk to back to his usual form...

[Melanie]

i'm a huge obama fan... although i do love mike gravel as well.

and btw, gravel will not be on the texas deocratic primary ballot.

and that $600 will eventually get back to the government by some form of tax, how else are they going to pay for it.

[theIncredibleEdi...]

Giuliani and Edwards are both about to drop out of the race.

[Spectatrix]

Jesus Christ... and Giuliani is planning to endorse McCain.

[impala454]

Jesus Christ... and Giuliani is planning to endorse McCain.

Just my wild guess, but I'd bet the farm that Giuliani will be McCain's running mate.

[Spectatrix]

That would be weird, but I'd vote for them over Clinton (probably not over Obama, though).

I could see Edwards *maybe* being a running mate for Obama, especially if he endorses him in the future (he's making no endorsement now), but not for Hillary.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jan 30 2008, 10:16 AM

[Dogmeat]

people who vote for republicans or democrats are idiots.

we need to be voting christian fundamentalists into office.....

[Spectatrix]

people who vote for republicans or democrats are idiots.

we need to be voting christian fundamentalists into office.....

I'll vote for Jerry Falwell.

[Melanie]

my family is pretty split. my brother, dad, aunts and i are all barack supporters. my mom and grandparents are hillary suppoters. we are trying to win over my mom. our whole family was in love with bill until the remarks about barack came out. now we just are luke warm about him.

i don't think i could ever vote for a republican.

we choose not to discuss this issue but to pay attention to the u.s. senate race.

speaking of which, anyone in the south texas or san antonio area, rick noriega for u.s. senate is hosting an open house for our san antonio tonight at 6. food and music. the colonel wll be there too.

[impala454]

the colonel wll be there too.

Oh is he bringin the food?!?

[impala454]

looks like arnold is backing mccain:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5502478.html

LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed Sen. John McCain in the Republican presidential race today, praising him as an "extraordinary leader" who can reach across the political aisle to get things done.

At a news conference, Schwarzenegger said McCain has the national security credentials to do the job, and is a "crusader against wasteful spending."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani also attended the event, one day after he dropped out of the race and threw his support behind his longtime friend.

Interesting that giuliani was there too... I'm still thinkin he will run as mccain's VP.

[James]

Wow. Ann Coulter just endorsed Clinton on Hannity and Colmes. What a loony.

[impala454]

lol.... more reasons hillary sucks

[blaarg]

Wow. Ann Coulter just endorsed Clinton on Hannity and Colmes. What a loony.

That's interesting considering that she said a women's right to vote should be revoked if they voted for Hillary about 6 months back. She is fucking stupid.

As for McCain/Giulliani ticket (which is inevitable), we'll be going into Iran by March 2009...

[impala454]

As for McCain/Giulliani ticket (which is inevitable), we'll be going into Iran by March 2009...

So you don't think Obama would go to Iran either? Or are you gonna go hippie on us like Lance and just assume that all war is bad and avoidable?

[pebkac]

So you don't think Obama would go to Iran either? Or are you gonna go hippie on us like Lance and just assume that all war is bad and avoidable?

It would have to take a big event for me to support us going to war with Iran. Unfortunately, we're just spread to thin at the present moment being in Iraq.

[impala454]

A big event such as?

[Seeker]

So you don't think Obama would go to Iran either? Or are you gonna go hippie on us like Lance and just assume that all war is bad and avoidable?

Geez dude, when did I ever say all war is bad and avoidable? War is necessary in certain situations such as when we are in danger of being attacked or have been attacked.

Iraq didn't attack us, Iraq was no threat whatsoever to us, yet we invaded a country that didn't want us there.

[pebkac]

A big event such as?

I dunno. Them attacking US soldiers, launching some kind of attack against the US.

[impala454]

Geez dude, when did I ever say all war is bad and avoidable? War is necessary in certain situations such as when we are in danger of being attacked or have been attacked.

Iraq didn't attack us, Iraq was no threat whatsoever to us, yet we invaded a country that didn't want us there.

So what would you say if there was intelligence currently showing Iran was building an arsenal of nuclear weapons?

[Mommy]

I think it's funny that Maria Shriver is publicly supporting Obama, but her husband Arnold The Governator (cuz Im not about to try to spell his last name) is supporting McCain

[pebkac]

So what would you say if there was intelligence currently showing Iran was building an arsenal of nuclear weapons?

I would argue that the mistake was attacking Iraq instead of Iran.

[Spectatrix]

I think it's funny that Maria Shriver is publicly supporting Obama, but her husband Arnold The Governator (cuz Im not about to try to spell his last name) is supporting McCain

Married folks can't support different candidates?

[Mommy]

Married folks can't support different candidates?

It's not that they support different candidates. Her husband is the REPUBLICAN governor of California. She is from a strong Democratic family. I just think it's funny. You don't have to. I do though. I'm not saying HEY CHRISTINE.... MARRIED FOLKS GOTTA LIKE THE SAME CANDIDATES. Im saying that they are supporting different parties, and one of them has quite a bit of sway in the government.

[Spectatrix]

No no, you MUST be saying MARRIED FOLKS GOTTA LIKE THE SAME CANDIDATES! There's NO WAY you'd find it funny otherwise.

</sarcasm>

[impala454]

I would argue that the mistake was attacking Iraq instead of Iran.

So just to make sure I understand you correctly:

If intelligence surfaced today that Iran is building nuclear weapons, you would support going to war with them?