Question for those who like Obama but not Hillary

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 20, 2008, 5:02 pm

I count myself among this group.

What will you do if Hillary somehow gets the nomination?

I'm unsure at this point. I would probably have supported Hillary if she had won the nomination in a manner which I considered legitimate, which is more or less impossible at this point (so I don't hate her as much as some of you probably do). I would have a real hard time voting for a candidate that I don't think is legitimate, even if I prefer her to McCain, politics-wise. Throw in the fact that there are at least some issues that I prefer McCain to Hillary (and even Obama) on and it'd be tough for me to vote for Hillary.

But, I can't vote for McCain. I promised my mother that I would not vote for a pro-life candidate if she voted for Obama in the primary (she's your classic Hillary supporter-- white Jewish baby boomer who majored in women's studies and then went into women's healthcare). Tomorrow, in the PA primary, she's going to vote for Obama. So I can't vote for McCain.

Right now I'm thinking that I would write in a vote for Obama even if he wasn't on the ballot. Who knows how I might feel in six months.

Others?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » April 20, 2008, 5:27 pm

Write in vote for Obama for sure.

But it will not come to that. I think most people not involved in the grass roots and liberal blogosphere (I'm involved in both) take for granted the amount of power these organizations have. Long term activists of the democratic party will not allow their rightfully elected candidate to be stripped from them by super delegates, and the supers pretty much know if they make such a move they jeopardize their own careers tremendously. Once all the primaries are over and Obama still has a marginal lead in every voting category, any super that overrides the will of the voters by voting for Clinton will be committing political suicide, and most of them know this.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 20, 2008, 6:19 pm

I'll vote for Nader, or not at all.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 20, 2008, 6:28 pm

So far, McCain has to worry about .00134% of the 2,239 VeeshanVault population not voting for him if Hillary gets the nod.

Sueven would make a good politician by demonstrating the ability to make future promises that may not be the wisest choice in order to gain votes for something else. Next step in the process, he'll be promising palaces in Iranamerica to Super Delegates that vote for a particular candidate.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » April 20, 2008, 6:34 pm

I personally doubt it comes to this, but I'd have a bit of a hard time deciding what to do HRC somehow manages to steal the nomination. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter how I vote in the election, because Alabama is too firmly in the hands of the Republican party, and all I can hope to do is help make the state look a little more purple in the cable news graphics. I definitely will not vote for McCain under any circumstances. It's conceivable that I'd just sit it out, because my district's incumbent Republican congressman, Spencer Bachus, is running unopposed for the 5th time since he took office. Our lunatic senator Jeff Sessions will have an opponent this time around, but it's unlikely that the Democratic candidate can get anywhere close to threatening him. If it looks like the Senate race is competitive or if there are ballot measures that are I care about, I'll just cast a protest vote for Nader again. The only way I'll vote for Clinton is if by some miracle it becomes a close race in Alabama, and every vote matters. In that case, I'd have to set my strong dislike for Clinton aside and do what's right.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 20, 2008, 6:41 pm

I pick McCain over Hillary any day. In any other case, it depends on what happens through November.

I take my vote seriously, but I also don't believe it matters much. My state will go Democrat, my vote is for myself. I am a registered Republican, so on Tuesday I'll vote for Ron Paul in the PA closed primary. He had my respect and I still think he's the best choice for America, not like it matters anymore.

I still don't think the President can do as much as they promise... They can't change the world, at least without the agreement of congress... and that's the only reason I could be swayed to a Democrat. I think we need a personable and persuasive speaker who can command respect and even awe, instead of mockery and disgust.

Our whole election process sucks harder than a $5,000 hooker.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » April 20, 2008, 8:29 pm

I will not vote for McCain. However, I would not vote for Hillary. If, for some reason, the privileged delegates make Hillary the nominee instead of Obama, I will not vote Democrat again. That would leave me no options for the rest of my political career, but any party that would so disregard its own voters is no better than the Christian Right and the president they elected, and therefore wouldn't deserve my vote nor anyone else's.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 20, 2008, 9:35 pm

Hard to say really. I used to really like Hilary, but she's shown a really ugly side duriing this campaign. I would still take her over McCain though. Let's hope it dosen't come to that.

Here is an article that summed up my same feelings on Hilary.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/he ... _endo.html

"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past twenty years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

He covered my feelings on Clinton during this campaign. She should've thrown in the towel at least a month ago. Instead, she's tearing the Democratic party apart.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » April 20, 2008, 10:31 pm

I would've picked McCain over Clinton if he hadn't flip-flopped his way into becoming another neocon war hawk.

Now I'd take Clinton over McCain without hesitation. That said, I hope to god Obama wins the nomination and the presidency.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 20, 2008, 10:32 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote: He covered my feelings on Clinton during this campaign. She should've thrown in the towel at least a month ago. Instead, she's tearing the Democratic party apart.

Yet you'd still vote for her. Moron.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 21, 2008, 12:10 am

You think he's a moron for being willing to vote for the person he thinks would make the better president?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 21, 2008, 12:21 am

People don't vote for who they think would be a better president. Very few people put any real thought into it. They vote for people they like or what they think they might personally benefit from. Those who truly vote for the man who would best serve their country as a whole and in the long term, are few.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 21, 2008, 12:34 am

Sueven wrote:You think he's a moron for being willing to vote for the person he thinks would make the better president?

If the most corrupt politician is the best candidate you have a point.I wouldn't want anyone that fucked up near the White House if possible.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 21, 2008, 11:00 am

Winnow wrote:
Sueven wrote:You think he's a moron for being willing to vote for the person he thinks would make the better president?
If the most corrupt politician is the best candidate you have a point.I wouldn't want anyone that fucked up near the White House if possible.

Well, that's your opinion. I happen to think she is the lesser of two evils if it came down to her and McCain.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 21, 2008, 12:32 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Winnow wrote:
Sueven wrote:You think he's a moron for being willing to vote for the person he thinks would make the better president?
If the most corrupt politician is the best candidate you have a point.I wouldn't want anyone that fucked up near the White House if possible.

Well, that's your opinion. I happen to think she is the lesser of two evils if it came down to her and McCain.

1. McCain as a person versus Hillary as a person? McCain
2. McCains 3 decades of experience versus Clintons 3 years. McCain
3. McCains history of disregarding the party line and working on bills with Dems versus the very example of party politicing (Hillary). McCain
4. McCain wants to lower taxes or maintain the current tax cuts in place versus Hillary wanting to expand government and raise taxes. McCain
5. McCain wants to finish things in Iraq and get our troops home versus Hillary wants the same. Tie

Yeah, the lesser of two evils. Ummmmm, right.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » April 21, 2008, 12:37 pm

Write in for Obama or vote for McCain. I'd write in a vote for Winnow before I'd vote for Hillary.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 21, 2008, 12:41 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote: Well, that's your opinion. I happen to think she is the lesser of two evils if it came down to her and McCain.

If nothing else, you know what you're getting with McCain. With Hillary, all you know is that she'll do anything to get what she wants including killing people. With her debt, she's probably making deals like crazy as well.

Watch out for the sniper fire.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 21, 2008, 12:49 pm

Hillary Clinton is a CRIMINAL. The only thing she should be campaigning for is mercy, which she should not get. The Clintons are the most corrupt and disingenuous team in politics. There is more American blood on their hands than on Bush.

How could anyone vote for Hillary... honestly? Would you vote for Charles Manson over McCain, too? Sure the difference is he was convicted of his crimes, she was not... doesn't make her any less heinous.

R.I.P
Vince Foster
Ron Brown
Danny Casoloro
Paul Wilcher
Ed Willke
John Wilson
Kathy Furguson
Jon Parnel Walker
C. Victor Raider II
Ronald Rogers

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » April 21, 2008, 1:06 pm

Fash wrote:Hillary Clinton is a CRIMINAL. The only thing she should be campaigning for is mercy, which she should not get. The Clintons are the most corrupt and disingenuous team in politics. There is more American blood on their hands than on Bush.

How could anyone vote for Hillary... honestly? Would you vote for Charles Manson, too? Sure the difference is he was convicted of his crimes, she was not... doesn't make her any less heinous.

R.I.P
Vince Foster
Ron Brown
Danny Casoloro
Paul Wilcher
Ed Willke
John Wilson
Kathy Furguson
Jon Parnel Walker
C. Victor Raider II
Ronald Rogers

Have you gone off your meds? I can't stand Clinton for a variety of reasons, all of them based on her policy positions, and perceived trustworthiness. I seriously hate you for putting me in a position to defend her, but Jesus Christ, this is the same old, tired and refuted conspiracy pablum that's been pedaled by the Michael Savages, Ann Coulters and Gordon Liddy's of the world for the last 16 years. Get a fucking life.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » April 21, 2008, 1:11 pm

I really enjoy the analogy to Charles Manson, hahaha.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 21, 2008, 1:12 pm

Xatrei wrote:I seriously hate you for putting me in a position to defend her,

Xatrei wrote:this is the same old, tired and refuted conspiracy pablum

Except it fits them, and is more likely true than not. It is hard to comprehend the power that can be achieved through politics. Bill Clinton ran Arkansas like it was his own personal whore-house and piggy-bank all in one.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » April 21, 2008, 1:26 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:4. McCain wants to lower taxes or maintain the current tax cuts in place versus Hillary wanting to expand government and raise taxes. McCain

OK maybe I'm just a crazy foreigner but I look at this statement, that repeatedly pops up, and I go WTF?

You guys have a massive fucking deficit and monstrous debt (in large part because of the Iraqi misadventure but not solely) and its affecting your economy and that of many of the nations that do business with you. If you don't want to raise taxes to deal with your gov'ts overspending, how do you intend to deal with it? Borrow more, increase your deficit and your debt? Downsize your biggest expenditure source, which I believe is your military, and raise your unemployment rate/social service demands by eliminating tax-paying soldiers? I live in the part of Canada that truly embraced gov't spending cuts like no other, and I think its fine if you have that much fat, but do you?

Honestly I see the US as where Canada was in the late 80s/early 90s when the bond raters were writing down our national paper because we had too high a debt load. Economic growth can help that but when you're in the position that you're spending a significant portion of your collected tax revenue, just servicing your debt you need to increase your tax pools, cut your expenses or both. Yeah tax increases suck hard but sometimes you elect retards that leave you no choice but to pay the piper.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 21, 2008, 1:36 pm

Spend smarter. It's really simple. Raising taxes is a bandaid. What they need to do is actually fix the problem not look for the next bandaid. Visually try and picture an arm with about 20 bandaids on top of each other. Silly huh? On the face it looks good. A brand new bandaid, but turn it sideways and look how silly it looks. Take all of them off and look underneaeth. Ewwww.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 21, 2008, 2:31 pm

There's nothing wrong with our economy. There's just more shit to spend our money on than there was 10, 20, 30, 40 plus years ago.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 21, 2008, 2:34 pm

Spang wrote:There's nothing wrong with our economy. There's just more shit to spend our money on than there was 10, 20, 30, 40 plus years ago.

I don't agree there is NOTHING worng with our economy, but you are dead on about how much more shit there is to buy now.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 21, 2008, 2:39 pm

Nothing is probably too strong a word, but it's not as bad as the media reports it to be.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 21, 2008, 2:40 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Spang wrote:There's nothing wrong with our economy. There's just more shit to spend our money on than there was 10, 20, 30, 40 plus years ago.
I don't agree there is NOTHING worng with our economy, but you are dead on about how much more shit there is to buy now.

The only thing I think could be considered wrong with our economy is oil price. It's getting to the point that people CAN'T drive all the time when they need to because they can't afford gas, as opposed to choosing not to because it's expensive. However, I blame the analysts running their mouths and making irresponsible predictions for the price of oil just as much as I blame the oil companies themselves.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 21, 2008, 2:46 pm

I blame limited supply and high demand

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 21, 2008, 2:59 pm

Sueven wrote:I blame limited supply and high demand

I had a longer post typed up but I don't want to derail this thread entirely.. I think saying supply is limited is silly.

I am actually for the government telling oil companies what they can charge us. If they don't want to make the prices reasonable on their own, someone needs to do something.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 21, 2008, 3:09 pm

Preface: Economics is probably the area of politics/policy where I know the least, and that includes oil prices, where I'm fairly ignorant.

I think that supply is limited, but artificially so. This is partially due to artificial restrictions on production in oil-producing nations (so as to maintain larger reserves while still making money due to the higher prices that result from the restricted supply) and by American lack of refining capacity.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 21, 2008, 3:17 pm

Sueven wrote:Preface: Economics is probably the area of politics/policy where I know the least, and that includes oil prices, where I'm fairly ignorant.

I think that supply is limited, but artificially so. This is partially due to artificial restrictions on production in oil-producing nations (so as to maintain larger reserves while still making money due to the higher prices that result from the restricted supply) and by American lack of refining capacity.

That I can agree with. Like I said though I would be all for the government stepping in and telling the oil companies the bullshits over and it's time they take the greed down a few (dozen) notches.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 21, 2008, 3:27 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Spend smarter. It's really simple. Raising taxes is a bandaid. What they need to do is actually fix the problem not look for the next bandaid. Visually try and picture an arm with about 20 bandaids on top of each other. Silly huh? On the face it looks good. A brand new bandaid, but turn it sideways and look how silly it looks. Take all of them off and look underneaeth. Ewwww.

You need a bunch of bandaids to stop the current bleeding as well as a fix.

Luckily for Canada in the 90s both liberal and conservative parties made debt payment a priority and we have been reducing our debt while at the same time growing GDP. National debt went from over 60% of GDP to our current 32% GDP. The USA has been doing the opposite. You are now at ~68% Debt vs GDP.

The republican argument has always been to outgrow the debt burden but that has not happened. Debt has been increasing faster than GDP.

It is a scary scenario if your GDP growth slows. GDP growth is not constant, interest is.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... xpense.htm

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » April 21, 2008, 3:37 pm

a woman will never be capable of being president

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 21, 2008, 3:41 pm

*~*stragi*~* wrote:a woman will never be capable of being president

Now that's a troll. An alternate point of view, as disagreeable as it might be, is not. Learn the difference.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » April 21, 2008, 3:42 pm

any woman is a more capable president than you

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 21, 2008, 3:43 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:a woman will never be capable of being president

Now that's a troll. An alternate point of view, as disagreeable as it might be, is not. Learn the difference.

Oh come on mid, you should know as well as anyone else here to never take anything he say's seriously.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 21, 2008, 3:44 pm

*~*stragi*~* wrote:any woman is a more capable president than you

not your mom she cant even clean my shoes without fucking up

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 21, 2008, 5:48 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:a woman will never be capable of being president

Now that's a troll. An alternate point of view, as disagreeable as it might be, is not. Learn the difference.
Oh come on mid, you should know as well as anyone else here to never take anything he say's seriously.

Ummm, I didn't. That's why I was able to recognize it for the troll it was.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 21, 2008, 6:05 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:a woman will never be capable of being president

Now that's a troll. An alternate point of view, as disagreeable as it might be, is not. Learn the difference.
Oh come on mid, you should know as well as anyone else here to never take anything he say's seriously.

Ummm, I didn't. That's why I was able to recognize it for the troll it was.

I had to make sure, we don't need anyone taking him seriously, it could be dangerous

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » April 21, 2008, 6:08 pm

watch it funk- you upset daddy. good recovery though *kiss kiss*

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 21, 2008, 6:18 pm

cadalano wrote:watch it funk- you upset daddy. good recovery though *kiss kiss*

wow i never knew you were gay

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » April 21, 2008, 8:45 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:any woman is a more capable president than you
not your mom she cant even clean my shoes without fucking up

my mom doesn't clean shoes and i'm not sure why she'd be cleaning yours

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » April 21, 2008, 8:46 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:a woman will never be capable of being president

Now that's a troll. An alternate point of view, as disagreeable as it might be, is not. Learn the difference.
Oh come on mid, you should know as well as anyone else here to never take anything he say's seriously.

Ummm, I didn't. That's why I was able to recognize it for the troll it was.

nice job you are like a message board sherlock holmes but in a bizzaro world where sherlock holmes delivered pizzas and was a huge racist

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » April 21, 2008, 8:48 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
cadalano wrote:watch it funk- you upset daddy. good recovery though *kiss kiss*
wow i never knew you were gay

i would beat you in a fight irl

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » April 21, 2008, 9:06 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
cadalano wrote:watch it funk- you upset daddy. good recovery though *kiss kiss*
i know you are, but what am i?

are you serious?

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » April 21, 2008, 10:22 pm

*~*stragi*~* wrote:
nice job you are like a message board sherlock holmes but in a bizzaro world where sherlock holmes delivered pizzas and was a huge racist

Hahahahaha, that's awesome

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 22, 2008, 7:37 am

*~*stragi*~* wrote: nice job you are like a message board sherlock holmes but in a bizzaro world where sherlock holmes delivered pizzas and was a huge racist

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 22, 2008, 10:57 am

*~*stragi*~* wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:any woman is a more capable president than you
not your mom she cant even clean my shoes without fucking up
my mom doesn't clean shoes and i'm not sure why she'd be cleaning yours

she doesnt have to tell you everything you nosy punk

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 22, 2008, 12:17 pm

Well in all reality, if we would just stop spending any money at all on foreign aid, we would eliminate our debts a shit ton faster than by raising taxes. I would love to see a massive across the board slashing of all government salaries that are above the national median pay. Eliminate most of the perks from Congress entirely, have their pay match the national median plus 10% (serving your country should be a service and not your ticket to big money), hire a private watchdog firm that can audit and dig into every dollar spent in every facet of government. Pay them based on a percentage of money that they save the taxpayers. I could come up with a billion plans to save the country money.....but higher taxes (and high gas prices) reduce the amount of disposable income that fuels the economy of the country. The lower the taxes are, while still bringing in more than we are paying out, the more money being spent by consumers which in turn will bring in MORE $$$$$ from taxes.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » April 22, 2008, 2:57 pm

We are already lacking quality people because a Senator's pay is not equal to what many good candidates can receive in the private sector. Also how would you pay the California or New York guy based on a National Median when costs are significantly higher here.

I make good money living in So Cal, but I make the same amount as our Missouri salesperson. My house here cost me 400,000+ dollars and his cost him 120,000. Are you going to scale Congressional pay?

Your also going to have a hard time convincing someone to have all their skeleton's pulled out of their closet for 45K a year salaries. The National Median HOUSEHOLD income is 40K.

I don't have a problem with their salaries, in most cases they work long hours and do provide a necessary service to our country. Some abuse the power, but that will happen at any pay scale and frankly at lower pay, it may increase the number of congressional members looking for handouts.

There are plenty of other ways to cut costs, Military, social programs, etc, that are running on bloated budget because that was the way they were always run. You could hire that same firm to expediate those processes and get a huge financial savings.