Hillary v. McCain: Don't be shy, take the poll

[lew]

Originally Posted by Grouch

Except every instance in American history were there has been a major 3rd party, they spoiled it. Go figure.

Like how the Republicans spoiled the Whig Party?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by bheld

I don't think Hillary will get the nomination anyway because it would yet again represent a shift away from the grassroots and toward the party establishment. They know better than to do it so obviously this time. Obama may or may not be in their pocket but it's a step in the right direction. At least some sort of rejection of the past actions of the party is involved.

I don't know if they're smart enough to not support her. Every political logic I can come up with right now says Hillary is not the best choice for the Democratic Party in 08. She may be a solid choice for liberals, but not the best choice if the party solely wishes to regain the White House. Your post assumes that liberals are going to do what's best for their party, and not what they would like to see happen. I'm not so sure that's going to happen. I guess we'll find out as we get closer to elections.

Personally I'm tired of the Bushs and the Clintons. I am also not looking forward to the Clinton family drama continuing to take over our politics in our nation.

Editing my post because it came off wrong. The they're I just italicized in the first sentence does not encompass all liberals or Hillary supporters. It was in reference to the "they" in bheld's second sentence of the quote I posted.

[goldenponderbob]

I've always thought Hill would follow Bill at some point, and her timing so far has been perfect.

I don't think Bill would have ever been president without her pushing him along. The movie Primary Colors, I'm told (really about her) perfectly captures her personality and savvy of the process. From her point of view, it has been about her, not Bill, since the beginning. Remember, the entire Paula Jones thing really happened! That's the real Bill! They are about as married as Lucy was to Desi (top hornydude of his day). Bill and Hill have had a mutual assistance pact and professional partnership, powered primarily by the most driven woman since Lucy built Desilu to keep her philandering partner busy.

Hill is now primed and ready for what she has groomed herself for since her parents sent her off to college. McCain gives Hill her best shot at winning. That could have something to do with why he's doing so well right now.

Some might recall ironically, that she came to national prominence as a young attorney working against RMN whose committee was trying to steer events in favor of whichever opponent would be easist to beat in 72'.

Nobody had better accuse her of not paying attention.

McCain has no genuine support base except among middle of the road and left leaning republicans. That may not be a large enough group to carry even the reddest state. Anti-Hillary people could help, but I don't think they'll bother coming out in sufficient numbers to matter.

But take heart, the news will be so much fun to follow each day we may not miss not having money in our pockets or affordable fuel for our cars.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Yes, because Bush's failed policies all are Nader's fault.


Just like when the Republicans say that all of Clinton's failed policies are Perot's fault.

If they're talking about 96 they're wrong, if they're talking about 92 the polls are iffy about who'd support who

But your principle is right: Roosevelt is to blame for Wilson's policies

However there is no serious doubt that out of the significant number of voters that went Nader in Florida, enough would have went to Gore

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by bheld

You don't get change if your vote gets taken for granted. I'm not surprised members of the current establishment were pissed off. They thought they had a free ride and discovered that they can't ignore some of their supporters while they run off trying to appeal to the wealthy and special interests.

The Democrats ran a terrible campaign in 2000, just like they did in 2004. They pussyfooted around, looked ambivalent, and lost to the worst president we've ever had TWICE. You can't blame the voters any more than an ugly girl can blame the judges for losing the beauty contest.

Your game analogies show the flaw...this is not a game

4000 Americans are dead, and it's because Al Gore wasn't elected, whoever didn't vote for him has to live with that

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Your game analogies show the flaw...this is not a game

4000 Americans are dead, and it's because Al Gore wasn't elected, whoever didn't vote for him has to live with that

The only problem with this post is the fact that in reality you actually have no idea what Gore would or wouldn't have done. There could have been less death or much more death, it's a what if.

[Thorgrim]

To other people, I'll make this point again, so be prepared to hear it the next 10 months

"the next 4 years" were always important, and people weren't lying to you

But my god, i've asked you people how many times to read Thomas's and Alito's opinions on the power of the executive...Roberts has pretty much backed them up, but not talked as crazy, and Scalia...don't even get me started

That's 4 judges who are on the verge of giving the government the right to declare you, yes you, an "enemy" and you're sent to a secret prison for the rest of your life without ever having contact with the outside world

why? maybe some asshole was hitting on your girl/sister and you told him to mind his manners and he got pissed and took your name down and turns out he's a cop, he goes and puts your name down as some danger and bam your in some secret prison

that's the kind of world you want to live in because you're so purist...a world with NO right to privacy and NO right to justice

I could see some of you sitting on a hill, watching americans and nazis battle it out for europe, and going "I can't root for the Americans, they've got segregation, I'm going to wait for something better to come, I'm not going to compromise my morals"

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

The only problem with this post is the fact that in reality you actually have no idea what Gore would or wouldn't have done. There could have been less death or much more death, it's a what if.

You want to rationlize it by saying "who knows, maybe AL GORE would have invaded Iraq and kept us there for 5 years" go right ahead

maybe you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul, ever, because turns his tax cuts lets some maniac have enough money to buy a gun and he shoots your family

Doesn't that sound really god damn stupid? So does saying "Al Gore could have caused more death and destruction than George Bush"

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You want to rationlize it by saying "who knows, maybe AL GORE would have invaded Iraq and kept us there for 5 years" go right ahead

maybe you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul, ever, because turns his tax cuts lets some maniac have enough money to buy a gun and he shoots your family

Doesn't that sound really god damn stupid? So does saying "Al Gore could have caused more death and destruction than George Bush"

I find it disgusting that you would pin the deaths of Americans on people not voting for Al Gore. Also two can play this twisted game:
Reducing CO2 emissions won't work, will hurt the poor
This is what Al Gore has been advocating...

Approximately 1.6 million poverty-stricken people (mostly women and children) die every year due to respiratory diseases caused by indoor cooking fires which use wood or, more commonly, dung. The solution? Inexpensive fossil fuel energy. Until alternative technology is developed, decades away at minimum, the only hope these poor have is for the West, out of simple compassion, to help them gain access to sources of energy that will enable them to cook, purify their water, and heat their homes without killing themselves in the process.

In other words, draconian, government-imposed reductions in carbon emissions will be devastating for the poor as well as ineffective in reducing global warming. Higher energy costs will slow economic growth, reduce productivity, and increase the cost of all goods, including the food, shelter, clothing and medical care most essential to the poor.

By denying the poor access to inexpensive energy, we bind them in poverty and to indigenous and traditional lifestyles which turn their communities into little more than "human game preserves," as Leon Louw puts it.

George Bush can't hold a candle to the turmoil people like Al Gore are keeping Africa in due to regulation. Millions of Africans are dead because they don't have access to efficient and cheap energy and people like Al Gore encourage that scenario to save the environment.

[Thorgrim]

This article isn't talking about Kyoto, and Kyoto is the only thing out there right now so...

You're going to have to take another swing

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You want to rationlize it by saying "who knows, maybe AL GORE would have invaded Iraq and kept us there for 5 years" go right ahead

maybe you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul, ever, because turns his tax cuts lets some maniac have enough money to buy a gun and he shoots your family

Doesn't that sound really god damn stupid? So does saying "Al Gore could have caused more death and destruction than George Bush"

You don't like playing the what if game, yet you're playing it with Gore. Suppose that Bush was right (I don't think he was) and by making the battlefield Iraq that prevented more attacks on U.S. soil, and had we not gone into Iraq there had been another terror attack in the U.S. that killed thousands more. I don't think that would've happened, but it is definitely a valid what if. Gore's inaction could've been responsible for thousands more dead.

Or a more realistic what if, after 9/11 Gore had poured energy into hunting down bin Laden and al Qaeda and in the process more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers died.

We can play the what if game all day, the fact of the matter is that you saying Gore being president would have resulted in less death is in itself nothing but a shot-in-the-dark guess.

[Rouger2]

John Sidney just call me a anti Hillary man.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

You don't like playing the what if game, yet you're playing it with Gore. Suppose that Bush was right (I don't think he was) and by making the battlefield Iraq that prevented more attacks on U.S. soil, and had we not gone into Iraq there had been another terror attack in the U.S. that killed thousands more. I don't think that would've happened, but it is definitely a valid what if. Gore's inaction could've been responsible for thousands more dead.

Or a more realistic what if, after 9/11 Gore had poured energy into hunting down bin Laden and al Qaeda and in the process more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers died.

We can play the what if game all day, the fact of the matter is that you saying Gore being president would have resulted in less death is in itself nothing but a shot-in-the-dark guess.

Because your scenarios are all a million to one...Democrats were clamoring for military action before Bush even said there was going to be an invasion of Afghanistan...so "inaction" from Gore, who lived in the White House when Clinton bombed terrorists and sent troops to Kosovo...was not a man of inaction

And Afghanistan was secure, the idea of losing more troops by putting more into a country where the Taliban was routed is just silly

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by lew

Like how the Republicans spoiled the Whig Party?

The Whigs were dead before the Republicans could spoil anything. Nice try though. However if you could make the reverse argument for the election of 1856. But you don't seem to know what you're talking about anyways so why bother.

Like how the Liberty Party pulled votes from the Whigs in 1844

Like how the Democrats split on sectional line and got Lincoln elected in 1860

Like how the Prohibition or Greenback Parties all helped Garfield be elected in 1880

Or like Perot did in 1992 and Green party did in 2000.



Learn to make point, these whittless remarks just make you sound foolish.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Grouch

The Whigs were dead before the Republicans could spoil anything. Nice try though. However if you could make the reverse argument for the election of 1856. But you don't seem to know what you're talking about anyways so why bother.

Like how the Liberty Party pulled votes from the Whigs in 1844

Like how the Democrats split on sectional line and got Lincoln elected in 1860

Like how the Prohibition or Greenback Parties all helped Garfield be elected in 1880

Or like Perot did in 1992 and Green party did in 2000.



Learn to make point, these whittless remarks just make you sound foolish.

I agree on all of those except 1992...I really think after 16 years of the GOP, the recession...all those people voting for a prochoice candidate (perot) would have at least split evenly for Clinton

[garbagemanlb]

Can't vote for a Republican, and can't vote for her. Third party.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Grouch

The Whigs were dead before the Republicans could spoil anything. Nice try though. However if you could make the reverse argument for the election of 1856. But you don't seem to know what you're talking about anyways so why bother.

Like how the Liberty Party pulled votes from the Whigs in 1844

Like how the Democrats split on sectional line and got Lincoln elected in 1860

Like how the Prohibition or Greenback Parties all helped Garfield be elected in 1880

Or like Perot did in 1992 and Green party did in 2000.



Learn to make point, these whittless remarks just make you sound foolish.

oh

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by lew

oh

I'm a little surprised you were even able to sputter that out.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Then why did he get so much support from groups that wanted a Republican elected?


Follow the money. Why would these groups give money to him unless they had