fark is NOT the place for reason and logic. i'm just goofing around. i have reasons for not wanting her to be president.

In short, I don't like what the democratic party stands for, and i'm a pretty much a libertarian - fiscal conservative and social liberal. The 'short answer' here will have to do --- i don't feel like spelling it all out.

fark is for this:

/rabble
/rabble
/rabble

Wild Bluebonnet: Should Colin Powell throw his hat in the ring, there is no beating him.

Reps and Dems will agree.

/momentarily

There was a time I would have agreed with this. But that ship sailed when he gave his presentation to the United Nations. He made himself the poster child for the bad/overhyped/slanted intelligence that led the United States into Iraq.

He might have only done it out of loyalty, but he did it, and now he's splashed with the same Iraq war association that killed any talk of Condi Rice running.

Wild Bluebonnet

What in the hell kind of state puts restrictions on your voting?

Arizona? Don't think so.

I meant places restrictions. I've had a long day with my dog at the vet - he had a taste of the tainted dog food but he's fine - and there are moments my redneck shows through.

/$487.00 at the vet just for him to tell me that my dog's ears are really clean.

//and he's ok, my boy, that is priceless.

Wild Bluebonnet
What in the hell kind of state puts restrictions on your voting?

A closed primary state. There are currently 27 of them (notables include California, New York, Florida, and others, if memory serves), and in a closed primary state, Independents can't vote in either primary (thus, there is good reason to register D or R). In open primary states, I's can vote in one or the other (but not both), so it pays to register I. In AZ, for example, we have a D governor who's pretty popular. So when gubernatorial primaries come up, I vote in the R primary and vote for the worst candidate.

ChadManMn
If these two could get some traction and financing, this country might have something to vote for vs against.

I couldn't agree more. I was pretty elated Richardson's raised as much as he did ($6m, I think). I doubt Paul will be so lucky, but I certainly hope I'm pleasantly surprised.

ChadManMn
If these two could get some traction and financing, this country might have something to vote for vs against.

I couldn't agree more. I was pretty elated Richardson's raised as much as he did ($6m, I think). I doubt Paul will be so lucky, but I certainly hope I'm pleasantly surprised.

$6m would have broken records not long ago. The guy has a chance.

I think the biggest problem with Paul is that he has no executive branch experience, and he comes across as too humble right now. That can all change, but I dont see it happening, thus my idea about a joint ticket between two of the "good guys" from opposing parties.

Either way, learning more about these candidates has made me feel like I do when the Vikings make it past the first round of playoffs, so I'm excited haha.

/'night all

Wild Bluebonnet

Glad your dog is ok. I have a 12 year old White Shepherd and I've been worried about her (not that she's sick, but still).

/ok really leaving now

Letting Clinton and Obama run their course...then...BAM!!!



/Wesley Clark for President.

The reason Bill Richardson is a credible candidate is because he has been a governor (executive experience) and he has a pretty decent track record at it -- in a state where if you cannot reconcile the needs of some pretty wildly divergent socioethnic groups, you will get ridden out of town on a rail. He hasn't batted 1.000 by any means, but he has generally satisfied an electorate comprised of a latino South, a white jet-set Santa Fe and Rio Rancho, a Native American tribal North, and a central valley made up of a mix of those plus a sizable black military and white military population in addition.

Heck, our LAST TWO Presidents governed states more homogenous than that and their citizenry was nowhere near as approving of their performances in either case. If Richardson could do for the country what he has done for NM, despite some of his miscues, the bottom line is that the national condition will improve. He has been tested in hotter fire than Clinton or Bush 43, and has passed the test. Why he is not more popular or well-known is anyone's guess.

Ron Paul, meanwhile, is a senator, and they take hind tit to governors when it comes to electability lately. Paul's main credential is that the intellectual center and the intellectual right, two constituencies who haven't seen a candidate to call their own since *Taft*, are both overwhelmingly satisfied with his positions on the issues, his rational approach to new and existing issues and developments, and his track record firmly grounded in libertarian (small "L"), aka "classic liberal" principles. Friedrich August von Hayek would support Ron Paul without even blinking, if he were alive today, I think, and that should make any voter sit up and take notice.

I knew this image would come in handy someday.

Derp de dur! I meant Ron Paul is a CONGRESSMAN, not a Senator... that's what I get for typing before bed. J is for Jenius, folks.

If you vote for Hillary, teh Chinese winz!!11

/idiots.

AboveTheStarsOfGod:

Wild Bluebonnet
What in the hell kind of state puts restrictions on your voting?

A closed primary state. There are currently 27 of them (notables include California, New York, Florida, and others, if memory serves), and in a closed primary state, Independents can't vote in either primary (thus, there is good reason to register D or R). In open primary states, I's can vote in one or the other (but not both), so it pays to register I. In AZ, for example, we have a D governor who's pretty popular. So when gubernatorial primaries come up, I vote in the R primary and vote for the worst candidate.


Sir, that is farked. You should be able to vote for lizard if you so choose.

Why are you people putting up with this?

Wild Bluebonnet: Why are you people putting up with this?

why do we put up with primaries as their structured in the first place?

my state has yet to have a primary where the de facto candidate was not already selected.

voting only in the primary you're registered for wouldn't bother me at all if the vote actually counted for something.

I just thought of a way Hillary can win:

Clinton/Gore '08. Let the good times roll...AGAIN.

/and Al can still do this environmental stuff
//what? It could work, nostagia for the good days is back in.

heap:

Wild Bluebonnet: Why are you people putting up with this?

why do we put up with primaries as their structured in the first place?

my state has yet to have a primary where the de facto candidate was not already selected.

voting only in the primary you're registered for wouldn't bother me at all if the vote actually counted for something.


Well, if it works for you Heap, you're not going to hear me crying.

Wild Bluebonnet: if it works for you Heap

yes...yes, that's exactly what i said.

Guntram Shatterhand: Clinton/Gore '08. Let the good times roll...AGAIN.

It's my understanding that Al hates the Clintons and would rather set himself on fire than do this.

Also, if Gore was to enter the race, it'd be as the headliner. If Gore runs, Gore wins in the freakin' landslide. He's vastly most popular now than he was in 2000, and a large number of the people who didn't vote for him then think it was a mistake now (ignoring, of course thousands who actually meant to vote for him then but accidentally did not).

2007-04-03 09:23:32 PM BingoBob

"Is it just me or the democrats have the door wide open after the Bush disaster and they are closing it by having either a woman or a black man run for presidency ?

I'm not American and just asking... not passing any judgements. What are the chances a woman could become president ? Wouldn't some random WASP be a better choice?"


I think that following the last two administrations in which females and minorities have held higher offices than ever before, America is actually ready for a female or minority president. I think George Bush II may have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that white males are not always the best choice.

ChadManMn: I'd really like to know what your definition of the midwest is, and whether you've ever ventured off of whichever elitist coast you live on.

Yeah, I came off like a douche.

But I simply don't think Obama can pull it off right now. Obviously, he polls well in Illinois, but elsewhere, he's not in the lead. However, I admit, taking a look at the polls state-by-state, he does pretty well in the midwest, for the most part. I apologize. However, there is a fairly pronounced separation between him and Clinton in the south, which is still a problem for the Demos.

State by state polls:

http://electoral-vote.com/

My dad is an anti-helmet law New Hampshire resident, Vietnam
veteran, bitter divorcee, and all around miserable bastard.

If Hillary won he'd probably have a stroke.

So I'm getting a kick out of these polls.

Fred Thompson or Ron Paul!

/Sick of having either far left or far right in the hot seat.