I honestly hope...

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:12 pm

That Hillary makes a comeback and wins the nomination. Not that it will matter since I won't be voting for a Republican either, but her or Obama scare the hell out of me as President and she'd be an easy defeat for the R's, who even though I won't vote for, I feel more comfortable in.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:15 pm

bassjones wrote:That Hillary makes a comeback and wins the nomination. Not that it will matter since I won't be voting for a Republican either, but her or Obama scare the hell out of me as President and she'd be an easy defeat for the R's, who even though I won't vote for, I feel more comfortable in.

Know where you're comin from.....

tis a paradox indeed.

poopstains · Post by **poopstains** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:35 pm

If Obama wins he will be a hard one to beat, I find my self sitting saying hey I could vote for this guy, then I slap my self and come back to reality.

deek · Post by **deek** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:43 pm

Which is why I dislike having a two-party democracy. I mean, why must our country's vote basically come down to voting between 2 people and anyone else, is pretty much a joke? I know there are multiple candidates that are qualified and able to win the presidency, but we get slanted to choosing between just a couple (sometimes three or four).

I think its just ridiculous. Especially in the technological world of today. Why can't we have a choice of more than 2 or 3?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:52 pm

You always have a choice of more than that, but we seem to buy into the mindset that only of those two has a legit chance to win, so people vote the one the dislike the least to ensure the other one doesn't get it. Not me. Not anymore. I'm voting Libertarian. Vote Green if you want, vote socialist for all I care. Vote for the American Nazi party if you so desire. Vote for the candidate from any one of a number of "3rd party" candidates. Maybe we can change things, or maybe the 2 ruling parties will see that people are tired of their horseshit when they get less and less of the vote. I'm actually coming around to the side of getting rid of the electoral college and going straight popular vote, but only if there is a stipulation that the winning candidate has to win a particular percentage of the vote. That would really open the doors for more candidates.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:43 pm

â€¢The two parties we have now have not always been the parties we had in the past. The Republicans especially were a fringe party at first.

â€¢If you get rid of the Electoral College, then candidates just have to buy everyone a steak dinner in the top 6 metropolitan areas of the US, and ignore rural/small towns entirely. They will get enough votes in the 6 big cities to win.

â€¢ A better reform would be the National Bonus plan, which would give the winner of the popular vote an additional 102 electoral votes.

Oliver's Army · Post by **Oliver's Army** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:49 pm

So Jones, You would rather see Hillary win *JUST* in hopes that a Repulican (no matter who) *could* win?

Even if there is a (democratic) candidate who is capable of real change?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:32 pm

not all change is good change. moving ever so closer to full on socialism is not a good change IMHO. Universal health care is not a good change IMHO. Having someone as President who knows nothing about foreign affairs is not a good change IMHO, especially not right now. I can't stand any of the current candidates for either party. The two closest to ideal for me are Hunter and Paul, and neither of them have a chance of winning the Republican nomination. Barack Obama would be disastrous for this country. Hillary might be worse.

Oliver's Army · Post by **Oliver's Army** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:23 pm

Disastrous for *your* country, perhaps.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:28 pm

look, if people want european style socialism they should move to western europe. as one of the last few remaining capitalist (barely) societies on earth, I think we should remain that way. It's a great country, and the only thing making it worse is this trend toward socialism.

Post by **cwallace** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:32 pm

I would rather risk have Obama in office than even the THOUGHT of Hillary winning and making it in there...

I honestly have to rethink A LOT of things if that b*tch makes it anywhere NEAR the white house...

It is bad enough that she is even IN politics...she is miserable, worthless, thoughtless, good for nothing wench with no redeeming qualities whatsoever...

Bite your tongue bassjones...the THOUGHT of you hoping she gets the nod makes me cringe...

Chris

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:39 pm

so, tell me what's so much better about obama? and don't give me "change". he's further left than she is and both of them would be quite comfortable running for office in france, switzerland, finland or holland.

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:58 pm

bassjones wrote:not all change is good change. moving ever so closer to full on socialism is not a good change IMHO. Universal health care is not a good change IMHO. Having someone as President who knows nothing about foreign affairs is not a good change IMHO, especially not right now. I can't stand any of the current candidates for either party. The two closest to ideal for me are Hunter and Paul, and neither of them have a chance of winning the Republican nomination. Barack Obama would be disastrous for this country. Hillary might be worse.

So GW knew a lot about Foreign affairs? Eh? Wasn't he just a Governor? Well, I guess his dad did help coordinate Iran Contra, and assisted in methodical take downs of fascists, so he probably picked up a little bit. Sure, the guys in his cabinet and father's cronies have a lot of experience...but how is that working out? I believe Obama even said it best when confronted about his lack of experience...just look at the Bush administration with all their experience and their follies. Christ, that OSU coach has all kinds of National Championship coaching experience and OSU isn't doing so hot.

Hutnick · Post by **Hutnick** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:00 am

bassjones wrote:look, if people want european style socialism they should move to western europe.

I don't remember what part of the constitution that says the people cannot elect a socialist? I must have slept in Gov. class that day.

conley · Post by **conley** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:03 am

Like it or not, I think Hillary is by far the most qualified out of the entire bunch & she'll have the most experienced first lady in the history of the Presidency. Obama scares the hell out of me. I may actually like Edwards (perhaps by default). Regardless, it's bound to be an upgrade from what we've had the last 8 years.

I understand the Socialistic concerns; however, when it comes to decisions being made for this country, I believe there should be a BALANCE between what's best for the individual & what's best for the "whole"....too much of either is a bad thing. Key terms to examine here would be "UNITED" WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL....Uh, United States of America. "United" is in our country's name (kind of - "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts", "Unity").....shouldn't we make some of our decisions based on what's best for the "whole" or is that Socialism? Is any form of government intervention Socialism?......hell, I guess we should just lift all of the laws & make it a damn free-for-all. I guess I'm asking, "Where do you draw the line?"

FortWayneMusic.com

I honestly hope...

I honestly hope...

Re: I honestly hope...