Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
MaximusNukeage

President of the united states (democratic nomination)

Who do you hope will win the democratic nomination  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you hope will win the democratic nomination

    • Sen.John Kerry
      12
    • Gov.Howard Dean (pulled out of race)
      5
    • Gen.Wes Clark (pulled out of race)
      9
    • Sen.Joe Lieberman (pulled out of race)
      1
    • Sen.John Edwards
      1
    • Rev.Al Sharpton
      4
    • Rep.Dennis Kucinich
      2


Recommended Posts

i could care less about any republican or democrat candidate, i hate them all and would feel guilty voting for any of them. my vote's going for one of these people.

Share this post


Link to post
sargebaldy said:

i could care less about any republican or democrat candidate, i hate them all and would feel guilty voting for any of them. my vote's going for one of these people.

If not for Romney, I would have supported Carla Howell's campaign for the governer of MA.

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

Greens <3 <3

Yay.

Why does the poll say that Lieberman is dead now? Or does that just mean his campaign is dead?

Share this post


Link to post

Linguica said:
I was going to vote for Dean but he's looking more and more unstable

so either Edwards or Kerry, probably Kerry because Edwards will end up pandering to the South.

Don't ask me why, but I always thought you where a republican.

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry looks like the Evil Dead skull with a mushroom-cloud sprouting from his scalp. I think we all know who's (unfortunately) going to be president in 2004..

Share this post


Link to post
fodders said:

Seems Kerry is about to be ruined with a Clinton/Lewinski type scandal.

You mean another story about a politician's personal life that nobody (except other politicians) would care about because it doesn't affect the country and their ability to do their job? :D For example, as an avid opponent of (practically) everything Bush stands for, I would not care at all if I found out he had an affair. I wouldn't look at him as less of a person (not only because that's physically impossible) but because It's not my business, it's a personal issue.

I think there's a lot of people willing to vote for anybody opposing Bush, just to get rid of him... There's also a lot of diehard Bush lovers so 2004 should be interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

Kusinisch. He's like a liberal that pretends to be a Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post

I finaly finished and sent my voter registration form a week or two ago, so yay me, I get to vote! Sucks that this is the first election I get to vote in, with it being such a madhouse and all. My mom got to vote in '72 (she was one of the first 18-year olds allowed to vote), and she did not vote for Nixon. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I just heard Nader is back in the game!
Down with the two party system! democrates and republicans don't own america!

Sure he takes votes away from the democrates in favour of the republicans but some-one should speak out gainst the two party domination.

Share this post


Link to post

No, a stupid two party system gave bush the white house. A system that ensures the power of both democrates and republicans until the end of time. In this system no new partie will ever be able to form honest competition. Is this democracy? No, this is a two party dictatorship! Some-one needs to address the problem and confront it. Nader's the man!

Share this post


Link to post
Scientist said:

I just heard Nader is back in the game!
Down with the two party system! democrates and republicans don't own america!

I agree that three parties would be better then two. But Nader can't accomplish that, he's too far left. If a new political party wants to have any chance of succeeding in the USA, it needs to have a central political viewpoint. A mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints might appeal to a lot of americans. Whereas Nader can only appeal to a small minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Arno said:

I agree that three parties would be better then two. But Nader can't accomplish that, he's too far left. If a new political party wants to have any chance of succeeding in the USA, it needs to have a central political viewpoint. A mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints might appeal to a lot of americans.

Yeah, lets have a third party exactly like the Republicans and Democrats. That makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

Yeah, lets have a third party exactly like the Republicans and Democrats. That makes sense.

No, that's not what I said. Take for example Schwarzenegger. He's a republican, but he borrowed some viewpoints from the democratic party and won the election.
Having a party with a political viewpoint that only 5% of the population agrees with is completely pointless in the USA. Nader's wasting his time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Arno said:

Take for example Schwarzenegger. He's a republican, but he borrowed some viewpoints from the democratic party and won the election.

Schwarzenegger's political viewpoints have nothing to do with his winning the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Arno said:

No, that's not what I said. Take for example Schwarzenegger. He's a republican, but he borrowed some viewpoints from the democratic party and won the election.
Having a party with a political viewpoint that only 5% of the population agrees with is completely pointless in the USA. Nader's wasting his time and money.

Okay, lets see how this looks on a scale from Left/Lib to Right/Con

1------------2------3---4-5-6-----------7

1. Total Anarchists
2. Green Party
3. Center
4. Democrats
5. Your proposed party
6. Republicans
7. Adolph "fucking" Hitler

That is hardly a broad spectrum to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post

you of course realize that every vote for Nader or some random Green, Libertarian or whatever candidate is pretty much an extra vote for Bush since those guys are lucky to get 1% of the vote most of the time since those votes would normally go to a Democratic candidate (since those parties are closer in ideals to Democrats). For instance in 2000 Gore lost Florida by some 500 (or was it 5000?) votes, and Nader garnered over 90k votes in that state.

I know you might have your own standards and morals or whatever, but for the love of god just put them aside and realize that there is no chance in hell that Nader or any guy who isn't Bush or Kerry (or perhaps Edwards, though that's unlikely) has any shot whatsoever at winning this election and vote for the Democratic candidate or go to the polls with your own stubborn opinion and keep Bush in office another four years. As far as I'm concerned any vote for Nader or anyone who isn't the democratic candidiate is the same as voting for Bush.

Share this post


Link to post

I saw Nader's interview on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer earlier today, and man, everything he said was the honest truth. The only way to reform the political system in the this country is through third parties raising issues that the Dem/Rep's won't touch. I really wish they would let him in the debates, since he would make a fool of both Kerry and Bush.

As for this absolutely fucking retarded "Anybody but Bush" movement, forget it. Kerry is going to go down in history as another Dukakis, McGovern, or Mondale. There's a reason Al Gore is waiting until 2008 to make another try.

Share this post


Link to post

Aha, but you forget an important fact:

Bush is a maggot-ridden canvas sack of steaming shit.

How dare he have the gall to claim that Democrats will raise taxes for the middle class and ruin this country? That's his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Cyb said:

you of course realize that every vote for Nader or some random Green, Libertarian or whatever candidate is pretty much an extra vote for Bush since those guys are lucky to get 1% of the vote most of the time since those votes would normally go to a Democratic candidate (since those parties are closer in ideals to Democrats). For instance in 2000 Gore lost Florida by some 500 (or was it 5000?) votes, and Nader garnered over 90k votes in that state.

I know you might have your own standards and morals or whatever, but for the love of god just put them aside and realize that there is no chance in hell that Nader or any guy who isn't Bush or Kerry (or perhaps Edwards, though that's unlikely) has any shot whatsoever at winning this election and vote for the Democratic candidate or go to the polls with your own stubborn opinion and keep Bush in office another four years. As far as I'm concerned any vote for Nader or anyone who isn't the democratic candidiate is the same as voting for Bush.

That's exactly what I'm doing. In fact, I'm against him running for president again. I don't know if I like him anymore. I'll still vote for Green after this election though.

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

Okay, lets see how this looks on a scale from Left/Lib to Right/Con

1------------2------3---4-5-6-----------7

1. Total Anarchists
2. Green Party
3. Center
4. Democrats
5. Your proposed party
6. Republicans
7. Adolph "fucking" Hitler

That is hardly a broad spectrum to choose from.

Your scale is warped.

1------------2------3--- = 5% of the population
4-5-6 = 90% of the population
-----------7 = 5% of the population

Why do you want such a broad spectrum anyway? What's the point of including anarchists and nazi's when only a few goofheads belong to those groups? The political parties should represent the voters.

Of course, my percentages are only guestimates, but so is the scale in your figure.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×