Just wondering what impact that'll have on the ignorant rednecks voting in states like Alabama and Mississippi.

LET'S NOMINATE DAVID DUKE AND TRENT LOTT FOR 08.

I still think America will elect a black man before they elect any female. Because a black man is still a man, and we know how men think and act (for the most part). But women have a tendency to be completely fucking irrational and ruled by emotion rather than logic. I'd vote for Obama before Hillary, in a heartbeat. But neither of them are really sounding like my kind of candidate at the moment.

Agreed. That's why unless a candidate that I can strongly get behind comes to the fore, I won't be voting. Or like Synikul said, vote for everything on the ballot but the presidency.

My worry about Obama is his lack of experience. Not that he wouldn't be qualified, but that his name isn't as known as Hillary's. With her fat, wrinkly fingers in every political pie... I HATE HER SO MUCH.

God, you're dumb.




I agree that a black man is slightly more likely to be elected than a white woman in a vacuum. Prejudice against women is still stronger than prejudice against black people, and it receives much less attention. At the same time, in the actual case, Hillary has more backing and is an actual cantidate. I forget who exactly said this, but if you think about Obama for five minutes you realize you can't actually vote for him. He has almost no experience, which is relevant. It's not enough to simply agree with his goals; you have to know he's actually capable of the correct day-to-day decision making needed to get those goals accomplished.


I think the strongest contender is actually Giuliani for that reason. He's demonstrated an ability to actually accomplish difficult goals from an executive position. He's the politician I'd most want running the show in Iraq, of all serious contenders.

I would vote for Hillary over Obama. I don't have a ton of respect for her scruples, but I trust her pragmatism and respect her intelligence and capability at least.


You know that

a) "Voting for a third party is wasting your vote" is only really true because people keep saying it, right? 40% of the people who voted in the 2006 polls identified themselves as indepedents.

b) Realistically speaking, voting at all is throwing your vote away. There's not been a national vote in the history of the country where one vote mattered. If you're going to waste your time going to a poll where you can't possibly affect anything, you might as well do it with some fucking principle.

people who identify as "independants" usually only say that because they are embarrassed to admit they vote for either of the other parties.

Or it's because they don't want to categorize themselves into the vague, self-contradicting pseudo-idealogies represented by the two major parties.

IE theyre not REALLY independant. Theyre just embarrassed into not saying which party they vote for.

Why? Because I do not elect to be an overbearing pompous ass such as yourself

Or possibly because I called that exactly how it is. One white woman vs. a black man vs. a hispanic man = the white woman winning.

Or possibly you just threw that in there in order to magnify your own hyper-magnificence.

Well. We could go on and on but let me make one request. Try your best to not make such baseless assumptions. Or at least keep them to yourself so we avoid having to go off the topic in order to verbally berate each other.

Thank you

In most ways that is quite true. The liberal who hates gays and as such is embarressed to hold any relation to the dems etc etc....

in my personal experience, every person I have ever met who claims to be an "independant" was usually not the brightest person in the world. These are the same people who vote based on a candidates "personality" I call the the TV watcher voters, Adolf fucking HItler could reanimate and run and as long as he was personable and friendly these idiots would vote for him.

There's no berating, Dyshade. There's no condemning or insults or assumptions. There's only your going out of your way to prove that you are in fact an idiot, and me commenting idly on the fact that you have done so.


Rather than point out your gross ignorance of what a political party is, I'm going to ask a hypothetical question.


If you were forced to choose, would you say that you are more like a giraffe, or more like an airplane?

id say im more like a giraffe, we're both mammels. Now, excusing the lack of brainpower you have there, lets pretend you could comprehend what I was saying. Do you ACTUALLY believe that in this country those "independants" are really just informed intellectuals who refuse to be labled? Or is it more likely theyre just dumbfucks?

I call myself an independent, there are too many issues on both sides that i strongly agree and disagree with. I don't want to pigeonhole myself in with the republicans, whom I tend to agree with a lot, because I think organized religion is going to be the death of us all. And I cant pigeonhole myself with the Democrats because if they had their way every cent I earn would be going to some lazy baby factory who doesnt want to work.

Right, of course you are. Yet, despite this, you would not in fact say that you are a giraffe?


I think they're relatively informed, yes. The average human being is much more intelligent than they're given credit for. I find that labelling everyone as "sheep" or "uninformed idiots" is much more often the sign of a relatively small, insecure mind than a higher intellect.

Your metaphore with the giraffes and planes is faulty on its premise as they are specific things. A giraffe is a giraffe no matter what it wants to be, the same with a plane. Republicanism and Dimocratism are ideologies that shift and change, so your argument to boot is retarded and flawed.

And we disagree with each other on what Americans etc are in the 1st place. I dont think theyre informed. I think the majority of them are imbeciles who need to be lead. Weak minded morons who arbitrarily choose to vote or not to vote based on the weather, or which candidate to vote for based on if they would have a beer with him or not. Thats your average person, not only in the US but also abroad.

I'm a republican mostly but I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, first decent democrat i've seen in a long time.

hahahahahahahaaaaaa.

:p

Three points that should've been obvious as you typed this.


1) The question could've easily been, "Are you more like a plant or a historical event?" The relative specificity of the metaphor isn't actually an critical aspect. The point is that trying to lump people into two groups where neither is the inverse of the other is retarded.

2) If you concede that the two parties are based upon vague, vastly shifting tracks of the idealogical landscape that can't be pinned down or defined in any kind of functional or useful manner, why in the Hell would any intelligent being want to put themselves into these two useless categories?

If we come to the point where you consider everyone other than yourself an uninformed idiot, how does that make independents worse than democrats or republicans? They're all a bunch of idiots.