sprocket

Its pretty much a given, if the Clinton organized crime syndicate gets elected back into office they will be almost certainly be hamstrung by scandal early on.

Vote Hillary.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Aladdin Sane

I must admit this does make Billary an attractive choice. Thanks.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

dc_dux

Not nearly as attractive as watching the Republican meltdown continue.

One of our more enlightened members here who has resorted to red baiting and playing the race card.

Another has visions of crime syndicates that only exist in his head.

Others are planning their moves to Canada.

And the OP who would rather throw away his vote and rationalize it by trying to get his fellow conservatives to convince him it would be "tactical."

Its gonna be a fun nine months!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

Clintons crime is as real and as provable as GWB. How many here would say GWB belongs behind bars... and why is he not right now? Theres enough smoke in both their camps to say theres a fire, even if they cant be convited.

The Clintons are criminals through and through. No delusions here. If the Clintons get elected, the left will have zero credibility in calling shenanigans ever again, and if I were on your side, I would be very afraid of that. You'll give the right all the ammo they need to make a full recovery in a couple years.

No doubt the right is on a meltdown... but I wouldnt call any republican president in recent memory "right wing" or conservative at all and I dont see how anyone, by any stretch of the imagination could consider another Clinton presidency a win for the left. You'll be in full meltdown mode, along with the right.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Tully Mars

Getting out of the economic nightmare the neo-cons have gotten us into won't be cheap. The cost of the war alone will be passed to many generations even if taxes are increased now. And from what I've read Obama's plan isn't to raise taxes "through the roof." But all politicians seem to claim they won't raise taxes, yet most end up doing so anyway. so who knows? What he says and what he does may be two completely different things.


Mmmm, ok?

I can't figure out why conservatives get all upset when people call them fascists. Considering the fubar Bush and Co. has sent the US into I'm willing to try a little European socialism, not a lot but a little. I used to know a Danish guy that worked on building roads in his younger years. One day over a game of cribbage he and I were talking about the difference between his country and mine. He asked me how the US usually decided which company built which highway or road. I told him it's my understanding that for the most part it goes to the lowest bidder. According to him in his country the bid goes to the company suppling the longest warranty, the government sets the price. He laughed and said "you want to drive on the road built by the lowest bidder or the guy that will stand by his work longer?"

I willing to try something else. Every time we've had a conservative in office that I can remember the debt's gone up and the governments gotten bigger and spent more. Bush Jr. is the first one I can remember that didn't go back on "no new taxes." He hasn't done shit to stop over spending, his solution has been to just borrow more money.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

dc_dux

Exactly which Clinton crimes are provable.....particularly after the most expensive federal investigation of a president (and spouse) in history that found none....after spending over $40 million for the Starr investigation alone.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Tully Mars

He lied to a jury about an affair.

If Hillary gets a elected we can look forward to someone taking Starr's place and four to eight more years of official "swift boating" investigation. Partly because the press is too stupid to see through it, or it just sells ads well. And partly because the Dems are so freaking weak they can't or won't fight back.

The same things going to happen to Obama if elected.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

sprocket

If after eight years of the scandals, one after the other, with a president whose set records for number of business partners and close colleagues in jail or fled the country... if you havnt been convinced, I seriously doubt I could. All the cronyism, the corruption Bush partakes in, Clinton did better.

But it is amusing to watch the cognitive dissonance at work on the left, when they vilify BushCo, and then put the Clintons up on a pedestal.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Hain

I am not a conservative and you all ready know my opinions about this thread from SecretMethod.

Vote Obama. Various reasons mentioned here. If you feel he is an empty suit, go for him. Personally, I don't like the way Hillary handles herself in debates. Why else? I want Obama to win.

dc_dux

So what you are saying is that you cant come up with any provable crimes committed by the Clintons other than having questionable friends.

Certainly nothing that compares with violating FISA (spying on American citizens w/o a warrant), the Presidential Records Act (destroying millions of WH e-mails) and lying to the public to justify an invasion and 5+ year occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US.

Friends and cronies? I suspect if the government spent $40+ million investigating any political family, they would find questionable friends.

But nothing like the Bush family friends, the Saudi royal family.

BTW, I have never put the Clinton's on a pedestal. I just value a president who abides by his Constitutional oath.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

Re-read my original post... I said there weren't provable crimes... if they were provable, the Clintons would be locked away but, theres enough smoke coming from that camp to warm the earth a good 20 degrees. Bill Clinton's blowjob was like tax evasion to Al Capone. It was what they tried to hang him because it had the best chance, but it wasnt what why the clintons were being investigated.

And on FISA I agree, that should be grounds enough to impeach bush, and all the congressmen who voted to retroactively give him and the telcos a get out of jail free card. Mrs. Clinton however, didnt bother to show up for that vote. And very few democrats in the senate took a stand against the bill as well.

I'm willing to bet, Mrs. Clinton is chomping at the bits to become president, and have the same kind of power just granted to the office, by way of the new FISA bill.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

dc_dux

Your post number 44: Clintons crime is as real and as provable as GWB. So you're backtracking now.....cool!

The $40+ million investigation by the Republican Congress and an independent prosecutor found nothing else. Why is that so hard to accept.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

There arent any provable crimes perpetrated by GWB. I think most of us would agree, he is corrupt as hell though, and by all appearances, pretty deserving of the title, "Criminal".

Edit: The point I was making wasnt that GWB and the Clintons could be tried in court today and be found guilty of a major crime.. Just the opposite, but both their shit stinks to high heaven.. lets not pretend the Clinton's smell like candy canes and roses. I can see where you might have easily misinterpreted what I said though.

If you want to see the left in exactly the same position the right is today, feeble and corrupt, and most likely going to lose big in the next election, then by all means vote for Hillary Which is why I suggested the OP he make has strategic vote for the Clinton co-presidency.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

ratbastid

Obama did, though. Flew in special to vote against it. Here's his statement on it, which is one of the most statesmanlike things I've ever read:

Anyone who thinks Barack Obama is an "empty suite", to borrow Ustwo's quaint spelling (already got a job, Doc, don't want to be your secretary) should read this: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsid...-actually.html

Bottom line is, he's a really good guy. Smart, principled, disciplined, and oriented around cooperative approaches. The excellent campaign he's running is all the evidence I need of his capability as an executive. I just get more and more convinced that he's the right person to put in the White House.

sprocket

I also appreciate Chris Dodd's filibuster... even if it I think it was in no way genuine, and more of a tactical maneuver to bolster his campaign.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

jbw97361

I plan on voting for Ron Paul when the primaries gets around to Ohio in a few days. McCain is the 21st century's Bob Dole; he's a good guy who many people respect, but can't agree with on the issues.

__________________
JBW

rlbond86

I will first confess that I am an Obama supporter.

That said, I would point you towards the recent polls (though I don't remember where), that showed that Obama vs. McCain led to an Obama win by 10%, and Hillary vs. McCain led to a Hillary win by 4%. Then I will point you to an old election in Georgia, where Republican voters tactically voted for the worst Democratic candidate, who then won the general election in an upset.

So this is what I would suggest:

Don't vote for the worst candidate, because if they end up winning the thing, you'll regret it. Pick whomever you can stomach more.

This might surprise you, but many times voting for the guy with a chance is a sound voting policy. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%2...bility_theorem) shows that no voting system is completely representative of the community, for example if there are 100 voters and 3 candidates, A, B, and C, and the people feel this way:

30 people like A the best, then C, then B
25 people like C the best, then A, then B
25 people like B the best, then A, then C
20 people like B the best, then C, then A

Then B would win, even though 55 percent of people liked B the least, fewer than the 25% or 20% who liked A the least.
On the other hand, look at the people who liked C, and realize that even with their combined 25% and the 20% who like B better, they couldn't get half of the vote. But those 25% of people like A better than B. Now, either they can "vote their conscience" and end up with B, or vote for A, handing the victory to A.
Now maybe this goes against your principles but deal with it. Your vote for Ron Paul really IS a waste of a vote, just like the 5% who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and handed the victory to George Bush. What did they accomplish? Were they trying to make a statement? Because that statement was something along the lines of "I made a terrible mistake."

Tully Mars

Latest polls I've seen show McCain V. Clinton or McCain V. Obama in a statistical ties:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-224.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

Both show the Dem with a slight lead but within the margin of error, statistical tie.

Anyone thinking the Dems are going to walk away with this election is in all likely hood kidding themselves.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

ratbastid

Oh, they'll have a fight on their hands in the General, no question about it. The Dem candidate definitely can't coast.

Aladdin Sane

I haven't been back here in a day or two. I am very, very pleased with the way this tread has, after several major detours, returned to my OP.

Here's an article on the subject of crossover voting:

Texas Republicans to Vote Democratic

Say they'll support Obama to vote against Hillary
By Jim Forsyth
Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Barack Obama is not only getting support from Democrats, several Texas Republicans say they will cross party lines and vote in the Democratic primary...just so they can vote against Hillary Clinton.

"I am really opposed to the Clintons extending their dynasty any further," Hayes Kennedy, a retired business executive living in San Antonio, told 1200 WOAI news.

Kennedy says he has not voted Democratic since casting a ballot for LBJ back in 1964, but a quirk in Texas election law allows him to vote for Obama this year. In Texas you don't have to register by party, and voters are eligible to vote in either party's primary.

"If there were still a race going on with Romney and all that, I would probably vote Republican in the primary," Kennedy said.

The Republican race is essentially settled, with John McCain the likely nominee.

"For all intents and purposes, that campaign is over," Kennedy said. "So all the more reason to vote against Hillary!"


Taking the opportunity to cast a vote against Hillary is attractive to me, but has no tactical value. Oh, well. Maybe I'll flip a coin. Or call my Democrat brother and vote for the candidate of his choice.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Ustwo

I think you have problems reading on the intertubes.

Calling members of the democratic party socialists is the same as calling members of the republican party libertarians. Obama is a socialist in the Western European mold. Saying socialist does not mean they are communists, and your failure to differentiate is telling as to what you are after. This is not red baiting, not even close, and either your knowledge of this sort of thing is grossly lacking or you are mischaracterizing on purpose.

Obama also is a black man, and while I know we are all suppose to pretend that race doesn't matter, you would have to be an idiot to not see it has played a part in the primary, in this case to Obama's advantage. We are allowed to talk about that or are we too PC to even mention race unless its in relation to Republicans being racist (despite the fact the Republican party is the party that has done just about everything for civil rights, and the democrats created welfare vote plantations).

So if this is your 'meltdown' then so be it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ratbastid

I'm not big on accusations of race-card-playing. The guy's black. He actually is. His dad is from Africa. He's a black man. He's the first black candidate who's ever really had a shot. There's no question that his race has helped him (though not, I think, so much as his charisma, oratorship, record, and policies). I say: good for him.

Tully Mars

And how many times in our history have we had a candidate that if not white and male wouldn't have stood a chance?

Kennedy could have said all he wanted, if he'd have been anything other then white and male no one would have taken him seriously.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

dc_dux

My apologies to Alladin and other Repubs for my comment re, playing the race-card.

It was, and is, directed at one person who repeatedly, in nearly every thread in which Obama is discussed, leads with a comment:

If Obama wasnt black.....blah, blah, blah
If a white man said/did what Obama said/did.....blah blah

Of course, his race is a factor, just as Hillary's gender is a factor. They are historic figures in US election history. But those factors are not what are driving most voters.

I stand by how I characterized that particular poster, who also repeatedly refers to Democrat, in numerous threads, as "socialists", "communists" or "america-bashers"

I do thank him for his personal diagnosis rejecting my characterization of a Republican meltdown

So be it. My opinion stands.

/end of rant (Mods can delete if I am over the line!)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

filtherton

I think that it stands to reason that john mccain, and mitt romney, the entire bush family, and probably ustwo wouldn't be where they were if they were black. I mean, as long as we aren't pussyfooting around the subject of race...

So everyone owes their position to their race. Woohoo.

Tully Mars

Very few people break away from whatever social class they're born into, regardless of race. If you're born poor you'll likely die poor, likewise if you're wealthy. But historically (and to some degree even today I would argue) in the western world being white and male has (had) profound advantages.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

rlbond86

From the article (I've pasted only the spreads):


RCP Average Obama +4.1
Reuters/Zogby Obama +7.0
USA Today/Gallup Obama +4.0
AP-Ipsos Obama +6.0
Time Obama +7.0
CNN Obama +8.0
Cook/RT Strategies Obama +2.0
ABC/Wash Post Obama +3.0
FOX News Obama +1.0
NPR McCain +1.0
Rasmussen Obama +4.0

Many of those are not statistical ties.

The Clinton ones are more balanced, but my point still stands. The choice is between two candidates who have a very legitimate chance of becoming President. In anyone's situation, I would vote for the one who I'm less afraid of becoming President.

I follow my own advice, too. I have been rooting for McCain because I would have been scared shitless if Huckabee or Romney won. I know McCain has the best shot of the three (a moot point, now), but I'd rather support a (relatively) sane opponent with a decent shot than an insane one, because what would happen if the true lunatic actually won?

dc_dux

What the polls haven't really focused on yet are the state-by-state projections....ie, electoral votes.

From what I have seen, there are likely to be more "red" states in play than "blue", in part because of very strong Senate candidates for open (currently Republican) seats. In two states that were barely red in '04 (by 1-2%), Colorado and New Mexico, the Democrat senate candidates are well ahead in the polls and could very easily go blue with either Clinton or Obama.

The Democratic senate candidate in Virginia for the open (Republican) seat is so far ahead, its all but over and that could help turn the state blue, more likely if its Obama than Clinton.

And there's always Florida and Ohio, both red in 04, Clinton might be more likely to carry Ohio and either can beat McCain in Florida, now that there is no longer a Bush in the governor's office.

On the flip side, there are very few blue states that might go red.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

loquitur

I wonder if the networks are going to stick with the blue and red pattern they used the last two elections. IIRC there was an alternating pattern they used based on who was in and who was out, and it worked out coincidentally that the GOP ended up red in both 2000 and 2004 (the "in" party being blue in 2000 and red in 2004, which would mean the "in" party should be blue in 2008). But that might be an image too ingrained to drop now.