|
No one to vote for in 2008. O Lawdy, what is i do?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| emc^2 |
So, I'm officially stumped. I don't have a single candidate I wanna vote for, and I mean NONE. I think they all suck and will all be BAD for this country. The question is, who does a responsible citizen like me vote for, perhaps vote AGAINST to ensure that our country is not just handed to yet ANOTHER cretin?
I would have voted for Gore, but he ain't running. I am not gonna vote for Hilar(ity) nor O'Bum-a. Adolf Guliani... nope. The rest of the clowns are equally pathetic.
I am genuinelly worried, as there are NO good choices for 2008. Sh!t, we're screwed. :nervous: :(
oh, and P.S. I have no party affiliation, so I don't care if it's a Dem or Republican, as long as they get us out of the mess we're currently in. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Joe Biden seems to be a moderate democrat who will get the US back on track. Presidential runs are so chancy. That's why we need third and fourth parties, hell, coalitions of parties. It'de be great if voting was mandatory, then there might be third parties. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Joe Biden seems to be a moderate democrat who will get the US back on track. Presidential runs are so chancy. That's why we need third and fourth parties, hell, coalitions of parties. It'de be great if voting was mandatory, then there might be third parties. |
Yeah, as foreign policy goes, it's hard to beat Biden. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
 |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| I have been thinking the same thing. This is the first election I can remember where I didn't already know who I was going to vote for by now |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lesbianosaur
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/...di_n_77734.html
I wouldn't even consider supporting any of the Republican candidates right now, but if Hagel threw his hat in the ring, even I as a liberal would have to think long and hard about it. |
Ok, the first paragraph killed it for me... Michael Bloomberg???? You mean the guy who is turning NY into all that's bad with California and London? And you consider yourself a "liberal"??? Dude, Bloomberg would be the MOST DEFINITE CANDIDATE I WOULD VOTE AGAINST. Hell, I'd vote for Kusinich, Obama, Hilary, McCain or even Huckabee before I'd vote for Bloomberg, inspite of him being one of my peeps. |
|
|
| emc^2 |
Out of all these clowns, I favor McCain only fractionally more than the rest. Ain it funny though... When many americans wanted McCain to run, he said "no". Now, many don't feel as excited about him anymore. Now many americans would support Gore running but he made it quite clear that he's done with the presidential races and is not running.
ha. we can't get always get what we want....
I think Gore would have been a friggin "sho-in". I mean, how could the guy who invented teh internetz not win? ;) |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
Ok, the first paragraph killed it for me... Michael Bloomberg???? You mean the guy who is turning NY into all that's bad with California and London? And you consider yourself a "liberal"??? Dude, Bloomberg would be the MOST DEFINITE CANDIDATE I WOULD VOTE AGAINST. Hell, I'd vote for Kusinich, Obama, Hilary, McCain or even Huckabee before I'd vote for Bloomberg, inspite of him being one of my peeps. |
Well, if you read my post, you'd see I was talking about Hagel, but I'll take the bait and ask how Bloomberg is "turning NY into all that's bad with California and London." |
|
|
| emc^2 |
Well, if you read the first 2 paragraphs of the article YOU referenced, you'd probably read this:
| quote: | New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel have been conducting regular, private phone conversations over the past few months in an effort to "feel each other out" for a possible presidential run, sources have told the Huffington Post.
The development feeds speculation that the two men could mount a third-party White House ticket. And while the maverick Republican and the independent mayor have met in the past, the ongoing conversations provide the clearest indication yet that they are considering such a move.
|
my take away on that was that Hagel AND Bloomberg were considering running. BLOOMBERG is bad news. Why, you ask?
Perhaps some of the subjects that are at least of interest to me:
1. Tax for driving into Manhattan - same as London now charges
2. California-style "health nut" initiatives - e.g. no smoking anywhere in public places, including streets, parks, etc. I personally tend to enjoy the freedom of smoking and if Bloomberg doesn't like it, he can suck the exhaust tip of my car.
3. Surveilance cameras everywhere - a-la "Big Brother", London style. O Rly???? Sure, let's give away yet another piece of our private life for a perceived notion of "safety". Where do I sign???
4. Crack down on clubbing venues in NYC, making Guliani seem like a little puppy in comparison.
Not to mention number of his taxation proposals, etc. If anything I think Bloomberg would be ultra-conservative and BAD NEWS for people like me, who enjoy smoking, drinking, partying, and driving... not to mention hate taxes.
Feel free to chime in at any time with your counter-points. The floor is yours, sire. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
4. Crack down on clubbing venues in NYC, making Guliani seem like a little puppy in comparison. |
Um, no... |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
Well, if you read the first 2 paragraphs of the article YOU referenced, you'd probably read this:
|
Yes, I realize that. But Hagel is the reason I would take a strong look at the ticket, which is what I initially said. I honestly don't know much about Bloomberg other than that New Yorkers seem to love him compared to Giuliani. My college room mate, who has very similar political views as myself, is a big fan of Bloomberg, which leads me to believe he would deserve at least a closer look by myself.
| quote: |
1. Tax for driving into Manhattan - same as London now charges
|
Sounds good to me - for the high traffic situation alone. And plus, I care about the environment.
| quote: | | 2. California-style "health nut" initiatives - e.g. no smoking anywhere in public places, including streets, parks, etc. I personally tend to enjoy the freedom of smoking and if Bloomberg doesn't like it, he can suck the exhaust tip of my car. |
I guess you haven't been outside NYC lately. The three places I have lived in the last three years - Minnesota, Columbus, OH, and DC, all have that same law on the books. And are much better for it. Going out in DC is so much more enjoyable than going out across the river in Arlington, VA where you have to suck down second-hand smoke all night. Great law for public health in my opinion.
| quote: |
3. Surveilance cameras everywhere - a-la "Big Brother", London style. O Rly???? Sure, let's give away yet another piece of our private life for a perceived notion of "safety". Where do I sign??? |
Without knowing the specifics of this it is hard to comment, but an increase in surveillance does make me uneasy, but is something I can get over if it's the only thing I disagree with him on.
| quote: | | 4. Crack down on clubbing venues in NYC, making Guliani seem like a little puppy in comparison. |
Again, no specifics, and since Groundhog Boy doesn't agree, I don't know what kind of counter-point you're looking for from a non-New Yorker.
| quote: | | Not to mention number of his taxation proposals, etc. |
He's raised some taxes, but that's not something I'm altogether against. Taxes are lower in the US than anywhere else in the world, and with our inability to make ends meet in government budgets, higher sales taxes aren't the worst idea I've ever heard.
And anyway, if your hate for Bloomberg is because he's bad for clubbers, I don't think that's a relevant reason for me to disregard a presidential ticket. I think if he were in the White House, he would have bigger things to worry about than your partying habits.
In all, your four points just have me shrugging my shoulders and thinking "so?" |
|
|
|
|
