of course I can.
with, as I mentioned before, the delicious irony of Romney getting 47% of the vote.
Advertisement
by Death Metal » Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:16 am
Ashmoria wrote:ooooo did you see (last night on the Rachel maddow show) that an iowa politician got convicted of taking a bribe from the ron paul campaign in '12? and that the guy who GAVE the bribe is now mitch McConnell's campaign manager? im pretty sure that that guy also worked for rand paul's senate campaign.
by Ashmoria » Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:55 am
Death Metal wrote:Ashmoria wrote:ooooo did you see (last night on the Rachel maddow show) that an iowa politician got convicted of taking a bribe from the ron paul campaign in '12? and that the guy who GAVE the bribe is now mitch McConnell's campaign manager? im pretty sure that that guy also worked for rand paul's senate campaign.
I don't watch MSNBC so no I did not.
by Freiheit Reich » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:25 pm
Ashmoria wrote:The Genoese Cromanatum wrote:An overwhelming amount of people voted for Obama simply because he is black. The same will happen to Hillary, since she's a woman.
an overwhelming amount of people voted for Obama because he isn't W (2008) and because he is a pretty good president (2012).
they will vote for Hillary because she is a democrat. the woman thing is icing on the cake that might bring out an extra number of women to vote in the first female president.
by Coccygia » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:35 pm
by Geilinor » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:37 pm
Coccygia wrote:Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.
by Freiheit Reich » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:37 pm
Spoder wrote:Ashmoria wrote:an overwhelming amount of people voted for Obama because he isn't W (2008) and because he is a pretty good president (2012).
they will vote for Hillary because she is a democrat. the woman thing is icing on the cake that might bring out an extra number of women to vote in the first female president.
2012 - I have no fucking idea why people voted for him.
by Freiheit Reich » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:42 pm
Coccygia wrote:Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.
by The Black Forrest » Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:49 pm
Coccygia wrote:Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.
by Othelos » Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:52 pm
Freiheit Reich wrote:Because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were poor choices as well and Americans are slaves to the 2 main parties (they are too foolish to know they have more than 2 choices when they vote).
by Geanna » Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:55 pm
Veratia wrote:I will be up front and say that I'm a die hard supporter of the Clintons. I understand that they are much too conservative for a lot of folks here on NSG,but for arguments sake lets say she locked up the Democratic nomination. Do you, NSG, feel that Rand Paul has a good chance of defeating her in the General? If not then which Republican do you think is up to the task?
Personally I think Paul's libertarian-moderate message will be fine and dandy and attract some young people and minorities. However, he will have to defend a fairly conservative voting record. Oh and let's not forget the Republican Primary. I think that in order to win the nomination, he will have to take some hawkish and socially conservative positions and, in doing so, will lose some of the ammunition he currently has against Hillary. If I'm correct, he likes to think of himself as a non-interventionists while Sec. Clinton is just the opposite.
by Geanna » Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:56 pm
by Freiheit Reich » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:39 pm
by Dyakovo » Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:39 am
Freiheit Reich wrote:Ashmoria wrote:an overwhelming amount of people voted for Obama because he isn't W (2008) and because he is a pretty good president (2012).
they will vote for Hillary because she is a democrat. the woman thing is icing on the cake that might bring out an extra number of women to vote in the first female president.
Also the fact Hillary is pro-abortion is essential to gaining the female vote.
Women want to have control over their bodies and it looks bad when a man says they can't have an abortion even if his morals regarding abortion are sincere.
by Ashmoria » Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:50 am
Freiheit Reich wrote:Geanna wrote:
Because in reality it's usually Rep vs Dem
Its only reality because people don't vote for the candidate they like best. Nobody is stopping you from voting for the best candidate and if you vote for the 2nd best candidate you are making a bad mistake that you might regret every time the one you voted for does something different than what your best candidate would have done.
If you are the only person in your state that voted for Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, or some other non-democratic or republican candidate than at least you can say you voted with a clear conscience (assuming the republican or democrat are not your ideal choices).
by Murkwood » Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:51 am
Dyakovo wrote:Freiheit Reich wrote:
Also the fact Hillary is pro-abortion is essential to gaining the female vote.
Hillary is not pro-abortion. She is pro-choice.Women want to have control over their bodies and it looks bad when a man says they can't have an abortion even if his morals regarding abortion are sincere.
Isn't it shocking how voters tend to avoid supporting politicians who don't think they're really people?
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Freiheit Reich » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:01 am
Dyakovo wrote:Freiheit Reich wrote:
Also the fact Hillary is pro-abortion is essential to gaining the female vote.
Hillary is not pro-abortion. She is pro-choice.Women want to have control over their bodies and it looks bad when a man says they can't have an abortion even if his morals regarding abortion are sincere.
Isn't it shocking how voters tend to avoid supporting politicians who don't think they're really people?
by Freiheit Reich » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:18 am
Ashmoria wrote:Freiheit Reich wrote:
Its only reality because people don't vote for the candidate they like best. Nobody is stopping you from voting for the best candidate and if you vote for the 2nd best candidate you are making a bad mistake that you might regret every time the one you voted for does something different than what your best candidate would have done.
If you are the only person in your state that voted for Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, or some other non-democratic or republican candidate than at least you can say you voted with a clear conscience (assuming the republican or democrat are not your ideal choices).
ive never seen a 3rd party candidate who would have had massively more support if only he had more money/exposure/better spot on the ballot.
they are pretty much all nutz who need to be kept as far away from office as possible
.....
excepting people like lisa Murkowski, joe Lieberman and Charlie crist who were mainstream politicians forced by circumstance to run outside their major party.
by Murkwood » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:20 am
Freiheit Reich wrote:Ashmoria wrote:
ive never seen a 3rd party candidate who would have had massively more support if only he had more money/exposure/better spot on the ballot.
they are pretty much all nutz who need to be kept as far away from office as possible
.....
excepting people like lisa Murkowski, joe Lieberman and Charlie crist who were mainstream politicians forced by circumstance to run outside their major party.
Compare Clinton, Bush, and Ron Paul. Who seems the more suitable presidential choice? Who is more extreme?
Bush: Patriot Act, 9/11 attacks (possible involvement), Iraq Invasion, prolonged Afghanistan invasion, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (hurts corporations), avoided serving his country in Vietnam War, DUI arrest, possible cocaine use
Bill Clinton-adultery, perjury charges, supported Kosovo terrorists, avoided serving his country during Vietnam War
Ron Paul: Respected real world experience (served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies); more education than Clinton, Bush, and Obama (Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine); so far no adultery charges and a successful marriage, against Iraq War, has guts to say no to his own party if they make bad choices (not a slave to his party), believes races should be treated equally (no affirmative action)
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
by Ifreann » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:20 am
Freiheit Reich wrote:Ashmoria wrote:
ive never seen a 3rd party candidate who would have had massively more support if only he had more money/exposure/better spot on the ballot.
they are pretty much all nutz who need to be kept as far away from office as possible
.....
excepting people like lisa Murkowski, joe Lieberman and Charlie crist who were mainstream politicians forced by circumstance to run outside their major party.
Compare Clinton, Bush, and Ron Paul. Who seems the more suitable presidential choice? Who is more extreme?
Bush: Patriot Act, 9/11 attacks (possible involvement), Iraq Invasion, prolonged Afghanistan invasion, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (hurts corporations), avoided serving his country in Vietnam War, DUI arrest, possible cocaine use
Bill Clinton-adultery, perjury charges, supported Kosovo terrorists, avoided serving his country during Vietnam War
Ron Paul: Respected real world experience (served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies); more education than Clinton, Bush, and Obama (Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine); so far no adultery charges and a successful marriage, against Iraq War, has guts to say no to his own party if they make bad choices (not a slave to his party), believes races should be treated equally (no affirmative action)
by Magna Libero » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:20 am
by Farnhamia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:26 am
Magna Libero wrote:Freiheit Reich wrote:
Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.
Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?
Voting doesn't work. Hillary vs. Rand is basically like a shitty sweet and a sweet shit or vice versa, but Hillary is bad. So, your advice is basically to vote for an unknown shit?
Hillary would be a bad candidate, a tyrannic dictator like Putin. Obama and Rand Paul are actually decent compared to these, while still being horrible and moderate/centrists. I hope Hillary doesn't get elected. That hawkish bitch will destroy the world. We(=the humanity, the world) don't need people like her.
Indeed
by Magna Libero » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:28 am
Ifreann wrote:Freiheit Reich wrote:
Compare Clinton, Bush, and Ron Paul. Who seems the more suitable presidential choice? Who is more extreme?
Bush: Patriot Act, 9/11 attacks (possible involvement), Iraq Invasion, prolonged Afghanistan invasion, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (hurts corporations), avoided serving his country in Vietnam War, DUI arrest, possible cocaine use
Bill Clinton-adultery, perjury charges, supported Kosovo terrorists, avoided serving his country during Vietnam War
Ron Paul: Respected real world experience (served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies); more education than Clinton, Bush, and Obama (Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine); so far no adultery charges and a successful marriage, against Iraq War, has guts to say no to his own party if they make bad choices (not a slave to his party), believes races should be treated equally (no affirmative action)
You cannot possibly believe you have made a fair comparison here.
by Magna Libero » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:32 am
Farnhamia wrote:Magna Libero wrote:Voting doesn't work. Hillary vs. Rand is basically like a shitty sweet and a sweet shit or vice versa, but Hillary is bad. So, your advice is basically to vote for an unknown shit?
Hillary would be a bad candidate, a tyrannic dictator like Putin. Obama and Rand Paul are actually decent compared to these, while still being horrible and moderate/centrists. I hope Hillary doesn't get elected. That hawkish bitch will destroy the world. We(=the humanity, the world) don't need people like her.
Indeed
I don't quite get the idea that politicians we don't like will "destroy the world." Political hyperbole, I suppose, and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised in this day and age. I also don't get why you put "(=the humanity, the world)" in size 1 type. It just makes a blot in the sentence and anyone who cares to can see it by clicking "Quote". If you have something to say, say it.
by Farnhamia » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:37 am
Magna Libero wrote:Farnhamia wrote:I don't quite get the idea that politicians we don't like will "destroy the world." Political hyperbole, I suppose, and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised in this day and age. I also don't get why you put "(=the humanity, the world)" in size 1 type. It just makes a blot in the sentence and anyone who cares to can see it by clicking "Quote". If you have something to say, say it.
Bush destroyed the US and the country's international reputation. That's why I truly hope that Hillary, who is the more authoritarian interventionist of the two, will not win. I think the US should try to stay away from doorknocking other countries' matters.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bali Kingdom, DataDyneIrkenAlliance, Diplomatinis, Google [Bot], Likhinia, Lophostoma, Merriwhether, Pasong Tirad, Sublime Ottoman State 1800 RP, Urine Town, Valles Marineris Mining co
Advertisement