Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, I'll tell you that much now. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have the election if she's the Dem candidate.

[smjjames]

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, I'll tell you that much now. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have the election if she's the Dem candidate.

In your opinion, what's wrong with her? Besides being an obvious establishment insider and theres those 50 something lobbyists that she has had under her employ as senator.

[FearfulJesuit]

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, I'll tell you that much now. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have the election if she's the Dem candidate.

Honestly, I really do think they need to be handed the full reigns for a little while if there's to be any hope of getting their lunacy out of their system.

This has been your monthly newsletter from Social Democrats for Michele Bachmann.

[smjjames]

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, I'll tell you that much now. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have the election if she's the Dem candidate.

Honestly, I really do think they need to be handed the full reigns for a little while if there's to be any hope of getting their lunacy out of their system.

This has been your monthly newsletter from Social Democrats for Michele Bachmann.

And crash and burn the US while they're at it? No thanks.

If theres some good non-lunatic republican candidate, I may consider voting republican.

Dangit, I wish it was possible for a third party candidate to actually get far enough to win, because otherwise I might just vote green party just for the heck of it. Would be great if the third party candidates got in on the debates, but the republicans and democrats wouldn't have any of it.

[Jervill]

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, I'll tell you that much now. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have the election if she's the Dem candidate.

This right here is what landed us with George W. Bush in the first place; too many split left-wing voters who refuse to handle someone slightly less left leaning that they would like (and then ended up voting for Nader), costing Dems New Hampshire, and most likely the 2000 election.

[FearfulJesuit]

If a Republican far-right wins, we might get lucky and it could basically push the entire collective mind of the country off of the far-right bandwagon for good.

That, or destroy the country. Probably both.

It's not impossible, but we'd need a third-party candidate.

Let's suppose the Dems nominate a progressive-wing candidate like Warren, and the GOP gets so split between the moderate and Tea Party factions that the moderate (say, Chris Christie) gives up in disgust and runs as an independent. The GOP proper nominates Ted Cruz.

The sane portion of the country (60% of the vote) splits 30-30 between Warren and Christie. The Tea Party, whose turnout is better (it always is), votes for Cruz.

Warren gets 30% of the vote; Christie gets 30% of the vote; Cruz gets 40% of the vote. And that, kids, is how Ted Cruz could win an election with a lower percentage of the vote than Walter Mondale in 1984.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, I'll tell you that much now. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have the election if she's the Dem candidate.

This right here is what landed us with George W. Bush in the first place; too many split left-wing voters who refuse to handle someone slightly less left leaning that they would like (and then ended up voting for Nader), costing Dems New Hampshire, and most likely the 2000 election.

Slightly less? She isn't left leaning at all. Hillary Clinton represents me or the left in exactly no way. So fuck it, hail Prophet Jeb Bush, the once and future king.

[smjjames]

A similar thing happened in 1912, althought it was split between four, not three with Woodrow Wilson getting 41.8 Teddy Roosevelt getting 27.4 William Taft getting 23.2 and some random next runner up getting 6%. It was the republicans that got their vote split up back then.

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, I'll tell you that much now. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have the election if she's the Dem candidate.

This right here is what landed us with George W. Bush in the first place; too many split left-wing voters who refuse to handle someone slightly less left leaning that they would like (and then ended up voting for Nader), costing Dems New Hampshire, and most likely the 2000 election.

Slightly less? She isn't left leaning at all. Hillary Clinton represents me or the left in exactly no way. So fuck it, hail Prophet Jeb Bush, the once and future king.

You didn't answer my earlier question asking about your opinion. I already have my own misgivings about her.

[Frumple]

... no, if it's a choice between hillary and jeb, the only option is to burn down the voting building and then probably flee the country. Jeb as governor was enough. Beyond enough. That guy gets elected as president and every educational establishment in the country will spontaneously combust.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I already posted the short version before you asked. She's bad news.

[Twi]

We can handle the long version. Also, people keep telling me to post more. :u

[Darvi]

Yay spoiler votes. Improving politics since never.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Maybe you can, but for me it's kind of finals week. I'll give you the long version if I feel like it.

[nenjin]

I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton, I'll tell you that much now. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have the election if she's the Dem candidate.

This right here is what landed us with George W. Bush in the first place; too many split left-wing voters who refuse to handle someone slightly less left leaning that they would like (and then ended up voting for Nader), costing Dems New Hampshire, and most likely the 2000 election.

I'd rather vote my conscience than vote simply to feed the machine. The implementation of ACA, the handling of the Wall Street Meltdown, among other things, were both the price of voting just to keep the country out of someone else's hands. That was Obama's second election for sure, and if Romney had won, I kinda think that woulda been the tune of his term. It's an endless cycle and I'm kinda sick of it: guy gets elected, goes buck wild, spends their second term trying not to sink under the weight of their choices. New guy, new promises, same shit.

Honestly, this country need a good colonic, a nice political and social meltdown after we elect someone that really abuses their power. Smash that American Exceptionalism right open, experience what some of rest of the world experiences, namely Chaos, and get our fucking priorities back inline. I normally don't advocate Chaos just for its own sake, but it seems a hell of a lot more achievable right now than political compromise, a government and politicians that actually have our best interests at heart, or an electorate that cares about shit that actually matters.

[smjjames]

Could you guys explain further what's so bad about Hillary? I don't remember why I didn't vote for Hillary back in 2008. Although I think that was because she dropped out of the candidacy before California got a chance to vote. I don't remember.

I'm not exactly FOR her, but not solidly against.