Real Dilemma

nimh wrote:

(That was too easy.)

How nice that you can amuse yourself nimh. Considering how much time you spend in this forum,I'm sure it is an ability that serves you well.

0 Replies

Re: Real Dilemma

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

and I'm truly concerned....

I cannot in good conscience support either McCain or Obama... I'm not a lesser of two evils type... but I feel obligated to remain in the political process....and the truth is one of these two will be the next president.... and each unqualified IMO.... anyone else feel like this?

So if Senator Clinton concedes and asks you to throw your support behind Obama, will that be enough? Bill and Chelsa say they will ask for your support as well.

0 Replies

Let Democracy run its course and allow the Michigan and Florida delegations in the Convention floor to decide the fate of both Obama and Hillary. If these two states are denied their participation they will deny the Democratic nominee their votes in the General Election. The Democratic nominee is damaged. Either Obama or Hillary will lose if these two states are left out. The Democratic leadership is an ass in denying these two states their votes for a minor infraction. It's like handing out a death penalty for shoplifting.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

The Democratic leadership is an ass in denying these two states their votes for a minor infraction. It's like handing out a death penalty for shoplifting.

Obama wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary ran unopposed except for Kucinich. Remind me again how it's democratic to seat the delegates from that election.

talk72000 wrote:

If these two states are denied their participation they will deny the Democratic nominee their votes in the General Election. [..] Either Obama or Hillary will lose if these two states are left out.

Oddly enough, polls are consistently showing Obama doing better than Hillary against McCain in Michigan. How do you explain that?

0 Replies

I feel for bi-polar bear, if I was in his shoes and Hillary was looking like she was going to win; I would be going through the same kind of dilemma only worse in my opinion because I would have to weigh how Hillary has run her campaign by appealing to the bigotries out there against McCain who has lost any kind of moral or ethical bone he has ever had (such as his campaign reform which he has thrown out the window in his own case and his caving on torture recently and in the case where he let Bush's signing statement go without a word in protest) in order to win over the right in his bid for president.

0 Replies

Is no one else worried that if Obama or Clinton wins it is very likely that the entire government will be controlled by the democrats?

WHY would Obama be a "uniter" or bring about "change" when he becomes president? With Obama's rock-star status, the Congress and the House will cave in to his every desire. There will be no need to reach across the isle.

This is not good.

And honestly, I no longer support Clinton for president either now that I've looked at our government as a whole. Our government works BEST when there are checks and balances.

0 Replies

Re: Real Dilemma

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

and I'm truly concerned....

I cannot in good conscience support either McCain or Obama... anyone else feel like this?

No - I find myself able to support McCain.

0 Replies

Maporsche, with all due respect, bullshit. Get the right man in there for the job. If you get a complete f*cking corrupt nincompoop like Bush in there with a repub majority in congress, then yes, of course you will get huge f*ck-ups. But even with this colossal assh*le in there for six years with a majority, the country didn't completely fall to pieces.

Get the best man for the job in there. That's the most important thing.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I feel for bi-polar bear, if I was in his shoes and Hillary was looking like she was going to win; I would be going through the same kind of dilemma only worse in my opinion because I would have to weigh how Hillary has run her campaign by appealing to the bigotries out there against McCain who has lost any kind of moral or ethical bone he has ever had (such as his campaign reform which he has thrown out the window in his own case and his caving on torture recently and in the case where he let Bush's signing statement go without a word in protest) in order to win over the right in his bid for president.

bigotry is the new catchphrase replacing If you're not with me you're against isn't it?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Is no one else worried that if Obama or Clinton wins it is very likely that the entire government will be controlled by the democrats?

WHY would Obama be a "uniter" or bring about "change" when he becomes president? With Obama's rock-star status, the Congress and the House will cave in to his every desire. There will be no need to reach across the isle.

This is not good.

And honestly, I no longer support Clinton for president either now that I've looked at our government as a whole. Our government works BEST when there are checks and balances.

This is similar to the situation after the 2000 election with the Republicans in charge of both houses and the WH. Government by railroad ensued to the point that Jim Jeffords (R-VT) left the Republican Party and became an independent affiliating with the Dems, tipping the balance in the Senate temporarily over to the Dems.

I don't disagree with you on this. I don't like government by railroad regardless of which side is driving the train. But then, I don't like the concept of an elected official being controlled by his Party leaders rather than his conscience any better.

Something needs to change. I don't see either McCain or Clinton as anything other than more of the same party politics. Hopefully Obama is an instrument of change -- I'm willing to take the chance.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Is no one else worried that if Obama or Clinton wins it is very likely that the entire government will be controlled by the democrats?

Only a little bit. My sincere hope is that he uses this advantage to restore civil liberties and checks and balances to the government. I expect he'll have it for about two years until the next midterm elections.

Quote:

WHY would Obama be a "uniter" or bring about "change" when he becomes president? With Obama's rock-star status, the Congress and the House will cave in to his every desire. There will be no need to reach across the isle.

This is not good.

I think, so far, he's been pretty successful uniting voters behind the Democratic Party. I like a balance of power, too. But I'm ok with two years of imbalance to correct the last 6 years of abuse of power. And yes, I do believe Obama will not abuse that power. If I'm wrong then I'm a sucker, but of the three we have to choose from, he's the least likely to abuse it, in my estimation.

And honestly, I no longer support Clinton for president either now that I've looked at our government as a whole. Our government works BEST when there are checks and balances.[/quote]

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Is no one else worried that if Obama or Clinton wins it is very likely that the entire government will be controlled by the democrats?

WHY would Obama be a "uniter" or bring about "change" when he becomes president? With Obama's rock-star status, the Congress and the House will cave in to his every desire. There will be no need to reach across the isle.

This is not good.

And honestly, I no longer support Clinton for president either now that I've looked at our government as a whole. Our government works BEST when there are checks and balances.

This is, IMO, a bit short-sighted. Obama's campaign has been run pretty much exactly as Deval Patrick ran his campaign a few years ago when he became Gov. here in MA.

The MA State Legislature is easily 80+% Democrats and Patrick is a Democrat and this exact same arguement was used against him as well.

Well, he won. He took office and immediately found that pretty much everything he proposed was stonewalled by the Legislature. There has been a constant power struggle between the office of the Gov and the Legislature during Patrick's tenure and that has pretty much resulted in a big fat nothing happening at all. It's all simple evidence that the Gov. holds little, if any, power in theis state. The Legislature rules here (and the State House is easily in control of the State Senate as well...) so the Speaker of the State House of Reps is easily the most powerful politico in the State.

If Obama ends up in the Whitehouse we could very well see the same sort of power struggle. While a sitting President is usually seen as the defacto "leader" of their political party there isn't any reason to believe that someone like Pelosi isn't quietly supporting Obama because she may see it as being easier down the road to assert her own influence with him in the Whitehouse then it would be for her of Clinton were President.

I don't expect Obama will be able to steamroll bills through the Congress...

0 Replies

Consider that Obama has been in washington for only three years and running for president for 50% of that time. How much of an actual power base do you all think he has built up among the washington democratic politicians. Who will he choose to be part of his government. How is he going to "change" washington with no power base. I think a lot of people have been blinded by good looks.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Consider that Obama has been in washington for only three years and running for president for 50% of that time. How much of an actual power base do you all think he has built up among the washington democratic politicians. Who will he choose to be part of his government. How is he going to "change" washington with no power base. I think a lot of people have been blinded by good looks.

His power base does not reside in Washington. That's his strength. Legions of inspired followers.

And I would think that the fact he's winning S-D's as well as the popular vote shows that the 'elites' in Washington are willing to get behind him.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Let Democracy run its course and allow the Michigan and Florida delegations in the Convention floor to decide the fate of both Obama and Hillary. If these two states are denied their participation they will deny the Democratic nominee their votes in the General Election. The Democratic nominee is damaged. Either Obama or Hillary will lose if these two states are left out. The Democratic leadership is an ass in denying these two states their votes for a minor infraction. It's like handing out a death penalty for shoplifting.

No, more like handing out the West Virginia penalty for trying to turn Texas and Ohio into West Virginia. These states were trying to deny Texas, Ohio, Penn, NC, Indiana, etc their say by deciding the election early. By all means, make them sit it out to see how it feels.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Consider that Obama has been in washington for only three years and running for president for 50% of that time. How much of an actual power base do you all think he has built up among the washington democratic politicians. Who will he choose to be part of his government. How is he going to "change" washington with no power base. I think a lot of people have been blinded by good looks.

Most Presidents come in with zero Washington base. All those governors from past years have to start from scratch, but a convincing win in the general election does wonders.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Is no one else worried that if Obama or Clinton wins it is very likely that the entire government will be controlled by the democrats?

WHY would Obama be a "uniter" or bring about "change" when he becomes president? With Obama's rock-star status, the Congress and the House will cave in to his every desire. There will be no need to reach across the isle.

This is not good

And honestly, I no longer support Clinton for president either now that I've looked at our government as a whole. Our government works BEST when there are checks and balances.

The success of our system of government does depend, heavily, on checks and balances which,in essence, reflect a realistic (or cynical) view of human nature. I'm not sure that I agree that it is necessary that the legislative and executive branches be controlled by opposing parties, but I can certainly understand why someone might think so. Obviously the Founding Fathers who were realistic/cynical enough to appreciate the need for checks and balances, didn't think so.

Personally, I think having Democrats in control of congress and the White House will be a disaster, but that's more a reflection of my ideology than any opinion on political science I may have.

A single party government can get things done.

A president alone can not get a lot done, and since most people seem to choose their candidates based on the king-like promises they make, one would expect that they would want a very powerful president in office, and therefore want the single party government.

Presidential candidates who promise stasis have an uphill road to climb.It's one of the reasons the notion of a truly long term dominance by either party is a pipe dream.

Fortunately, there are enough variables built into our system to assure that as long as it remains intact, it will be very difficult for any person or persons to do irreperable damage to the country.

However, if you're concerned about what is happening in the short term, and fear a transcendent screw-up, hamstringing the government at every turn is a good idea.

0 Replies

It is ridiculous to say that votes of other states are being denied by having early votes. Those who vote later still do get to vote. The case of Michigan and Florida is one where their delegation is stripped of their votes. They have to fight now to have their votes counted in the Convention.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

It is ridiculous to say that votes of other states are being denied by having early votes. Those who vote later still do get to vote. The case of Michigan and Florida is one where their delegation is stripped of their votes. They have to fight now to have their votes counted in the Convention.

But if their votes are meaningless because the campaign is decided, there is effectively only one name on the ballot. That's not getting your vote counted. Those latter states also don't get to see the candidates or have them pay attention to their local issues. They are completely written off in the process. That is why states try to move up. If their votes were still valid, no one would be pushing their primaries up.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I'll tell you what's evil. Democrats that want to get rid of the tax breaks. That's evil.

You and I have far different ideas of "evil."

I know you get off on playing the troll. But you are a despicable human being, IMO.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know