......
......
Last edited by TheSexKitten; 10-07-2008 at 10:58 PM.
They are appealing on an emotional level than on a hard by the numbers level. This is why it is so hard. They are professionals at being the "popular kid."
Make yourself a "cosmo test" by doing the following:
Sit down with a notebook and figure out what is important to you.
Then of each of those things, decide which is more important than the other. Put a big number next to the important shit, a small number next to the unimportant (and yes, you can have negatives too!)
Draw columns for each of these candidates and if they apply to your need, put that number in the column.
Add em up.
Who ever gets the biggest number gets your vote.
Understand, these people are gaming the voters. How can one be rational about love and hate? Fear and Elation?
Listen carefully - especially on talk radio - especially Air America AND Conservative Stations - they ALL SOUND like they are being rational - but they are ALL APPEALING to the emotional.
It is very difficult to reason with masses of people - but one can definitely play their emotions and that is what these people are doing.
And oh yea, become an independent. Stand proud while you call your friends herd like party follower lemmings.
(Carry a bag of koolaid in your pocket and whip it out when the frenzy spittle spewing political arguments come forth like a gush of tropical hot air - that little bag is like hot water to a hurricane and shit REALLY hits the fan then.)
I totally understand where you are coming from SexKitten. I felt that way for awhile too but unless something big happens between now and the Nov. 08 election I've settled on my choice.
The way I look at it is that I'm voting for the person who has a good balance of what is important to me issue wise. I want the person who has policy ideas that I feel are in the best interest of the nation and lastly has a better than average chance of actually getting elected. I like many things about pretty much all the Dems running and I like Ron Paul on the other side too. But for me this time around the person who best fits the standards I listed above is Hillary.
Would someone please tell me WHAT "experience" Hillary has ? Experience doing what ? Being a Senator ? O.K.
How about running anything ? For months I've been asking someone; ANYONE to state something she has actually accomplished and to date NOBODY has been able to cite ANYTHING ! I'VE listed her "experience" and it is one of FAILURE so will someone, ANYONE, please point to something about this woman that rationally and objectively supports the notion that she will be a GOOD PRESIDENT.





^^^ she has experience raising campaign funds from both conventional and unconventional sources, as well as experience in 'keeping a lid' on potentially damaging investigations. And given the American public's seeming reliance on emotions instead of calculations, as well as their reliance on mainstream media created personas rather than actual personal histories, with enough money to buy enough media time she could definitely pull of a 2008 election win.
I used the word "FAILURE" broadly to include ALL that you mention. You and I have detailed ad nauseum all of her negatives and tawdry history. I can't stand her; don't trust her and can't understand why anyone would take a liking to her. I don't see a single admirable thing about her or quality that she has and neither does anyone else.
Yes, she is smart. That's the primary reason why she is so dangerous. Nixon was smart too and her negatives are HIGHER than his ever were; Pre-Watergate.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 01-02-2008 at 07:14 AM.
Eric,
Well she sure has more than Obama, and I like Obama so I'm not saying that as any kind of insult towards him or anyone who is planning to vote for him. Also I am pretty sure you have been replied to a number of differnt ways by a number of differnt people if not here then in person or on whatever other forums where you may participate.I honestly don't think you would accept any reasonable reply to your question and so I'm not going to bother repeating things that I feel you have heard before but just don't want to acknowledge, sorry.Let's get real here. You don't actually give a hoot about what experience Hilary has or doesn't have because you are dead set against her. Nothing at all is ever going to change that so maybe it's time to stop beating the deadhorse of a question on her qualifications.If I may suggest something that may serve your elect Obama agenda better-start a discussion on that and all the reasons you a backing him. Just a thought.Happy New Year to you![]()
Yeah, if we're thinking that the current President had the requisite experience when he was elected, then experience is highly overrated.
Campaign rhetoric is just that; remember that these people have to get their agendas past lobbyists, 527 Groups and Congress. Not an easy task.In the end, it feels like a guaranteed crapshoot, and that all my research and effort into creating a purposeful vote or campaign contribution will be thrown out the window anyway
Don't focus on the details but the themes--that's really all you can hope for from any candidate.
Spittle much?How about running anything ? For months I've been asking someone; ANYONE to state something she has actually accomplished and to date NOBODY has been able to cite ANYTHING ! I'VE listed her "experience" and it is one of FAILURE so will someone, ANYONE, please point to something about this woman that rationally and objectively supports the notion that she will be a GOOD PRESIDENT.
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Yeah, I've gotta stop letting my "evil twin" use my computer.
To try and simplify this and make it easier for the Hillary supporters : Let's say arguendo that she's just as "experienced" as anyone else. An arguable point but I'll concede it for discussion's sake. Please tell me something about HER that inspires confidence in her judgement. Something in her history that establishes an innate decency. A core value or belief that is likely to guide her Presidency.
When you ignore such things or wave them off you wind up with a Nixon. And that's who she reminds me of. The phony smile; the contrived laughter; the slippery way she answers questions.
Btw, the times during Bill's Presidency when Hillary held great sway were DISASTEROUS ! The first two years of his Presidency were awful: 3 candidates for Attorney General- all having to be "Hillary Approved" and we saw how well Janet handled Waco; Hillary's Grand Jury appearances; Vince Foster & Webb Hubbell; the Paula Jones lawsuit ( it wasn't settled on HER say-so ) the awful relations with a Dem controlled Congress ( "worse than under Carter according to many congressional Dems" ) etc. etc. all leading to the Debacle in '94. But I digress.
YOU were the one who said Hillary had "relevant experience" and I asked "experience at WHAT ? " and rather than even TRY to respond all you do is attack me.
Afaic just being the spouse of someone does not give you relevant experience. Bill and Hil can't even get their stories straight as to WHO did WHAT in his administration. Can Chris Rock's wife get on stage and be funny ? HE doesn't think so. So how can anyone make the assumption that just because Hillary was floating around the Oval Office and maybe found the time for a private chat with Bill once in a while that she gained relevant experience ?
If you want to vote for Hillary- go ahead. I hope you have some ideas in your own mind as to WHY even if you're not willing to share.
I'm starting to grasp the answer to the thread title:
The public won't let you.
The Primary process is why. The Democrat primaries are dominated by LIBERALS to whom attention must be paid ( apologies to Arthur Miller ). The Republican primaries are heavily influenced by the Christers who must be catered to. The majority of Americans don't bother voting in primaries leaving the field to extremists in both parties.
Being an independent, the primaries are none of my business. This is party politics working out who is going to represent the party.
I do vote in all general elections.
See that's part of the problem. By not getting involved with a party and participating in the primaries you're still stuck, more often than not, with choosing the least bad candidate in the General Election.
This year I changed my registration from Republican to Dem so I could vote for Obama.
This is the beauty of our two party system. It creates balance and a centrist government. Our founding fathers really were brilliant when they came up with the basis for our society.
We are starting to feel the pain of being off balance. A left leaning government will re-create balance for a while, but when that tips too far to the left the right will re-exert itself (via our elected officials) and the balance will return again.
Luckily, since the 1930's we've had some great balance in the US. We, as citizens, have been able to make wise decisions to prevent a disaster on the scale of the great depression. And having that kind of economic stability for almost 80 years is amazing!
I've not yet made a decision on who I will vote for in the primaries, but my state really has way too late of a primary to make any difference, anyway. I'll still vote, but Oregon's primary is May 10th. Most of the candidates will have been eliminated by then anyway.
So, my advice to you is to pick a priority issue(s) and go with the candidate that has that same priority. No one ever keeps all of their campaign promises, anyway. GW was in power for 45 minutes before he was breaking promises, I think (I can't remember exactly how fast he made an about face, but it was really damn fast)!
Last edited by Paris; 01-04-2008 at 10:05 PM.
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!
Bookmarks