Conquer Club

here is where u talk politics, even if u r not in the US who do u think would better our country as a whole?
feel free to debate but no flaming, only arguments based of fact
ie ____ is a %$#@ is a no no
_____ would ruin the country because they hav _____ quality YAY

Have to admire your essential faith in the decency of the posters on this site
But, frankly, how long do we think before Jay, DaGip and the other (now, now, no flaming Suggs!)...lizardmen hijack it?
(obv, I would never do such a thing ).

My hunch is still that the republicans are going to get their biggest kicking since 1996.

Clinton is a fuckwit.

Maybe this could be merged with the Obama thread?
Maybe I could keep my horribly large and runny nose out of it?

Nickbaldwin wrote:Clinton is a fuckwit.

Your answer Suggs. is measured in nanoseconds.

I think you should elect Michael Moore, he deserves it. (Note the ambiguity of "deserves")

I vote for Eminem, seriously, he's a genious.

This poll is biased. You forgot Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and whomever the commies are putting forward.

I'd vote Ron Paul.

I'm still undecided honestly. At first I was leaning towards McCain, but things are rapidly decelerating economically, and we need to cut spending in a lot of places. It's almost to the point that I suggest we ditch Iraq just to balance the freaking budget. Not quite, but I'm running out of other ideas. Of course, no matter who I vote for Congress will continue to pander for votes, and thus drive us further into debt. So we're screwed either way, but damn it, I like to pretend that our government is run by people that know what they're doing.

Frigidus wrote:I'm still undecided honestly. At first I was leaning towards McCain, but things are rapidly decelerating economically, and we need to cut spending in a lot of places. It's almost to the point that I suggest we ditch Iraq just to balance the freaking budget. Not quite, but I'm running out of other ideas. Of course, no matter who I vote for Congress will continue to pander for votes, and thus drive us further into debt. So we're screwed either way, but damn it, I like to pretend that our government is run by people that know what they're doing.

Yeah, something fishy is going on here. We voted in a new political party, and yet nothing changed in the capital. It seems both sides really are working against us. Didn't the Dems promise to drastically cut spending?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Frigidus wrote:I'm still undecided honestly. At first I was leaning towards McCain, but things are rapidly decelerating economically, and we need to cut spending in a lot of places. It's almost to the point that I suggest we ditch Iraq just to balance the freaking budget. Not quite, but I'm running out of other ideas. Of course, no matter who I vote for Congress will continue to pander for votes, and thus drive us further into debt. So we're screwed either way, but damn it, I like to pretend that our government is run by people that know what they're doing.

Yeah, something fishy is going on here. We voted in a new political party, and yet nothing changed in the capital. It seems both sides really are working against us. Didn't the Dems promise to drastically cut spending?

The tough truth is that whoever cuts spending loses votes. Given that we swap out for new guys every 2 years, people actually interested in reform don't stick around long.

There used to be a popular (i.e. it was in lots of places) bit of graffiti in the UK
"Whoever you vote for, the government gets in".

McCain

I realize that Barack is going to keep saying "four more Bush years" until he is blue in the face, but really what "change" does he actually promise? Forget Iraq for a moment, the biggest cause of military casualties in the next 4 years is in that other place, where Democrats want to do more not less, Afganistan. McCain wants to reduce casualties everywhere. McCain wants to reduce spending. These two changes alone are enough to make me want to vote for him because they certanly won't change under Barack.

tzor wrote:I realize that Barack is going to keep saying "four more Bush years" until he is blue in the face, but really what "change" does he actually promise?

You forgot to add that he talks about the FUTURE and HOPE

Yes, I do realize that Obama uses a lot of nice words in his speeches without giving a lot of details. But one thing he does promise is a middle class tax cut. My guy, Bill Richardson didn't get in so I'm a little disappointed at our choices this year. But congrats to Obama because it is quite a historic moment for our country to have the first African-American as the nominee of a major political party.

These Ron Paul supporters were entertaining but now they're just getting ridiculous. IT'S OVER PEOPLE! It's Obama versus McCain just get used to it.

CoffeeCream wrote:

tzor wrote:I realize that Barack is going to keep saying "four more Bush years" until he is blue in the face, but really what "change" does he actually promise?

You forgot to add that he talks about the FUTURE and HOPE

Yes, I do realize that Obama uses a lot of nice words in his speeches without giving a lot of details. But one thing he does promise is a middle class tax cut. My guy, Bill Richardson didn't get in so I'm a little disappointed at our choices this year. But congrats to Obama because it is quite a historic moment for our country to have the first African-American as the nominee of a major political party.

These Ron Paul supporters were entertaining but now they're just getting ridiculous. IT'S OVER PEOPLE! It's Obama versus McCain just get used to it.

I am disappointed by Mr. Richardson's lack of support too. What happened there? He has the best experience, and qualifications of any candidate, from any party(personal beliefs aside). I don't get that one.

And you shouldn't say such things about Ron Paul supporters. What is wrong about caring about your country? I think they really want to make their vote count. I hate the mentality of voting for the two parties because only they can win. That's how you really throw your vote away.

I might be wrong, I am not too sure about the vaguaries of the US electoral system, but come voting day, wont there only be two parties on the ballot paper (or maybe three if that Green Party geezer is still standing).

If that is the case, then this whole Ron Paul thing is a waste of time - you must vote, to keep democracy alive, and if you only have 2 parties to choose from, then thats who choose!

suggs wrote:I might be wrong, I am not too sure about the vaguaries of the US electoral system, but come voting day, wont there only be two parties on the ballot paper (or maybe three if that Green Party geezer is still standing).

If that is the case, then this whole Ron Paul thing is a waste of time - you must vote, to keep democracy alive, and if you only have 2 parties to choose from, then thats who choose!

I usually scribble my name somewhere in the margins and put a check-mark next to it. Can you imagine how pissed I was at the computerized voting?

The U.S. Constitution doesn't specify rules, so each state decides individually. Most states you must get a certian number of signatures, and pay a filing fee. Most states still have write-in ballots too, but a few don't. But all in all it takes roughly about 750,000 signatures and some big filing fees to get on every ballot. The two big parties just get a freebie and get to skip this.
Ron Paul still has $4 million in his campaign, so he can certainly afford it. But that money isn't nearly enough to competativly run for office. Plus, he is running as a Republican....

Does this sound right for everyones state?