Hat Trick! (08 elections)

Well, if he did as good as you say, that will get him some exposure. And, if he is as intelligent and charismatic as you guys say, he can find a way to get the exposure.

Survival of the fittest. If he is really good enough to be a political messiah, he should be able to do it without using excuses like "Nobody likes me"

The problem is, everyone says that they won't vote for Ron Paul because he won't get the nomination. But, everyone is saying that. It's kinda like how 52% of the people here think their vote doesn't count. I think if people would ignore the "he'll never win" concept and just vote for who they think would be the best, he could win.

Disclaimer 1: "Everyone" was a hyperbole.
Disclaimer 2: It might not be exactly 52%.
Disclaimer 3: He "could" win, not "would."

Oh, and on a side note: M-C-C-A-I-N

|*BILLY$CLINT*| said:

Have you even read any of his polices? It sounds like you have not even bother to read what he wants to do to America like getting rid of the IRS. I did/going to vote for him just so that I stop getting taxed twice I hate that ****.

Click to expand...

next time instead of voting for your dream canidate (favorite loser) why dont you make your vote matter and vote for the person who actually needs it rather than splitting the vote and ass ****ing the more potential canidate.

KillStreak said:

next time instead of voting for your dream canidate (favorite loser) why dont you make your vote matter and vote for the person who actually needs it rather than splitting the vote and ass ****ing the more potential canidate.

Click to expand...

My vote did matter and was not wasted because I believe that he was the best candidate for president as he addressed all the issues that I find most important (Mainly getting rid of the IRS and stop getting double taxed).

Just because you don't agree with my choice does not make it a bad or wrong decision. I don't agree with a lot of the ideals that the other candidates hold so I did not vote for them. Plus if you knew anything about the American electoral college it is not base off the popular vote so in the end that candidate could win if he convinces the electoral college to give him their votes. I mean that is how bush got into office 2 times now.

Given equal coverage by the MSM, RP would probably have done much better. But from the very beginning he was shunned as an "outsider" and "extremist" and "loony toon", and outside the internet, either no one knows who he is or they've gotten the wrong idea about him.

The majority of the general public hardly cares or knows anything at all about the election or the candidates. My own mother doesn't even know who's running and wouldn't mind seeing Bush get the job for a third time because she literally has no idea what's going on in politics. Most votes are more than likely based on trivial matters -- how moving a speech was, race/gender, familiarity, etc., which is great for the status quo, but very bad for people like Kucinich and RP.

As of yesterday's Obama money bomb, I've donated a little money to two candidates -- RP and Obama. RP talks a lot of sense yet has been labeled from the start as a nutcase. If that's all people hear about him from the MSM, if they hear anything at all, of course he has no chance of winning. That doesn't mean he's wrong or that his message doesn't and won't mean something.

Maybe it's just me...but when I look at Ron, I dunno I just get the impression he'll drop dead any minute.

He's actually quite healthy, not that surprising tho.. considering he's a doctor and he exercises daily.

McCain on the other hand...

Obama is the candidate of the liberial media. It's ridiclulous. If Obama is behind, it's "too close to call", now that he's ahead, like Hillary was, it's "she can't catch up", if you watch certain obviouly bias news sources.

I sound like a Republican, but damn it's like Fox, but the other side , just not as bad, and less obvious, which makes it way worse in a way

Obama f*cked my mama.

|*BILLY$CLINT*| said:

My vote did matter and was not wasted because I believe that he was the best candidate for president as he addressed all the issues that I find most important (Mainly getting rid of the IRS and stop getting double taxed).

Just because you don't agree with my choice does not make it a bad or wrong decision. I don't agree with a lot of the ideals that the other candidates hold so I did not vote for them. Plus if you knew anything about the American electoral college it is not base off the popular vote so in the end that candidate could win if he convinces the electoral college to give him their votes. I mean that is how bush got into office 2 times now.

Click to expand...

One often cited example of the "spoiler effect" at work was the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. In that election, George W. Bush and Al Gore had a very close election in many states, with neither candidate winning a majority of the votes.

"Vote splitting" is the phenomenon that causes the "spoiler effect". Vote splitting is the distribution of votes among similar candidates in a situation that decreases the likelihood of winning for any of the similar candidates.

Since the Florida votes were among the last to be reported, and because the results were so close, and there was a vote recount, some say that the Florida result "decided the election". Some Gore supporters believed that many of the 97,421 votes that went to Ralph Nader in that state would likely have been votes for Gore, had Nader not been running in the election. Some Gore supporters contend that Nader's candidacy "spoiled" the election for Gore by taking away enough votes from Gore in Florida and many other states to allow Bush to win.




and thats how bush got into office 2x in a row my friend.

Yeah, that is whiny bull**** right there. People should vote for who they want, that is the whole ****ing point of Democracy.

"Whaa, whaaa. I lost. It couldn't be the fact that I was completely insane and that my entire campaign platform was 'Bill was my buddy, and I like humping trees.' It had to have been that damn dirty Nader"

I'm gonna agree with gundy for once.

If you are losing votes to someone it simply means your campaign needs to do more work to get them back, regardless of who is taking them.

glad to see neither of you are facing the facts.

And what are your "facts" again? The guy you like didn't win so it is Nader's fault?

And if I liked two candidates, I would probably vote for the one I like most (unless I absolutely hate the third candidate).

KillStreak said:

next time instead of voting for your dream canidate (favorite loser) why dont you make your vote matter and vote for the person who actually needs it rather than splitting the vote and ass ****ing the more potential canidate.

Click to expand...

These are the PRIMARIES. You're supposed to vote for the person you want to represent your political party. There're no spoilers here. Now, if McCain gets the Republican nomination and Ron Paul decides to go independent, that's when you can officially start your bitching.

RP won't go independent. He's stated before he is Republican through and through. It's the rest of the candidates who have lost their way given what the Republican party used to stand for. Hence why the term "neocons" is appropriate for most of them -- Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative but they aren't anymore.

Actually didn't get a chance to vote since I'm a git and forgot to send in a request to update my registration so I didn't have to drive 2 hours to go vote and return home.

Personally I was gunning for Biden or Dodd, and !Hilary. The more I've heard and read about Obama the more I'm inclined to vote for him. Originally I was skeptical of him due to the whole experience thing (same with Hilary who has barely one term more than him in the Senate), but I think if he can get a stellar cabinet and other advisors I think he'll do well. Honestly anything is better than what we have right now, and I'd rather have somone with a strong, positive and uplifting message in charge right now even if they can't follow through on some of their promises. The country needs a massive morale boost. I don't see Hilary doing that. She seems too cold and calculating.

Republicans were more interesting to watch initially since I'm an independent voter but I tend to lean liberally or democratic on some issues. I really didn't have a strong feeling on any of the candidates aside from the fact that Giuliani scared the crap out of me in the initial debates. Paul appeals to me since I feel that less government involvement in some things would be nice, but I think he's got too big a long shot. Huckabee I don't quite understand... He seemed like a pretty reasonable guy, but I'm not sure where the whole appeal to the religious conservative thing came from out of the blue, but whatever. I would take McCain over Hilary but I need to read up on his current policies and stuff before I commit to that view. I miss the McCain from 2000 before the Republicans decided to reign in his "maverickness" and force him to kowtow to Bush and the rest of the neo-cons. I get a sense that he might be willing to return to form but for now he needs to appeal to the Southern Conservatives in order to get the vote in the general election (although I'm not sure who they would vote for if they're not happy with the Republican candidate this year).

If he's fiscally conservative that might be a good thing since we need to get the damn budget back under control. Whoever takes over, they can start by dismantling DHS since they're redundant.

So my vote is Obama, McCain otherwise.

T2A` said:

Also, McCain doesn't just want to stay in Iraq, he wants to go into Iran as well. He is a warmonger and he will bankrupt this country.

Click to expand...

Actually, angry Islamists are warmongers, and are anxiously awaiting the moment to take advantage of the West's declining resolve...

the ultimate decider

I did innie minnie miney mo to pick my candidate out of these four....