shropshire 0 #1 January 30, 2008 clicky (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #2 January 30, 2008 Not that I was backing Edwards, but: It kinda sucks not being one of the first states to hold primaries. Some of the choices get whittled away before you even get a chance to decide who is best. It doesn't seem fair to have primaries in different states on different days. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #3 January 30, 2008 The politicians and powers that be like it that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #4 January 30, 2008 Quote The politicians and powers that be like it that way. How would you fix it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #5 January 30, 2008 Quote Quote The politicians and powers that be like it that way. How would you fix it? Put all the primaries on the same day, just like the general election. Plus, that way we don't have to keep hearing about it... let everyone vote at the same time and get it over with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #6 January 30, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The politicians and powers that be like it that way. How would you fix it? Put all the primaries on the same day, just like the general election. Plus, that way we don't have to keep hearing about it... let everyone vote at the same time and get it over with. Nightingale for president ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #7 January 30, 2008 Speedracer for Supreme Dictator. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #8 January 30, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The politicians and powers that be like it that way. How would you fix it? Put all the primaries on the same day, just like the general election. Plus, that way we don't have to keep hearing about it... let everyone vote at the same time and get it over with. I agree, the only other thing I would change would be how it's financed. 100% public financing with equal airtime for each candidate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #9 January 30, 2008 Agreed, and I would make it a fairly small amount. That way we can see how resourceful they can be with our money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #10 January 30, 2008 QuoteSpeedracer for Supreme Dictator. This calls for a farcical aquatic ceremony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 January 30, 2008 He will support whoever looks like they're going to win; in this case, my guess would be Obama with a possible hope that he, Edwards, can be the VP candidate. Clinton simply could not be the VP at this point.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #12 January 30, 2008 QuoteAgreed, and I would make it a fairly small amount. That way we can see how resourceful they can be with our money. Wouldn't that give a 1st Amendment problem?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 January 30, 2008 Limited funds, not limited speech if it is publicly funded, and equal amounts to each cadidate. Seems you were in favor of limits on free spech in regards to yelling "FIRE" and or "BOMB". You are in favor of limits on the 2nd in regards to far more than just restricting felons. So how does this differ, I will give you a hint... It does not restrict anyone. The only people who would complain are the ones with the most financial backing. Of course this would take the power and influence away from the D's and R's, and give some power back to the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #14 January 30, 2008 QuoteLimited funds, not limited speech if it is publicly funded, and equal amounts to each cadidate. Seems you were in favor of limits on free spech in regards to yelling "FIRE" and or "BOMB". Why do you think that? Have I written it anywhere? Quote You are in favor of limits on the 2nd in regards to far more than just restricting felons. True, I'd like to restrict the insane as well. Do you think the insane should have guns? Quote So how does this differ, I will give you a hint... It does not restrict anyone. The only people who would complain are the ones with the most financial backing. Of course this would take the power and influence away from the D's and R's, and give some power back to the people. Well, I seem to recall that the GOP whined most loudly about campaign finance restrictions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #15 January 30, 2008 Quote He will support whoever looks like they're going to win; in this case, my guess would be Obama with a possible hope that he, Edwards, can be the VP candidate. Clinton simply could not be the VP at this point. I thought the reason he stayed in this long was in hope of a VP slot with Hillary, i.e. he was drawing some of the "anyone but Hillary" votes away from Obama and expected to be rewarded for it. Now I'm not so sure who his withdrawal will benefit. Obama will definitely pick up some "anyone but Hillary" votes, but she'll likely pick up the more partisan Edwards backers. Overall, I'm thinking it's probably either a wash or a slight benefit to Obama. It's still early, but it seems to me that it's actually shaping up to be McCain vs Obama. That pleases me. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #16 January 30, 2008 Quote Quote He will support whoever looks like they're going to win; in this case, my guess would be Obama with a possible hope that he, Edwards, can be the VP candidate. Clinton simply could not be the VP at this point. I thought the reason he stayed in this long was in hope of a VP slot with Hillary, i.e. he was drawing some of the "anyone but Hillary" votes away from Obama and expected to be rewarded for it. Now I'm not so sure who his withdrawal will benefit. Obama will definitely pick up some "anyone but Hillary" votes, but she'll likely pick up the more partisan Edwards backers. Overall, I'm thinking it's probably either a wash or a slight benefit to Obama. It's still early, but it seems to me that it's actually shaping up to be McCain vs Obama. That pleases me. Blues, Dave Doesn't it all depend on whether blacks or women generate the most bigotry?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #17 January 30, 2008 QuotePut all the primaries on the same day, just like the general election. Plus, that way we don't have to keep hearing about it... let everyone vote at the same time and get it over with. Is that how you feel about our democratic process? GET IT OVER WITH? Just giving you the business, it gave me a good laugh as I read it. Two and a half years of campaigning is way too much." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 January 30, 2008 QuoteMcCain vs Obama Dem vs. Dem Lite....yay!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #19 January 30, 2008 QuoteHe will support whoever looks like they're going to win; in this case, my guess would be Obama with a possible hope that he, Edwards, can be the VP candidate. Clinton simply could not be the VP at this point. My thought was that he's getting out so he can get to work sucking up for a VP slot. Was it SNL who did a skit on him making brownies and fetching lemonade for all the candidates?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #20 January 30, 2008 Quote Quote Quote The politicians and powers that be like it that way. How would you fix it? Put all the primaries on the same day, just like the general election. Plus, that way we don't have to keep hearing about it... let everyone vote at the same time and get it over with. That method has the added advantage of removing the huge political advantage that states like Iowa have in setting the national agenda. Candidates that bad-mouth ethanol don't last long in the primaries nowadays.. wonder why that is?7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteAgreed, and I would make it a fairly small amount. That way we can see how resourceful they can be with our money. Wouldn't that give a 1st Amendment problem? Not in a Court that signed off on McCain-Feingold, unforutunately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 January 30, 2008 QuotePut all the primaries on the same day, just like the general election. Plus, that way we don't have to keep hearing about it... let everyone vote at the same time and get it over with. This is a grass is greener argument - there are numerous downsides to what you propose. Shortened primary process - great. 2 months, with elections every 2 weeks. Single day - bad. Vunerable to dirty tricks, does validate the candidate for the long haul in the summer and fall. Definitely benefits the established candidates, even more so if you try to limit campaign spending. Had this 1 day election been in November, it would have been Guilani versus Clinton. Last summer, McCain versus ??. Now that we've done some campaigning, it's McCain OR Romney v. Clinton or Obama. It's proven that guys like Edwards or Guilani really weren't suitable candidates and couldn't have won the main election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #23 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteMcCain vs Obama Dem vs. Dem Lite....yay! Isn't that the truth! How exciting!The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #24 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteMcCain vs Obama Dem vs. Dem Lite....yay! So tell me, how is anti-abortion, pro-2nd amendment, pro-Iraq war McCain a "dem"? Because there are people to the left of Strom Thurmond who support him? For a republican candidate to be considered a republican, is it a requirement that he be a polarizing figure? Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #25 January 30, 2008 Quote So tell me, how is anti-abortion, pro-2nd amendment, pro-Iraq war McCain a "dem"? Because there are people to the left of Strom Thurmond who support him? For a republican candidate to be considered a republican, is it a requirement that he be a polarizing figure? In the Eyes of the far right wing that seems to control the Party of Morality...McCain sure looks like a LIBERAL to them Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
