The 2008 Democratic ticket will be Obama/Edwards

1246

Comments

  • Mestophar wrote:
    18-25 year olds generally don't vote, but is that because they are not involved in the process? Maybe they have never seen a candidate worth voting for? I think you will be surprised at how many new Republicans, 18-25, will vote and we all know who they will be voting for.

    But keep towing the party line, somebody has to do it.

    Who's towing the party line? I stated that I hate when someone loses a primary then runs as an independent.

    Keep being the one that's too indie and intelligent to support a top tier candidate.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Both Zogby and Gallup have Edwards or Obama winning against any of the Republican nominees. It's Hillary that struggles in the general elections.

    edwards has a chance of beating a republican in the general election. obama doesn't have a chance.
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    my2hands wrote:
    hahahahahahaha

    i guess reading comprehension is not your strong point my good friend.

    where did i say i supported these 2 candidates? i was simply making a prediction, thats all.

    or maybe you missed my last line in my OP where i stated i was voting for Kucinich, you know the guy who is being thrown to the curb by hins own party? or maybe you missed where i refernenced "peace candidates that are ahead of their time"

    me and you, we generally agree on most things from what i have read. so perhaps you should actually read what i write before jumping down my throat stating i am "fuckign blind" and should have my "voting rights should be taken away" and call me a "clown"

    read and comprehend, before you post chief, thanks. :rolleyes:

    not directed at you..just the people who sit down and watch these fraudulent debates expectiing some kind of truth
  • edwards has a chance of beating a republican in the general election. obama doesn't have a chance.

    Obama is polling at 47% in a election. 3 points ahead of Edwards and 6 ahead of Clinton. Obama or Edwards are the only Dems who could win in November.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Obama is polling at 47% in a election. 3 points ahead of Edwards and 6 ahead of Clinton. Obama or Edwards are the only Dems who could win in November.

    that 47% is dems. and it's also the dems polled. not many back country rednecks that would vote for hitler before letting a black man in the office have been polled.
  • that 47% is dems. and it's also the dems polled. not many back country rednecks that would vote for hitler before letting a black man in the office have been polled.

    Zogby and Gallup are not Dem polls. I would think they got a fair sample of voters from across the country.

    I also don't see the point of polling down in the south for a Democrat because you know they won't win that state and get it's Electoral votes. It's like polling for Republicans in Mass, NY, or Illinois. Just a waste of time.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Zogby and Gallup are not Dem polls. I would think they got a fair sample of voters from across the country.

    I also don't see the point of polling down in the south for a Democrat because you know they won't win that state and get it's Electoral votes. It's like polling for Republicans in Mass, NY, or Illinois. Just a waste of time.

    brilliant. only poll the states he may win in to get a fair idea of where he stands.
  • The way I see it, the only two candidates who are capable of changing this country are either Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. While they have different beliefs and goals, it is evident that they would bring about some sort of change.

    The other candidates will be just like the majority of presidents we have had. Afraid to take a hard stance on any issue, which will just cause this country to continue sliding down the current slope we are on.

    Again just the way I see it, but it is evident that we need change. The question is how do you want to it to come about? With Ron Paul, government interference is all but gone. Kucinich, like Paul, supports protecting individual liberties but feels that we all need to help each other out. Personally, I think this is a difficult and chaotic time for our country, we need as much help from our (hopefully revamped) government as we can get.
    "Don't lose your inner heat...ever" - EV 5/13/06
  • brilliant. only poll the states he may win in to get a fair idea of where he stands.

    I don't like it either man, but in reality national elections boil down to less than 10 states whose electoral college wait will swing the election. We should just go by total votes and forget the electoral college
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    The way I see it, the only two candidates who are capable of changing this country are either Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. While they have different beliefs and goals, it is evident that they would bring about some sort of change.

    The other candidates will be just like the majority of presidents we have had. Afraid to take a hard stance on any issue, which will just cause this country to continue sliding down the current slope we are on.

    Again just the way I see it, but it is evident that we need change. The question is how do you want to it to come about? With Ron Paul, government interference is all but gone. Kucinich, like Paul, supports protecting individual liberties but feels that we all need to help each other out. Personally, I think this is a difficult and chaotic time for our country, we need as much help from our (hopefully revamped) government as we can get.

    i think ron paul is the right man for the job. i don't think he'll get on the ticket because republicans will be putting their votes toward making sure hillary or obama don't get elected. that means getting the most popular man on their ticket.
  • With Ron Paul, government interference is all but gone. Kucinich, like Paul, supports protecting individual liberties but feels that we all need to help each other out. Personally, I think this is a difficult and chaotic time for our country, we need as much help from our (hopefully revamped) government as we can get.

    But hasn't history shown us that the best way government can help is to simply not help at all?

    Isn't "government help" what got us in to this mess we are in? Helping with inflation (creating lots of it, the dollar is worth a penny), helping with social security (helping to spend your retirement on war, ensuring you will have no security, it's broke), helping with welfare, helping the environment (clean air act, anyone?), helping disabled vets (by denying them coverage, "the shrapnel was not service related") ...

    ... what have they gotten right recently?
    For all the big programs they administer, they seem to do much better job of wasting your money and causing a red-tape clusterfuck than they do of affecting any real public benefit.

    The dream of government assistance is just that, a dream.
    I just don't see where wanting to believe in that dream helps make it any more real. The track record is NOT there, why would you want to place your money on that bet?
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    But hasn't history shown us that the best way government can help is to simply not help at all?

    i disagree


    sometimes i am not sure where you "no government" guys get your info... most of it is either assumed or just flat out wrong
  • my2hands wrote:
    i disagree


    sometimes i am not sure where you "no government" guys get your info... most of it is either assumed or just flat out wrong
    You disagree that Social Security is 100% unfunded and insolvent?

    You disagree that The Fed has devalued the dollar to a current value of around 1 to 2 cents on the dollar from its original early 1900s value?

    Shrinking the value of your dollar to 1/100 and spending ALL of your alleged retirement savings ...

    ... yes truly helping you ...

    ???
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    You disagree that Social Security is 100% unfunded and insolvent?
    Not yet, it's not. And in my opinion it's a relatively easy fix to keep it solvent past 2042. Change the cap.
    You disagree that The Fed has devalued the dollar to a current value of around 1 to 2 cents on the dollar from its original early 1900s value?

    Shrinking the value of your dollar to 1/100 and spending ALL of your alleged retirement savings ...

    ... yes truly helping you ...

    ???
    Money is relative to what you can buy. All I know is I own a shitload more stuff than my grandparents did at my age (and, no, not all of it came from China) - and with a more secure dollar, it seems. Fluxuations happen, but I don't see a Great Depression on the way.

    No Government means total corporate control, just as total government means no private control. Balance is the key. Balance requires adjustments to maintain, sure - and some don't like that, but I can't say I'm overly paranoid about our current mixed economy.

    Now, if we would just stop bombing the shit out of brown people and start spending that money here (say, for some sort of alternative to what we're buying from those same brown people), I'd be peaches.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    RainDog wrote:
    Not yet, it's not. And in my opinion it's a relatively easy fix to keep it solvent past 2042. Change the cap.
    right
    Money is relative to what you can buy. All I know is I own a shitload more stuff than my grandparents did at my age (and, no, not all of it came from China) - and with a more secure dollar, it seems. Fluxuations happen, but I don't see a Great Depression on the way.

    No Government means total corporate control, just as total government means no private control. Balance is the key. Balance requires adjustments to maintain, sure - and some don't like that, but I can't say I'm overly paranoid about our current mixed economy.

    Now, if we would just stop bombing the shit out of brown people and start spending that money here (say, for some sort of alternative to what we're buying from those same brown people), I'd be peaches.
    our debt based economy scares me... but not as much as some of these folks
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    You disagree that Social Security is 100% unfunded and insolvent?

    You disagree that The Fed has devalued the dollar to a current value of around 1 to 2 cents on the dollar from its original early 1900s value?

    Shrinking the value of your dollar to 1/100 and spending ALL of your alleged retirement savings ...

    ... yes truly helping you ...

    ???

    anything else? the government is more than SS and the fed
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    my2hands wrote:
    right

    our debt based economy scares me... but not as much as some of these folks
    I don't know the exact figures, myself. But it seems like if we stopped with the massive "defense" spending (which will always require an enemy to justify), we'd have more than enough in our coffers and wouldn't be in this debt based economy.

    Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any defense spending, but my god - we've been shaking our balls at the world so hard and so often, I'm surprised they haven't fallen off yet.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    RainDog wrote:
    I don't know the exact figures, myself. But it seems like if we stopped with the massive "defense" spending (which will always require an enemy to justify), we'd have more than enough in our coffers and wouldn't be in this debt based economy.

    Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any defense spending, but my god - we've been shaking our balls at the world so hard and so often, I'm surprised they haven't fallen off yet.

    i was also refering to personal debt... which is a larger problem than out national debt IMO
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    my2hands wrote:
    and they will be sworn in on 1-20-09 as the President and Vice-President of the U.S.A.

    Write it down.

    Gauranteed.

    my2hands has made his official prediction :cool:


    this is one exciting time in America... at least on the Democrat's side... a black man... a woman... a latino... a Senator from Delaware ;)... outspoken peace candidates that are ahead of their time...

    Of course the Republicans are coming to the party with the same old white men they usually come with... perhaps they dont realize that the majority of the country is either a woman or a minority... oh well, too bad for them and their 18th century agenda...



    waddya folks think? either side?... and dont just say who you support... because the guy i am voting for has no chance it appears (Dennis Kucinich)

    The Kucinich campaign profile has certainly quieted down recently, however, there's a long way to go until November.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    gue_barium wrote:
    The Kucinich campaign profile has certainly quieted down recently, however, there's a long way to go until November.

    still clearly the best candidate to me... by far
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    write it down
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Not sure it is set in stone. I could see it happening. The question is if Edwards would accept.
  • mca47mca47 Posts: 13,298
    I'd rather see Obama/Biden!
  • HoonHoon Posts: 175
    NH is the state that all the candidates campaigned in. I'll take the top from that state


    Iowa is where corruption and money have the advantage.
    If you keep yourself as the final arbiter you will be less susceptible to infection from cultural illusion.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Hoon wrote:
    NH is the state that all the candidates campaigned in. I'll take the top from that state


    Iowa is where corruption and money have the advantage.

    Que?
  • mca47mca47 Posts: 13,298
    Hoon wrote:
    NH is the state that all the candidates campaigned in. I'll take the top from that state


    Iowa is where corruption and money have the advantage.

    "Corruption and money"? What!?!

    Look at the Republicans. The guy who spent 1/20th of the money of the other guy WON. The guy who ran ads that were considerably more negative LOST.

    What corruption are you talking about?
    How is NH going to be different for the other candidates?

    I don't follow...
  • if you're right about the ticket; we can look forward to another republican government for another 4 years. the democrats are not offering a candidate capable of beating a republican ticket.
    lmao...you can't be serious. The only way that ticket could be more "electable" would be if it were reversed to Edwards / Obama. If Obama and Edwards team up I guarantee they'll win in a landslide.
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    obama is head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to presence and speaking

    and that is why he wil win
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    ride the wave...


    stone had it right early on :)
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    time for edwards to bail and endorse obama... then nearly all of the edwards voters will sway to obama


    this guy is something else... something real special happening right now...


    i am on board
Sign In or Register to comment.