Who'll win the Presidential primary?

[rcstorm89]

I say Barrack Obama barely beats Hilary Clinton for democrats, and John McCain wins for republicans.

[Omega X]

I like that prediction. Seems very plausible. Though, its gonna be close with Hillary and Obama.

[watadoo]

I still like John Edwards and I sent him a check to help him out. I like that he's identified the enemy and is unafraid to fight. Obama's my second choice. I think he, too knows the enemy but is a bit to cautious about saying so to not anger his corporate sponsors. That's why he'd my second choice. Hillary loves the enemy and would be a less than worthless president, though not as damaging as chimpy is or any of the rethublican clowns.

McCain: His platform is "I'm old and a hothead but not as batshit crazy as the rest of the Republican nutballs. It's my turn, dammit!"

[gaekwad2]

in before Ron Paul flamewar

[Phyltre]

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul. My flames bring all the moths to the yard, they're hotter than yours.

[gaekwad2]

This thread reminds me of...
Everybody loves online quizes, right?

I got


Who the hell is Mike Gravel?

[Namelessv1]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8

[tuckerm]

Mitt Romney ftw

[zootm]

Originally posted by tuckerm
Mitt Romney ftw

what

[gaekwad2]

Well, one person on the internet has to like him.

[MidnightViper88]

I wouldn't have any idea who would win...

Hillary Clinton is a Clinton, so she has 9 political lives...On the other hand, if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist bigot against blacks...But Edwards is definitly washed out (That's why Kerry endorses Hillary and not Edwards )...I highly doubt that Hillary would in the end be the president, since I think America wouldn't want another Clinton in office as much as they wouldn't want another Bush in office...She might make it far enough to take easy potshots at Obama's lack of experience to bring down his hype, which would no doubt bring her closer to the goal, but she's still not a candidate of inevitability...

I would favor Thompson or Romney, since Thompson has shown himself to be more of a conservative than the rest of the Republican field, with Romney coming in second...Huckabee would be better off running as a Democrat, McCain's middle-of-the-aisle stance makes him too much of a lilly-livered moderate, Gulliani talks a conservative foreign policy but he's domestically a liberal, and Ron Paul is...Well, Ron Paul is Ron Paul...Fuck, would someone get him some more cocaine already?

I have a feeling the drive-by media will try to prop up McCain or Huckabee, though...They've already propped up Obama out of white guilt, though (But in private, they would still pull the white lever)...

[gaekwad2]

Romney's a slick opportunist. He used to do everything to make money. Now he does (and says*) everything to get elected.

*even if it's the opposite of what he said to get elected in Massachusetts

Still, better a slimebag as president than another nutcase I'd say.

[mikm]

Actually, Kerry endorses Obama.

In terms of political ideologies, I'd like most to see Kucinich as president. However, if I have to weigh in charisma/electability, I'd pick Edwards or Obama.

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by mikm
Actually, Kerry endorses Obama.

Ahh...I misremembered a headline I read on Thursday...

That's still a slap in the face for Edwards, though...

[watadoo]

Originally posted by MidnightViper88
I wouldn't have any idea who would win...

Hillary Clinton is a Clinton, so she has 9 political lives...On the other hand, if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist bigot against blacks...But Edwards is definitly washed out

You may be correct, but calling Edwards washed out at this stage of the game is silly. Two dinky states have had their primary/caucus and that represents exactly 5% of the process. Remember Dean was a "sure " winner at this point 4 years ago and Bill C. lost both iowa and nh in 1992. I'll be the first to admit that Edwards has a steep climb in front of him, especially with essentially a press blackout on him. I hope he sticks it our to the end so his issues and message can be heard -- he's the only viable candidate who's talking about breaking the choke hold the large corporations have on our system.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
This thread reminds me of...
Everybody loves online quizes, right?

I got
[Image]

Who the hell is Mike Gravel?

I am a, 9 - Moderate Progressive, 3 - Capitalist Purist, 0 - Anarchist, 4 - Moderate Pacifist

Which makes me a "Hardcore Libertarian", and my closest candidates are:

Bill Richardson - 85%
Joe Biden - 83%
Barack Obama - 79%
Ron Paul - 79%
Chris Dodd - 77%

Which is about what I would expect. The only reason I would rank those candidates differently is because certain things are far more important to me, and there's more to a politition than their most-recently-stated views (for example, is the same position as the last time they gave a speech?).

In any case, it's likely Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination (though I will vote for him in the Primary anyway). If he doesn't, and Obama gets the Democrat nomination (which I hope and think he probably will), he's got my vote.

[k_rock923]

Agreed, xzxzzx. As much as I would like to see someone else get the nomination, the candidate will be either Hillary or Obama. I sure hope it's Obama and will vote for him if it is.

[will]

Originally posted by tuckerm
Mitt Romney ftw

So you'd vote for a guy who believes that some douche read another testament of the bible out of a hat from gold plates that nobody ever saw. And when he was asked to repeat his translation, he couldn't.

For me that's right next to voting for a creationist.

If you're a true republican, you should be voting for Dr Paul.

[gaekwad2]

Isn't Paul a creationist?

[will]

As far as I can tell, he's trying very hard to stay out of the debate (presumably to not anger anyone on either side).

If you have evidence otherwise by all means post it.

[gaekwad2]

enough?

Oh, and you didn't know of when he was pandering to white supremacists* either?

(stormfront still loves him btw)

*original sauce

[Phyltre]

So basically, because a staff writer pandered to white supremacists and because he has expressed a failure to accept evolution (while protesting the question being asked), he is unelectable?

Given the choice between these two failings (if you call them that) and the failings of the other candidates, you think these are most important? I for one based my decision to support Ron Paul on his voting record--you know, something relevant to the office should he get it. Government is too big, he would trim it down. He would keep us from intervening overseas. He would do away with the privately owned Fed. He believes strongly in gun rights. He supports jury nullification (you know, that thing that helped end Prohibition.) He voted against the Patriot Act, the REAL ID act, opposes eminent domain, domestic surveillance, has voted to end affirmative action, rejects universal health care, wants to allow industrial hemp growth and persecution of medical marijuana users, wants to finally end the drug prohibition, and so on.

We disagree in one or two places policy-wise. He thinks marriage (and things like sodomy laws) should be left to the states, but I see too much potential for abuse there. But I believe the only real solution to that question would be a constitutional amendment, regardless. Citizens need more rights enumerated. So basically, Ron Paul is the only candidate I can support.

[xzxzzx]

Holy crap gaekwad2, still up to your old tricks, eh?

Originally posted by gaekwad2
enough?

This is a long discussion, but let's just sum it up as:

Based on what Ron Paul's said, he "believes in" evolution, but doesn't accept a non-Godly source of life (which is not the same thing as evolution -- although the source of the "I don't accept evolution as a theory" quote is a question about creation).

Here's the real thing to talk about, though: It doesn't matter what he thinks about evolution, because it wouldn't matter in how he'd run the executive branch of the Federal government.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Oh, and you didn't know of when he was pandering to white supremacists* either?

Sigh. What would it take to make it obvious that the man isn't racist? Some NAACP President who's known the man for a long time to say he isn't racist? Yeah, like that's ever gonna happen.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
(stormfront still loves him btw)

Nice logical fallacy there. Guess that means, say, God is a racist too, considering the number of Christians that are bound to be on that forum, right? Right?

That's a big ol' heap o' Fail.

[gaekwad2]

Ah yeah, all just taken out of context...

...exept his whole "NWO" rhetoric reeks of nazi conspiracy theories.
(Also, how do you take a whole newsletter out of context?)

Oh and, read closely, he doesn't need to be racist to pander to them.

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Nice logical fallacy there. Guess that means, say, God is a racist too, considering the number of Christians that are bound to be on that forum, right? Right?

No, it simply means the same as any other endorsement.
If, say, Allen Greenspan would endorse Obama, who do you think would be the first to try to capitalize on it?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Ah yeah, all just taken out of context...

...exept his whole "NWO" rhetoric reeks of nazi conspiracy theories.
(Also, how do you take a whole newsletter out of context?)

When did I say anything about a newsletter being taken out of context? What are you smokin', man? Heheh. You Godwin'd yourself.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Oh and, read closely, he doesn't need to be racist to pander to them.

Ah, your point makes even less sense than I thought. All right, fine. Let us say that Ron Paul is lying, and he really *did* at least read the newsletters and endorse them, and was really trying to pander to the "white-supremacist movement". Why the fuck would he do that?

I mean, it's not a big demographic, and the man's views are practically the antithesis of the idea of treating men as part of collective groups (rather than treating them as individuals).

Originally posted by gaekwad2
No, it simply means the same as any other endorsement.

Except that you're trying to use it in a reverse way, a way that doesn't make sense. It's like the old IQ test thing, "True or false: If all X are Y, and some Y are Z, then all X are Z".

[gaekwad2]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
When did I say anything about a newsletter being taken out of context? What are you smokin', man? Heheh. You Godwin'd yourself.

Oh yes, sorry, his conspiracy theories only accidentally look exactly* like those spewed forth by Nazi fuckwits.

*Except of course he doesn't openly dwell on many bankers' Judaic faith.

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Ah, your point makes even less sense than I thought. All right, fine. Let us say that Ron Paul is lying, and he really *did* at least read the newsletters and endorse them,

because otherwise we'd have to suppose he had a newsletter published under his name, first as "Ron Paul Political Report", then as "Ron Paul Survival Report", without ever reading it or noticing its contents or the way it caused a stir among the far right.
Strange for a man who seems to take personal responsibilty so seriously.
(Besides, his head ghostwriter at that time, Lew Rockwell, is still one of his main advisers. (In a way it is admirable though that he hasn't used him as scapegoat yet.))

Originally posted by xzxzzx
and was really trying to pander to the "white-supremacist movement".

Ah, I love how you put that in quotation marks.

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Why the fuck would he do that?

I mean, it's not a big demographic, and the man's views are practically the antithesis of the idea of treating men as part of collective groups (rather than treating them as individuals).

To raise funds?
As part of a struggle among the libertarian movement (after seeing it would be going nowhere unless it managed to attract new allies)?
Your guess is as good as mine.
(That is, assuming his actions do make sense.)

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Except that you're trying to use it in a reverse way, a way that doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to show who is still being attracted to him?
Viewed by itself you could of course argue he isn't responsible for his fans, but taken in combination with that atrocious newsletter, and his apparent unwillingness to distance himself from it for 15 years, or name the person responsible for it, well...

[Widdykats]

Originally posted by watadoo
I still like John Edwards and I sent him a check to help him out. I like that he's identified the enemy and is unafraid to fight. Obama's my second choice. I think he, too knows the enemy but is a bit to cautious about saying so to not anger his corporate sponsors. That's why he'd my second choice. Hillary loves the enemy and would be a less than worthless president, though not as damaging as chimpy is or any of the rethublican clowns.

McCain: His platform is "I'm old and a hothead but not as batshit crazy as the rest of the Republican nutballs. It's my turn, dammit!"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ahehehehehehe ahhh ahehehehe*whew*
I just love this! No, really!

I like Edwards also. I will vote for Obamama or Edwards!

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by gaekwad2
Oh yes, sorry, his conspiracy theories only accidentally look exactly* like those spewed forth by Nazi fuckwits.

*Except of course he doesn't openly dwell on many bankers' Judaic faith.

Let's say they are exactly the same except for the Judaic-based stuff. So? Being racist doesn't mean you're wrong, nor does agreeing with what some particular racists have to say make you one of them. What you're saying is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, and a poor, logically flawed one at that.

Originally posted by gaekwad2
because otherwise we'd have to suppose he had a newsletter published under his name, first as "Ron Paul Political Report", then as "Ron Paul Survival Report", without ever reading it or noticing its contents or the way it caused a stir among the far right.
Strange for a man who seems to take personal responsibility so seriously.
(Besides, his head ghostwriter at that time, Lew Rockwell, is still one of his main advisers. (In a way it is admirable though that he hasn't used him as scapegoat yet.))

If you're going to talk about what's strange, let's talk about how there are no racist comments ever uttered by this man, as far as anyone knows, even after decades of public service -- how his writing style is totally different from the newsletters in question -- and how a President of a NAACP chapter who knows the man well says he's not racist, and yet people are still willing to believe that Ron Paul wrote those newsletters. That is "strange".

Originally posted by gaekwad2
It doesn't make sense to show who is still being attracted to him?
Viewed by itself you could of course argue he isn't responsible for his fans, but taken in combination with that atrocious newsletter, and his apparent unwillingness to distance himself from it for 15 years, or name the person responsible for it, well...

He hasn't named the person responsible (he says he doesn't know), that's true. And you might try and crucify him for that. But "apparent unwillingness to distance himself from it for 15 years"?

Originally said by Ron Paul and published in 2001
They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'

[gaekwad2]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Being racist doesn't mean you're wrong

[Widdykats]

^ Of course it does!

[xzxzzx]

Nice job taking my quote out of context, gaekwad2.

Can't make your argument? No problem, just set up a strawman.

Go fuck yourself.

(And in case you're stupid and not just dishonest, what I clearly meant was "...doesn't mean you're wrong about everything")

[ryan]

GOBAMA!

[Widdykats]

^We can hope!

[deeder7001]

I personally don't want another Clinton in the White House. I don't think I'm even registered to vote. If I am and I do vote I'll probably go with Obama or McCain.

[ertmann|CPH]

I root for Obama, and it is starting to look like he might make the nomination.

I realize that foreign policy is not, and shouldn't be the top priority for a candidate...

...but mark my words, he is the only candidate from either party - that has any sort of chance of restoring Americas image abroad. For all the attacks McCain is going to make on security policies - no amount of money is going to make Americans more secure, than a drastic improvement in how ordinary folks in the middle east perceives the United States - and no one can bring that about like Obama.

For those who might be curious, one of the large newspapers here have been running a web poll during the campaign

On the democratic side it looks like this: (with 3518 votes)

Obama 53%
Clinton 36%
Edwards 7%

On the republican side it looks like this: (1909 votes)
McCain 53%
Ron Paul 13%
Giuliani 12%

[watadoo]

Googliani dropped a month ago. Same with Edwards. Why in Hell are people putting their names in a Web poll?

[ertmann|CPH]

it's a running poll, i suspect someone voted for them while they we're still in the race

[watadoo]

ah, that makes sense.

[Rellik]

Another thing is that the candidates may publicly "drop out", but not file the proper paperwork with the states. So they remain on the ballot.

[spiderbaby1958]

As of now, I sorta like all three serious candidates, compared to you-know-who. We can expect a big improvement in January.