Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
Certainly. Heaven forbid the strains of the office do McCain in prematurely and we have a Palin White House.
Who is Obama's Democratic competition?
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Certainly. Heaven forbid the strains of the office do McCain in prematurely and we have a Palin White House.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Kucinich!
GhostWriter16
Deity
I know, like Randall Terry (Click the link in my wink smile on my last post before this one) taking the pro-life causes to their logical conclusion.
Maybe it won't, but if you vote, you retain the right to complain
2000 AD whatever.
Well, if you were apathetic, why bother arguing for Communism? You don't seem apathetic to politics, you seem apathetic to the debate between Democrats and Republicans. OK. Why not vote for someone who supports ideas more similar to yours?
duckstab
Child of Noble Family
Like most libruls, I'm very disappointed in Obama. But I haven't decided yet whether primarying him would be a good thing.
On the one hand, a serious primary challenge, successful or not, is going to be a huge blow to the Democrats' chances of retaining the White House.
On the other hand, is losing the White House really the worst that could happen? A lot depends on whether it looks like the GOP is going to go for someone even slightly moderate like Romney or someone way off the deep end like Perry or Bachman. It also depends on whether it looks like the GOP is going to be stronger or weaker in the next Congress. The upside of a vigorous primary challenge is that it would send a very clear message to the DEM establishment that sacrificing every progressive principle on the altar of bipartisanship will no longer be tolerated. We might get better Dems as a result, or maybe at least get the ones still around to grow a spine.
On the one hand, a serious primary challenge, successful or not, is going to be a huge blow to the Democrats' chances of retaining the White House.
On the other hand, is losing the White House really the worst that could happen? A lot depends on whether it looks like the GOP is going to go for someone even slightly moderate like Romney or someone way off the deep end like Perry or Bachman. It also depends on whether it looks like the GOP is going to be stronger or weaker in the next Congress. The upside of a vigorous primary challenge is that it would send a very clear message to the DEM establishment that sacrificing every progressive principle on the altar of bipartisanship will no longer be tolerated. We might get better Dems as a result, or maybe at least get the ones still around to grow a spine.
civver_764
Deity
The only people with a right to complain are the ones who didn't vote.Maybe it won't, but if you vote, you retain the right to complain
I just found it funny that you needed to specify AD.
I'm apathetic about the results of the election. And there are much better ways to change the system than by voting for a few candidates that have no chance of winning.
GhostWriter16
Deity
It only means that if you vote for the people who won. Otherwise you didn't help get into that situation at all.
Did I mention he was my grandfather? Better to specify than to let someone misunderstand
But seriously, your right it was unnecessary, I just did it for some reason without considering it.
I think Ron Paul at least has a chance, don't know if you agree with him enough to vote for him though.
You could always join the GOP just to give him a primary vote
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Ron paul hasn't got a chance he'', he'll lose and hopefully resign himself to his fate.
I doubt Obama will lose this election, the Republican top candidates compromise of; a homophobic Mormon (Romney), Dan savages' greatest enemy (Santorum), Crazy bigoted, homophobic lady with an obviously homosexual husband (Bachmann), Ron paul (Ron paul), some dude (Huntman), boring mormon dude (Pawlenty) and GINGRITCH.
I doubt Obama will lose this election, the Republican top candidates compromise of; a homophobic Mormon (Romney), Dan savages' greatest enemy (Santorum), Crazy bigoted, homophobic lady with an obviously homosexual husband (Bachmann), Ron paul (Ron paul), some dude (Huntman), boring mormon dude (Pawlenty) and GINGRITCH.
civver_764
Deity
Ron Paul being president still wouldn't change anything.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Not as overnight as people might like to think, but it could depending on who's in his congress.
TBH, Ron Paul as President would be the one place I could live with a Democrat congress.
carmen510
Deity
So that Ron Paul isn't able to actually enact any of his proposed legislation?
civver_764
Deity
Ron Paul's not going to win anyways. The only way Ron Paul would win is if he had different viewpoints and thus was not Ron Paul.
Name one person who's ever been president that went against the status quo. It's not possible.
Name one person who's ever been president that went against the status quo. It's not possible.
GhostWriter16
Deity
PROBABLY not going to win.
Because not enough people will vote for him...
Lincoln?
FDR? (Well, he rewrote the status quo, in a negative way IMO, but whatever.)
I guess it depends on how strictly you define "Going against the status quo."
civver_764
Deity
Lincoln was a racist, warmongering douchebag and I can't think of a single revolutionary thing he did.
FDR's social programs were actually pretty weak and tailored heavily to big businesses.
FDR's social programs were actually pretty weak and tailored heavily to big businesses.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Lincoln supporting an end to slavery was revolutionary for his time, and he was less racist than anyone else who was running at the time.
He was racist true, and while its a good reason not to worship him, its no reason not to respect him, given that everyone was racist at that time.
Warmongerer is accurate technically speaking, but I do think Lincoln genuinely did care about the people in the South, and he declared war because he believed it was best for the country (Plus, the South literally did attack first, personally I think they were justified to do so, but they still did it.)
It was Lincoln's successors that were the real douchebags...
And FDR quite literally wrote the book of politics since his time. Nobody has ever really gone against what he did. Well, except Ron Paul, but he ain't winning most likely.
duckstab
Child of Noble Family
You left out Bush III (Perry).
I'm disapointed in Obama as well. But, to be fair, no president has faced the problems he has in such a short time at least since FDR. And not more than a few presidents in American history have had things as bad in so many ways.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
He's been meh, but you have to VERY bad to lose your Party's nomination(the ultimate humiliation for that reason). He'll keep the position by far, so really, it's just a question of if there'd be a strong enough GOP candidate to erase his incumbency advantage.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Perry is just a crazy dude who hates education.
He had a traumatic experience with it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript
