|
U-Know! Forum » Mitt Romney drops out |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Feb 07, 2008, 22:11
|
||
|
Mitt Romney spent gobs of his personal dough, hoping to buy his way into the show, only to find that too many Americans are tired of hollow self-serving shenanigans And so millions lighter, he slinks off the circuit, unable to count on his fortune to work it. It wasn't Mormonism that ruined his campaign: Republicans merely saw more reality in John McCain GOOD RIDDANCE TO A CARDBOARD CUTOUT CANDIDATE who had the gall to think he could buy the presidency.
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Feb 07, 2008, 22:40
|
||
No surprise there. That dude allways looks like he just got out of Sunday school. I am surprised to see John McCain to end up the Republican front runner. In a way i do have some respect for the guy. Just 2 month's ago i would have bet the farm on Huckabee as the front runner, that is till he opened his mouth and nothing but stupid shit came out. But that's what i expect most Republican voter's want to hear. But i won't be voting republican in my lifetime. Fuhgeddaboudit.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Feb 07, 2008, 22:54
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: A CARDBOARD CUTOUT CANDIDATE who had the gall to think he could buy the presidency. trying to buy the presidency is kind of like buying your own christmas present. Everyone knows someone else with the cash has to buy it for you. So, which one of the Big Fossil sponsored candidates will get in? "I'll show you politics in America right here; 'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!" - Bill Hicks
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Feb 07, 2008, 23:09
|
||
|
I've no illusions. I know there won't be any miraculous changes in the state of the state, no matter who wins the White House. BUT! McCain's rise is a good sign in that he's not a stereotypical choice for Republicans... he's probably the most radical member of his party outside of Ron Raul who's got national recognition. And Obama and Clinton are neck and neck... which is great! No complacency will be tolerated or allowed... neither of them will have the easy road.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Feb 07, 2008, 23:28
Feb 07, 2008, 23:27
|
||
|
I'll be honest, both last time around, and the time before that, Americans had a genuine choice in the presidential race. Like most people, I didn't realise it first time. But I was staggered... truly staggered... that America voted for Bush the second time. You see, the choice was not between Democrats and Republicans. Both are merely extensions of corporate America, and claims that there's a significant difference between them are rather naive in my view. In that sense, whether you vote McCain or Clinton/Obama will make very little difference. Both are the puppets of private capital. But last time was different. Bush didn't represent Republicanism but rather neoconservatism... a very narrow tendency within ultra-right US politics. In that sense, both Gore and yes, even Kerry, would have been a genuine alternative to the neocon agenda. But McCain isn't a neocon, so this year it's back to choosing between two near-identical corporate positions. Vote Nader if he runs, I say. Last time I advised against it because he was splitting the anti-neocon vote. This year that's not a danger, so a protest vote against the mainstream would probably be the best use of one's franchise. (all just my opinion)
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Feb 07, 2008, 23:50
|
||
|
Grufty jim Wrote: Vote Nader if he runs, I say. Last time I advised against it because he was splitting the anti-neocon vote. This year that's not a danger, so a protest vote against the mainstream would probably be the best use of one's franchise. Sorry buddy i've heard that before and it's cost Al Gore his presidency by swinging votes he would have won by into Bush's camp. I've seen no indications yet that there is a groundswell here in voter registrations being on the rise. And also i would like to get somewhat defensive here for a moment. In your post i for one noticed that if every time your use of the word {American}was substituted for Ireland or England what would be the difference? Substitute the name bush for your respective heads of state....Whats the signifigant difference? Of Course Bush is an utter failure...But when i vote this time around, it's in the hope that the next commander in chief can bail this country out of it's own economic mess.I don't and won't hold them to an expectation of saving the world. How has your leadership made an impact in solving the Mid-east situation? If i'm coming across as Politacally incorrect, so be it. That term get's bandied about every time a hard decision needs to be made. I'm 45 years old and I do pay attention. Go ahead and pick this apart, i'd expect nothing less.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 00:23
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: Go ahead and pick this apart, i'd expect nothing less. Dodge One, I really don't want to be picking anything apart. But the fact is, I do indeed disagree with much of what you wrote. Regarding the Nader thing, we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. But it seems to me that those who denigrate a genuine alternative in favour of what may be a marginally lesser of two evils are merely guaranteeing the continuation of a system whereby you only ever have two evils to choose from. With regards to your "defensiveness"... well, I'm afraid there's not much can do about that. I began to describe myself as "anti-American" after Bush won a second term with a popular majority despite his past record. It's a phrase I use to provoke debate, not because I seek to "harm America" in any specific way. The fact is, I love New York, I've lived in the States for a while and I have American family and friends. But I still call myself "anti-American" because I am "anti" the role played by the US in the world today. It's as simple as that. America has been the engine of global capitalism for about 70 years and was the birthplace of consumerism. It's true to say that the American people were themselves the first victims of this dark and virulent philosophy of short-term selfishness, but it's a philosophy that has been aggressively exported, sometimes down the barrel of a gun. And I object to US economic and cultural imperialism. I also object to the US use of military power in order to safeguard its own economic interests. You talk about substituting "Ireland" or "England" for America. Well, I am just as critical (in fact, more so as I lived there for a long time) of British military intervention abroad. And if you can point me to a single case of Irish imperialism then I'll gladly criticise that too. The fact is, the head of state of Ireland is a corrupt, corporate politician just like you'll find the world over. The difference is, however, that he has no real power beyond his own borders. The same, oddly enough, is true of the UK. Anyone who thinks that Britain would have invaded Iraq on their own (i.e. not as part of a US foreign policy decision) is deluded. America is currently the imperial superpower. It's an historical accident that you and I were born into this time, rather than -- for example -- the height of the British Empire. If we'd been born then, it would have been British imperialism that was objectionable and worthy of resisting. But we're alive now. And right now, America is the 10,000lb gorilla throwing its weight around and not giving a damn who gets crushed. I mean, you ask what impact the Irish leadership has made in bringing peace to the Middle East as though the question even has any meaning. It doesn't. The Irish leadership doesn't attempt to export its policies to far distant lands. More importantly though; they have no right to do so. Perhaps if they had the power, they would try (in fact, no doubt they would) and would be just as incompetent and destructive as current US policy. But they don't have the power. America does. So hypothetically replacing the word "America" with the word "Ireland" makes no sense unless you can show that Ireland is dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas half a planet away. Actually, given that the United States is directly responsible for a huge amount of the violence currently occurring in the Middle East, it's probably arguable that the Irish leadership -- by virtue simply of not helping to militarise the region -- has done infinitely more than the US leadership for peace in the region. But that's a tangent, and I'm certainly not attempting to defend the record of the Irish government which is shoddy, if not quite as murderous as the US's.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 00:27
|
||
|
As much as I'm pleased that the Republicans are beginning to evolve via their McCain endorsement, I'm still going to vote for whichever Democrat ends up on the ticket (while holding my nose). It's the lesser of two evils. Am I being defeatist? No, I'm dealing with larger realities, as they are... Nader? Jeezus.... I'm sorry, he'd be better off staying out of the race and doing his work outside the establishment. Gore too. There's just too much compromise and constraint involved in being president. OUTSIDE of government, they can fight the good fight without any strings attached.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 08, 2008, 00:37
|
||
|
My point in suggesting a Nader vote was not that he might win. Of course he won't. The point is that so long as Americans continue to vote en masse for the lesser of two evils, then that's all they'll ever be offered. Only by challenging the system can it be changed. A protest vote for a candidate outside the 2-party system is at least an expression of dissatisfaction. A vote for Democrat or Republican is an expression of acceptance of the status quo.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Feb 08, 2008, 00:53
Feb 08, 2008, 00:52
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: A protest vote for a candidate outside the 2-party system is at least an expression of dissatisfaction. A vote for Democrat or Republican is an expression of acceptance of the status quo. You're right, but you're leaving something out. A vote for a third party candidate, in the context of how things are now, can (as it did in 2000) lead to a worse outcome. If Gore had won in 2000, would the USA be embroiled this deep in the shit Bush got us into? I sincerely doubt it. Nader was the spoiler in 2000. I don't want him tilting the playing field towards the Republicans again. Call me what you will, but this is for keeps! I'm tired of seeing my country get dragged down because a few pie-in-the-sky idealists are too selfish to see that we have bigger fish to fry. I don't disagree with your opinion. As a matter of fact, I'm with you that the two-party monopoly is antiquated and corrupt. But the political reality is, a vote for a third party candidate in the USA is neither effective nor sends any substantial statement to the power elite. Not at this time in history.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
