Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Dear Hillary: Don't run.


hokie4redskins

Recommended Posts

:confused:

Wow...you really are a skeptic. Not much can be done for you, methinks. To me, voting because I want a candidate in office makes perfect sense...am I going crazy? That's the reason you vote, right? You want someone in office? :paranoid:

This "padding the mandate" theory you have is interesting, but incorrect. If you don't vote because of this, then maybe a bunch of other people share your opinion and don't vote either. If enough of you don't vote, then its no longer padding, its taking away votes the candidate needs to win. I think you are underestimating the power of your vote. :2cents:

Eh, I could be wrong. But it doesn't seem that way to me. If I had voted for Bush, Bush would have been elected. If I voted for Kerry, Bush would have been elected. So, my vote would be nothing but padded one of their numbers. Which is something I would have been willing to do if I liked either one.

This is why I don't normally enter the political discussions. I realize I'm more cynical about politics than I have any right to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thats what im saying. I do vote for the guy that i like better, even though i feel like its choosing between being punched in the face or kicked in the balls. I'll take the punch in the face personally.

Like I said, I voted last election, but it was more a vote against one guy than for another. And i rarely ***** or moan. As ive stated dozens of times before, i feel the office of President is to be respected, whether you voted for the guy or not. Thats part of democracy, but I think too many people feel differently about this.

Challenging and criticizing our leaders is one of the foundations of democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I could be wrong. But it doesn't seem that way to me. If I had voted for Bush, Bush would have been elected. If I voted for Kerry, Bush would have been elected. So, my vote would be nothing but padded one of their numbers. Which is something I would have been willing to do if I liked either one.

Well, if a few hundred more people in just one county in Florida had agreed with you, Gore would have been President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Challenging and criticizing our leaders is one of the foundations of democracy.

I agree. But you should still respect the Will of the People. The President was duly elected by the voters. Just because you didnt vote for him doesnt mean you should trash him at every opportunity like many do. Not directed at you personally JRock, but you know the type im talking about.

You can challenge and criticize the President while still showing respect for the office that represents the United States of America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. But you should still respect the Will of the People. The President was duly elected by the voters. Just because you didnt vote for him doesnt mean you should trash him at every opportunity like many do. Not directed at you personally JRock, but you know the type im talking about.

You can challenge and criticize the President while still showing respect for the office that represents the United States of America.

Yeah, you have a point. But "the people" are supposed to be the most important part of democracy. At least they should be, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dream of the 2008 Presdential Election:

Hillary vs. Condoleeza!

Count me in for Condoleeza! I'll even go pass out bumper stickers and fake ballots!

Hillary is witch who cares about absolutely nothing except Hillary. She would have been singing "Rocky Top" til her throat gave out if Tennessee was the easiest place to get in the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me in for Condoleeza! I'll even go pass out bumper stickers and fake ballots!

I would love to see Condi. Wow. A candidate with actual credentials beyond stumbling through an Ivy League school, coming from a rich family, and never holding a real job. Imagine that. Someone brilliant in the White House.

All the dems are thinking im talking about Bush, all the reps are thinking im talking about Kerry. Its both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GREAT post Henry!!

so true- only historians have a good view of how this really works.

When Reagan died- the liberal media was all weepy about what a funny guy he was, how he was like the cool grandfather to the country when we needed him.

Of course, 15 years beforehand they were screaming hysterically about he was about to lead us into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Lincoln threw 36,000 Americans into jail illegally, promulgated illegal laws and suspended habeus corpus.

I wonder how the liberals in Congress today would have liked THAT. Washington was such a "bad commander" that his army sometimes fell to 6,000 men, and Congress in Philadelphia at least twice began to replace him as Commander in Chief.

only those who look at history from a long term perspective of decades/centuries can see the true form of currents and paradigms..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Hilary run though, only because the unintentional comedy would be downright hysterical.

I'd like to see her run too. I'm curious as how the democrats will explain yet another loss.

2000 - they stole the elections

2004 - Americans are stupid

2008 - ?? Americans are gender bias ??

Something about that editorial is a little fishy. They ask Hillary not to run, which I would join them in, but then they overstep their boundaries by being rude to her, saying "people don't like you" etc. Kinda sounds like it was written by a disgusted Republican and it obviously appeals to Republicans.

They weren't being rude, they were speaking the truth. People don't like her and if she runs she'll likely lose making the dems have to wait 4 more years yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm done here. It's just going around and around.

Me: My standards aren't terribly high

You: You can't just sit around waiting for the next great man.

Me: But I'm not I just want someone who doesn't repulse me.

You: You can't sit around waiting for another George Washington.

Me: But I'm not, I just can't vote for the worst of the worst.

You: Not every president can be Abraham Lincoln, but we need someone to run the country during during the gaps between great men.

I disagree with your assessment of people. It's the minority(the powerful minority) of people who will screw you over. All people have their awful moments, and they're all flawed in some way, but the vast majority seem to be attempting to be good people. Only a small percentage actually don't care about their morality at all, and will lie, cheat, and do whatever it takes to promote themselves(you can usually tell which ones they are because they're the ones who aspire to be politicians).

For a cynic you sure have a high regard for your fellow man. :)

Anyway, the point I think you are missing here is that politics in a democracy requires its practitioners to display a certain savvy that regular joes like you and I find distasteful. They have to be professional kiss-ups. That's the nature of the business. Now, the fact that politicians DO this does not make them repulsive people, any more than developing the ability to kill automotically makes a soldier a raving psychopath. It simply makes them politicians.

Now, I think you are bemoaning the fact that the nature of the business breeds opportunistic jerks. My response to that is that THAT is far better than the alternative (such as a dictatorship). And that perhaps not all of these people are the jerks you think they are. They are simply doing their job. And I find the notion that one shoud refrain from voting based on the impression that politicians are jerks as somewhat ... well I don't want to use naive and get you all mad. But there it is. :)

Sadly, I have not presented this arguement clearly enough and apparently all you've read is my name-dropping of past Presidents. :) However, my mention of them was largely to show that even leaders we now think of as great men (such as Lincoln) where at the time thought of by many as terrible, repulsive, lying, cheating, jingoistic vote-grubbing politicians. I was simply attempting to use them as examples to further my above points. I apologize for not making that clearer.

Well, that's the company line, but I did make my wishes known. I didn't think either man was fit to run the country. So, I'll go ahead and criticize away.

The company line? What, am I an employee of America, Inc. now? It's simply the truth. Bush didn't say "I have political capital and I intent to spend it" based on the fact that only 28% (or whatever) of voting-age citizens voted for him. He based that statement on the fact that 51% of the VOTERS voted for him. The people who didn't care enough to vote for or against him he didn't mention. Because their blase opinions don't matter to a man who relies on votes to stay in office. That's not a line. That's a basic truth of our system of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GREAT post Henry!!

so true- only historians have a good view of how this really works.

When Reagan died- the liberal media was all weepy about what a funny guy he was, how he was like the cool grandfather to the country when we needed him.

Of course, 15 years beforehand they were screaming hysterically about he was about to lead us into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Lincoln threw 36,000 Americans into jail illegally, promulgated illegal laws and suspended habeus corpus.

I wonder how the liberals in Congress today would have liked THAT. Washington was such a "bad commander" that his army sometimes fell to 6,000 men, and Congress in Philadelphia at least twice began to replace him as Commander in Chief.

only those who look at history from a long term perspective of decades/centuries can see the true form of currents and paradigms..

That's nice. None of the Presidents you listed started a war based on false intelligence. That will be GWB's legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you vote you aren't really voting to determine who is president. Your vote will never by itself change the results of the election. When you vote all you're doing is adding to or taking away from the candidate how great is mandate is. So, basically you're throwing your hat in with one candidate. If there's a candidate who's numbers I want to pad so that he can boast a greater mandate, then I'll do that. But voting because you really want to see a particular candidate in office makes no sense/

You can pry a nail out of the foundation of your house and your house won't fall over. That doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.

If you make $50,000 a year, you can burn a $5 bill and you won't go broke. That doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.

You eat three square meals a day. You can skip a meal and you won't suffer any malnutrition. That doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.

Noone says you have to vote for the Deomcrats and/or Republicans. Heck, in one election I wrote my dad in. :) But that at least counts as a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the major candidates. Not voting at all counts as nothing. It's simply burning your five dollar bill. In my opinion that's not an action to to take pride in, or good advice to give others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only a small percentage actually don't care about their morality at all, and will lie, cheat, and do whatever it takes to promote themselves(you can usually tell which ones they are because they're the ones who aspire to be politicians).

If you believe that about all politicians, I'm afraid you will never vote in any election. Unfortunately, a lot of people think the same way you do, and by refusing to vote, cynics will never get the government to move in their direction.

You have to realize that you're creating an impossible standard. You want someone with good character that you trust to make decisions, but you don't want that person to promote himself. How is anyone like that ever going to win an election?

Maybe we would be more comfortable with humble and unassuming leaders, and to a certain extent we've been conditioned that way to root for underdogs - Washington and Jefferson were masters at looking like they didn't really want to be President ... and they could pull it off because they were already American icons.

In the modern world though, unless you're Lynn Swann or Arnold Schwarzenegger, you HAVE to promote yourself and you have to be self-assured and a little bit egotistical to even run. You have to make compromises, and you have to accomodate the views of other voters if you're ever going to win. If you believe you have the judgment and experience to be a good leader, you can't just sit around in humble anonymity hoping that you will be thrust into the limelight.

If you're waiting for the uncompromising and humble but inspiring and competent leader, you'll be waiting a long-time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...