Hillary Clinton will run for President.

[Klostrophobic]

I choose to look at it as, "There are no good candidates, and what candidates there are seem to be all too similar for a vote to matter."

Honestly I really don't care because I don't think it makes a big difference one way or the other unless you have some absolute nutjob in there who goes to one extreme or the other (massive, socialist government or complete anarchy).

I just hope it's a Democrat so I don't have to listen to them bitch and moan. Republicans seem to be much less annoying in this regard.

 

[Dave A]

Being Independent is free of any political party.

Wouldn't that be classed as being pollitically neutral not politically independent. You can be associated with a political party but still be independent, or you can set up your own party and be independent. You can't be 100% independent in any situation. Ultimately we all rely on otherthings to live and most of the worlds population are subject to man made laws, so talking about ultimate independence is pointless imo.

 

[kennythebomb]

Really not cool dude. Really. Do you know any gay people? Have you met one? They are nice people, no different. My uncle is gay, he is nice, lets not judge people based on sexual orentation. 👎

-rep.

In my understanding, that's an abuse of the rep system.

Reputation points shouldn't be allotted based on whether or not you AGREE with someone's point, they should be handed out or taken away based on the literacy and content of a member's post. If Delirious' post was extremely hard to read, full of grammatical errors, or full of false information, then you would be correct in giving him negative rep.

 

[Sureboss]

I choose to look at it as, "There are no good candidates, and what candidates there are seem to be all too similar for a vote to matter."

Could say a very similar thing about British politics. Though being realistic there are only ever going to be 2 options in Britain. Tory or Labour.

 

[Dave A]

In my understanding, that's an abuse of the rep system.

Reputation points shouldn't be allotted based on whether or not you AGREE with someone's point, they should be handed out or taken away based on the literacy and content of a member's post. If Delirious' post was extremely hard to read, full of grammatical errors, or full of false information, then you would be correct in giving him negative rep.

I agree, if Deliirious was posting derogatory remarks about homosexuals then you (monte Carlo) would have cause to give negative reputation, but he didn't. You don't know what he based that comment on, it could be religious it could be personal, it could be a wide range of reasons why would post that. But what he posted was not derogatory. You are free to ask him to elaborate, or to challenge his point, but the rep system is not "I agree" or "I dissagree" situations.

 

[Swift]

Whoever is pro-life and anti-homosexuality gets my vote.

Hopefully one of them will be that...

I think you mean homosexual marriage.

Really not cool dude. Really. Do you know any gay people? Have you met one? They are nice people, no different. My uncle is gay, he is nice, lets not judge people based on sexual orentation. 👎

-rep.

Response:

In my understanding, that's an abuse of the rep system.

Reputation points shouldn't be allotted based on whether or not you AGREE with someone's point, they should be handed out or taken away based on the literacy and content of a member's post. If Delirious' post was extremely hard to read, full of grammatical errors, or full of false information, then you would be correct in giving him negative rep.

Kenny is very correct. Especially in the opinions forum you can't and shouldn't -rep someone for there opinion. That goes against the entire nature of the forum.

Now if Delirious had said, "any1 thts against those dumb gays getting hitched and against dummies aborting babies I'll vote for!" That would deserve negative rep.

I'm going to have the negative rep removed from his record as it certainly was NOT deserving just because his opinion clashed with yours.

 

[Delirious]

I think you mean homosexual marriage.

Kenny is very correct. Especially in the opinions forum you can't and shouldn't -rep someone for there opinion. That goes against the entire nature of the forum.

Now if Delirious had said, "any1 thts against those dumb gays getting hitched and against dummies aborting babies I'll vote for!" That would deserve negative rep.

I'm going to have the negative rep removed from his record as it certainly was NOT deserving just because his opinion clashed with yours.

Sounds correct to me, I apologize for any confusion caused.

Fact: I respect people if they choose to believe in pro-choice and pro-homosexual lifestyle/marriage. I may disagree to it by a great extent, but I do believe they are people just like me...

 

[Danoff]

Not to derail this thread entirely, but if Delirious is talking about anti-gay marriage, I have to agree. I don't really have anything against gay people, but I don't want gay marriage legalized in every state, and thus would set a bad example for kids.

I'll take this to the gay marriage thread.

Hillary may be one of the only candidates who can get me to vote republican instead of libertarian.

 

[YSSMAN]

As they had pointed out on the news today, Hillary does have the lead among those who have said they are running for President within the Democratic party. I believe it was Hillary out-front with 40-ish percent, however between Obama, Edwards, and the other folks they capitalize on 60%. Thoughts are that as the field narrows, so too will Hillary's lead. Her advantage is that she is nationally recognizable on name alone, however that doesn't necessarily take into account the "Anybody but Hillary" votes not only in the Democratic party, but on the national level itself.

People often forget that the primary votes are still an entire year away, and from there it is still another 10 months until the actual vote. Hillary and her Democratic cohorts still have plenty of time to implode, and so too do their respective GOP competitors. An early lead means nothing these days, and we should know that. Take a look at Howard "Heyaaaa!!!" Dean and you get the idea.

What I'd like to see? Clinton/Edwards versus Giuliani/McCain, as it should be a very interesting race...

 

[Tornado]

I think he might have worded that statement wrong? I don't think he's talking about gay-bashers, guys. I could be wrong, but I(again)think he's talking about anti-gay marriage type stance.

As that was the case I apologize. As marraige is a religious contract I'm inclined to agree with his views.

 

[DuckRacer]

Edwards is running? Christ, his fake (superduperOMGkillme) charisma is so annoying. How could you vote for someone so obviously slimy? He's the fakest guys since John Kerry.

Really, did he not announce his candidacy in New Orleans? Such a slimeball move, clearly trying to capitalize on the "Oh, he feels for the Katrina victims and he's so dreamy" vote. He's not even from Louisiana, so WTF?

Seriously, zero good candidates. Don't vote. For the sake of all that is good in the world do no vote.

I choose to look at it as, "There are no good candidates, and what candidates there are seem to be all too similar for a vote to matter."

Honestly I really don't care because I don't think it makes a big difference one way or the other unless you have some absolute nutjob in there who goes to one extreme or the other (massive, socialist government or complete anarchy).

I just hope it's a Democrat so I don't have to listen to them bitch and moan. Republicans seem to be much less annoying in this regard.

Vote for the lesser of two evils. Say, let's call X "evil guy". Let's call Y "super evil guy". Now, if Y gets in office because you didn't vote for X, you'd be worse off.

We just have to vote for our president once every four years. Is voting really that big of a deal?

 

[YSSMAN]

We just have to vote for our president once every four years. Is voting really that big of a deal?

Not that I would defend those who don't vote, but the understanding behind their inaction I believe is largely based on their view that their one vote may, or may not count in a pool of millions and millions. Often it would seem as though their sense of responsibility is greatly diminished because they don't feel as though the results will directly effect them in any way... As they see it, as long as the Government isn't knocking on their door, they have no reason to worry about who is or is not in office.

...That is of course until something bad happens to them, then of course whoever is in power gets that blame placed upon their head. I'd love to call myself a participatory democrat and further encourage those who do not vote to get out there and get active, however I am a firm believer that it is the people's right to chose whether or not to vote... But that doesn't make it right for them not to.

 

[Philly]

The thing about not voting is that you may think one person not voting won't make a difference. That is almost always true. But, others think the same way. Because of this, we could very quickly see 5 to 10% of the population not voting. That is a good 15 to 30 million people. Tell me all of those votes wouldn't make a difference.

 

[ledhed]

Republican President = Billary running as DEM candidate.

Even if Donald Duck is the Rep nominated.

 

[Philly]

Yeah. Bill certainly would be very involved in Hillary's presidency. Like Elanor Roosevelt.

 

[ledhed]

Hey some people think thats a GOOD thing...they want CLINTON and think 'Ol Bill will be the man behind the curtain...personally I think Hiliry keeps Bills nuts in a jar .

 

[Philly]

Honestly, I don't think that could be all bad. It in fact would be good if Hillary is up to no good.

 

[Omnis]

Hillary controlled a lot of Bill's administration, anyway.

Now she's making Adam Smith roll in his grave and the american spirit drown in tears.