http://gamingtrend.com
September 02, 2014, 04:58:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hmmm. What if: Hilary = VP? Does That Sway Your Vote to McCain?  (Read 12089 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2008, 10:24:51 PM »

Quote from: ATB on May 14, 2008, 08:52:50 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 14, 2008, 05:50:03 PM

Quote from: Exodor on May 14, 2008, 05:01:48 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 14, 2008, 04:51:12 PM

But when someone supports Obama's policy positions, and then adds a Veep who supports those same positions, albeit in slightly different ways, and that someone precludes voting for Obama? That's just mind-bogglingly illogical. I expect that crap from folks who don't actually understand the policy positions involved, not those who do.

Perhaps when picking the leader of the country some people consider more than just policy positions?

Yes, some people actually do make choices based on things other than what really matters -- policy. Doesn't make it any more logical.

The irony, Mr. Campaign manager, is how often are elections decided by policy?

More than you'd think, obviously. Not as many as I would like, unfortunately.

Quote
They're not because people like you who are a part of the political machine and those who run campaigns find any flaw with an individual and try to exploit it to make the other person look bad regardless of what that persons policy is.

So what's your point? Other than trying to imply that I'm either a hypocrite or bad at my job?

See, I was trying to actually be respectful of you, and assume that you do things more intelligently than the average person (ie, vote on policy). I apologize for what appears to be my mistake.
Logged

Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2008, 11:07:53 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 14, 2008, 10:24:51 PM

Quote from: ATB on May 14, 2008, 08:52:50 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 14, 2008, 05:50:03 PM

Quote from: Exodor on May 14, 2008, 05:01:48 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 14, 2008, 04:51:12 PM

But when someone supports Obama's policy positions, and then adds a Veep who supports those same positions, albeit in slightly different ways, and that someone precludes voting for Obama? That's just mind-bogglingly illogical. I expect that crap from folks who don't actually understand the policy positions involved, not those who do.

Perhaps when picking the leader of the country some people consider more than just policy positions?

Yes, some people actually do make choices based on things other than what really matters -- policy. Doesn't make it any more logical.

The irony, Mr. Campaign manager, is how often are elections decided by policy?

More than you'd think, obviously. Not as many as I would like, unfortunately.

Quote
They're not because people like you who are a part of the political machine and those who run campaigns find any flaw with an individual and try to exploit it to make the other person look bad regardless of what that persons policy is.

So what's your point? Other than trying to imply that I'm either a hypocrite or bad at my job?

See, I was trying to actually be respectful of you, and assume that you do things more intelligently than the average person (ie, vote on policy). I apologize for what appears to be my mistake.

I think his point is that (at least in non-local elections) the politics of personal destruction work better than the politics of policy, and because of that those who design campaigns rely on them, all the while decrying sad, sad fact that it can't be about the *issues*.

It's not your fault personally, of course - in fact, I'll happily place the blame squarely at the feet of the morons who are swayed by things like Swift Boat innuendo and rumors of illegitimate black babies pushed over a phone, but the fact remains that when those things are shown to work (or when a candidate gets desperate) they happily go down that road. 

What I like about Obama is that he has, so far, seemingly rejected these tactics, and in the larger scheme I'm hopeful that he and McCain *could* be the beginning of a sea change in how politics are approached.  It's a small chance - probably next to zero - but I already know how Hillary works, and I want that out of our government.   
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2008, 11:54:04 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 14, 2008, 11:07:53 PM

What I like about Obama is that he has, so far, seemingly rejected these tactics, and in the larger scheme I'm hopeful that he and McCain *could* be the beginning of a sea change in how politics are approached. 

McCain?  No, he's given up on straight talk.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2008, 12:02:05 AM »

Quote from: Ironrod on May 14, 2008, 09:14:13 PM

Well put. Had Obama not entered the race, a good number of the forum liberals would be Hillary enthusiasts right now. Just a few short years ago they (you) thought that Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century --

He still is. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2008, 12:13:38 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 12:02:05 AM

Quote from: Ironrod on May 14, 2008, 09:14:13 PM

Well put. Had Obama not entered the race, a good number of the forum liberals would be Hillary enthusiasts right now. Just a few short years ago they (you) thought that Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century --

He still is. 

Not to have another pointless Clinton debate, but thank you very much for that, I needed a good laugh for the week.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15372


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2008, 01:13:24 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on May 14, 2008, 09:06:19 PM

Quote from: ATB on May 14, 2008, 08:52:50 PM

They're not because people like you who are a part of the political machine and those who run campaigns find any flaw with an individual and try to exploit it to make the other person look bad regardless of what that persons policy is. Look at the hype Wright is getting.  So if it's a matter of logic, perhaps you should retool how elections are run and make policy the most important issue.

Hey, chief, this has been mostly a one-sided affair for decades.  Please note how many well-meaning policy wonks the democrats nominate, and the strategery by which they're derailed:  Willie Horton, tank rides, "I invented the internet", "Faked purple heart!1!", wind-surfing, flag pins, and Jeremiah Wright.

When McCain's campaign succumbed to the adulterous-black-daughter rumors in South Carolina in 2000, it was Bush/Rove who did it to him, not the dems.

Sorry, Unbreakable. I didn't realize that only repubs do smear campaigns..


Quote
See, I was trying to actually be respectful of you,


Yeah. You've been very respectful:


Quote
any vote against Obama because Hillary Clinton and not, say, Ed Rendell, is his Vice Presidential candidate is just flat out illogical.

Quote
You'll vote for more of the same on the war, more restrictions on personal freedoms through frighteningly conservative judicial appointments and more fiscal irresponsibility just because you don't like Hillary Clinton as a person? Even though she wouldn't change any of Barack Obama's policy positions?

That's just <I cuss because I'm too lazy to use intelligent non-crutch words> insane.

Quote
Yes, I know people use stupid measures for determining their vote all the time

Quote
That's just mind-bogglingly illogical.


Quote
Yes, some people actually do make choices based on things other than what really matters -- policy. Doesn't make it any more logical.

Smearing is so ingrained in your political DNA you don't even realize you're doing it...or perhaps you think we the people is so dumb we cain't catch the subtlety?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 01:15:02 AM by ATB » Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2008, 01:45:36 AM »

Quote from: brettmcd on May 15, 2008, 12:13:38 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 12:02:05 AM

Quote from: Ironrod on May 14, 2008, 09:14:13 PM

Well put. Had Obama not entered the race, a good number of the forum liberals would be Hillary enthusiasts right now. Just a few short years ago they (you) thought that Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century --

He still is. 

Not to have another pointless Clinton debate, but thank you very much for that, I needed a good laugh for the week.

+1   Truthiness!
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2008, 02:37:54 AM »

Quote from: DarkEL on May 15, 2008, 01:45:36 AM

Quote from: brettmcd on May 15, 2008, 12:13:38 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 12:02:05 AM

Quote from: Ironrod on May 14, 2008, 09:14:13 PM

Well put. Had Obama not entered the race, a good number of the forum liberals would be Hillary enthusiasts right now. Just a few short years ago they (you) thought that Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century --

He still is. 

Not to have another pointless Clinton debate, but thank you very much for that, I needed a good laugh for the week.

+1   Truthiness!

I'll take 8 years of relative peace, prosperity and a balanced budget over any Republican financial/civil rights debacle of the last 20 years.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
ScubaV
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 941



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2008, 03:23:21 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 02:37:54 AM

Quote from: DarkEL on May 15, 2008, 01:45:36 AM

Quote from: brettmcd on May 15, 2008, 12:13:38 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 12:02:05 AM

Quote from: Ironrod on May 14, 2008, 09:14:13 PM

Well put. Had Obama not entered the race, a good number of the forum liberals would be Hillary enthusiasts right now. Just a few short years ago they (you) thought that Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century --

He still is. 

Not to have another pointless Clinton debate, but thank you very much for that, I needed a good laugh for the week.

+1   Truthiness!

I'll take 8 years of relative peace, prosperity and a balanced budget over any Republican financial/civil rights debacle of the last 20 years.

That you think this was due to active work by Clinton is as hilarious as the conservatives at work who think global warming is a farce powered by pseudo-science.

As for policy guiding voters' presidential decisions, sure policy is important, but it's Congress's job to do legislating.  The president's responsibility is to lead the country, and that involves far more than just political stances.
Logged

I have absolute faith in the power of people to be stupid.

My vision is augmented.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2008, 03:45:10 AM »

Quote from: ScubaV on May 15, 2008, 03:23:21 AM

That you think this was due to active work by Clinton is as hilarious as the conservatives at work who think global warming is a farce powered by pseudo-science.

Prove it wasn't.  You won't be able to...we've already had that discussion:

http://www.gamingtrend.com/forums/index.php/topic,25629.0.html

The problem is that Republicans can't stand that Clinton took away the veil of Republicans being "fiscally conservative" and how voodoo economics don't work in a vacuum.  And the statistics so overwhelming support it that the "conservatives" can't even rationally debate it, so they try the old "blow job, blow job!" routine.  Shit, unlike the Republican sex scandals the last few years, at least Clinton got blown by a woman.    icon_biggrin
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2008, 03:53:05 AM »

Back to the original topic, I don't think Hillary is going to be Obama's first choice.  She (and her supporters) might try to leverage her delegates to broker a deal and Obama may be pushed into a corner on it.  But Bill Richardson makes perfect sense to be the #2 on the ticket:

He's from the southwestern USA (New Mexico), negating McCain's (Arizona) regional advantage.
He's Hispanic, shoring up one of the weakest groups for Obama and states with large Hispanic populations (including FL).
He has a LOT of experience - more than Hillary - shoring up another perceived Obama weakness. 
His term expires in 2011 and can't run again for Governor of New Mexico.
He endorsed Obama earlier than most big names (March, 2008).

It's a pretty natural fit all the way around. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2008, 04:19:09 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 02:37:54 AM

Quote from: DarkEL on May 15, 2008, 01:45:36 AM

Quote from: brettmcd on May 15, 2008, 12:13:38 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 12:02:05 AM

Quote from: Ironrod on May 14, 2008, 09:14:13 PM

Well put. Had Obama not entered the race, a good number of the forum liberals would be Hillary enthusiasts right now. Just a few short years ago they (you) thought that Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century --

He still is. 

Not to have another pointless Clinton debate, but thank you very much for that, I needed a good laugh for the week.

+1   Truthiness!

I'll take 8 years of relative peace, prosperity and a balanced budget over any Republican financial/civil rights debacle of the last 20 years.

"Wag the Dog"
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 15, 2008, 04:49:00 AM »

Quote from: ATB on May 15, 2008, 01:13:24 AM

Quote from: Brendan on May 14, 2008, 09:06:19 PM

Quote from: ATB on May 14, 2008, 08:52:50 PM

They're not because people like you who are a part of the political machine and those who run campaigns find any flaw with an individual and try to exploit it to make the other person look bad regardless of what that persons policy is. Look at the hype Wright is getting.  So if it's a matter of logic, perhaps you should retool how elections are run and make policy the most important issue.

Hey, chief, this has been mostly a one-sided affair for decades.  Please note how many well-meaning policy wonks the democrats nominate, and the strategery by which they're derailed:  Willie Horton, tank rides, "I invented the internet", "Faked purple heart!1!", wind-surfing, flag pins, and Jeremiah Wright.

When McCain's campaign succumbed to the adulterous-black-daughter rumors in South Carolina in 2000, it was Bush/Rove who did it to him, not the dems.

Sorry, Unbreakable. I didn't realize that only repubs do smear campaigns..


Quote
See, I was trying to actually be respectful of you,


Yeah. You've been very respectful:

Yes, I was being respectful, because I thought that you were too intelligent to vote based on something other than substance, and didn't really believe it when you said it.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2008, 04:52:12 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 03:53:05 AM

Back to the original topic, I don't think Hillary is going to be Obama's first choice.  She (and her supporters) might try to leverage her delegates to broker a deal and Obama may be pushed into a corner on it.  But Bill Richardson makes perfect sense to be the #2 on the ticket:

He's from the southwestern USA (New Mexico), negating McCain's (Arizona) regional advantage.
He's Hispanic, shoring up one of the weakest groups for Obama and states with large Hispanic populations (including FL).
He has a LOT of experience - more than Hillary - shoring up another perceived Obama weakness. 
His term expires in 2011 and can't run again for Governor of New Mexico.
He endorsed Obama earlier than most big names (March, 2008).

It's a pretty natural fit all the way around. 

Bill Richardson was a flop, a complete and utter flop, as a candidate this year. He performed miserably, was bad in every debate, got no traction and basically embarrassed himself. He endorsed, but after Texas was over, so too late to really help (this thing might not have gone all the way to MO/SD if Obama had won Texas) and, really, not all that early. And, having endorsed Obama and been declared a "Judas" by the Clintonites, he has no value as a party unifier, which is a key criteria for the Veep spot.

He'll be on the list, but the logic of choosing him is less than that of choosing Rendell, Strickland or, yes, Clinton.
Logged

Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2008, 04:53:12 AM »

Quote from: ATB on May 15, 2008, 01:13:24 AM

Quote from: Brendan on May 14, 2008, 09:06:19 PM

Quote from: ATB on May 14, 2008, 08:52:50 PM

They're not because people like you who are a part of the political machine and those who run campaigns find any flaw with an individual and try to exploit it to make the other person look bad regardless of what that persons policy is. Look at the hype Wright is getting.  So if it's a matter of logic, perhaps you should retool how elections are run and make policy the most important issue.

Hey, chief, this has been mostly a one-sided affair for decades.  Please note how many well-meaning policy wonks the democrats nominate, and the strategery by which they're derailed:  Willie Horton, tank rides, "I invented the internet", "Faked purple heart!1!", wind-surfing, flag pins, and Jeremiah Wright.

When McCain's campaign succumbed to the adulterous-black-daughter rumors in South Carolina in 2000, it was Bush/Rove who did it to him, not the dems.

Sorry, Unbreakable. I didn't realize that only repubs do smear campaigns..

Have you paid any attention to national politics at all in the last twenty years?  You're welcome to give some counter-examples.  And for the record, I'm not a fucking conspiracy theorist.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2008, 05:05:39 AM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 15, 2008, 04:52:12 AM

Bill Richardson was a flop, a complete and utter flop, as a candidate this year. He performed miserably, was bad in every debate, got no traction and basically embarrassed himself. He endorsed, but after Texas was over, so too late to really help (this thing might not have gone all the way to MO/SD if Obama had won Texas) and, really, not all that early. And, having endorsed Obama and been declared a "Judas" by the Clintonites, he has no value as a party unifier, which is a key criteria for the Veep spot.

He'll be on the list, but the logic of choosing him is less than that of choosing Rendell, Strickland or, yes, Clinton.

I'd have to agree with that, I think there was a time when he could have been on the very short list of being a good candidate for VP, but that was squandered and he really wouldn't add any value to the ticket now.

Several times though i've wondered if Obama might take a female as his VP. 
Pelosi or Sebelius both seem to be in good standing right now (although admittedly my knowledge of either of them is fairly limited)
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: May 15, 2008, 12:25:14 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on May 15, 2008, 04:19:09 AM

"Wag the Dog"

Translation: If you can't respond with any facts to back up your point, respond with a not-so-pithy statement!

Yea, wag the dog might be true if the debt didn't immediately decrease under Clinton and a Democratic Congress and if Clinton hadn't won the Government shutdown against the Republicans over....(wait for it)....(wait for it)...the budget in '96!  And notice on the graph how the debt drops precipitously after the shutdown?  Hmmm, I guess we know who the dog really was (in more ways than one, I suppose).  smile

Thanks for playing!  Give him a big hand, folks.

Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 15, 2008, 01:51:10 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 15, 2008, 12:25:14 PM

Quote from: DarkEL on May 15, 2008, 04:19:09 AM

"Wag the Dog"

Translation: If you can't respond with any facts to back up your point, respond with a not-so-pithy statement!

Yea, wag the dog might be true if the debt didn't immediately decrease under Clinton and a Democratic Congress and if Clinton hadn't won the Government shutdown against the Republicans over....(wait for it)....(wait for it)...the budget in '96!  And notice on the graph how the debt drops precipitously after the shutdown?  Hmmm, I guess we know who the dog really was (in more ways than one, I suppose).  smile

Thanks for playing!  Give him a big hand, folks.

No reason to act so condescending. Especially when you're missing the point entirely. The wag the dog reference was not about debt but literally about the controversy about the bombings in 1998 we did that many believed were intended to distract from some of his personal scandals (and no I don't believe that's true)

I'm not arguing that Clinton wasn't a "decent" president nor that debt didn't decrease under him. But there was a comment recently about Clinton being one of the best presidents, yet I just don't see it that way. Yes, He did some good stuff, but he also did a lot of negative things and his entire presidency was tainted by one controversy after another.

Better than Bush? Absolutely!  But that certainly isn't enough to be considered one of the best.

it's funny to me how some people look back more fondly on a President's term of office after the fact.

Scary thought is -- will people eventually be reminiscing about how good Bush was one day?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 01:55:38 PM by DarkEL » Logged
Remus West2
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 453



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2008, 02:32:07 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on May 15, 2008, 01:51:10 PM

it's funny to me how some people look back more fondly on a President's term of office after the fact.
Thats a very ironic comment when taken in context.  Which president do you think would be above Clinton for best ever?  Name one that did not have scandals around them since that seems to be what is detracting from him for you.
Logged

It's how I say Hello - Richard
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3389



View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2008, 02:36:06 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on May 15, 2008, 01:51:10 PM


Scary thought is -- will people eventually be reminiscing about how good Bush was one day?

Don't rule it out. During Reagan's presidency, (liberal) popular opinion regarded him as a warmongering simpleton who napped through his presidency. That's not how history ultimately sized him up, though. Bush's legacy will depend on the ultimate outcome in Iraq, which we probably won't know for at least another decade.

Back to Obama...I wonder if Edwards would accept the VP slot? He owns the anti-poverty, blue-collar, populist turf that Hillary is exploiting now, and could be a good counter to Obama's elitism. It would certainly sway my vote.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 15, 2008, 02:54:43 PM »

Quote from: Remus West2 on May 15, 2008, 02:32:07 PM

Quote from: DarkEL on May 15, 2008, 01:51:10 PM

it's funny to me how some people look back more fondly on a President's term of office after the fact.
Thats a very ironic comment when taken in context.  Which president do you think would be above Clinton for best ever?  Name one that did not have scandals around them since that seems to be what is detracting from him for you.

that's just it, I think it's been so long since we've had a great president that it's like we're looking in a barrel of rotten fruit and saying "oh look - this one isn't quite as moldy as the other's therefore he's the best". Trouble is few of us are old enough to actually remember a decent president.

As I look back over the Presidents that I've been able to actually witness (not just read about)

Carter - To be fair I didn't pay too much attention to him - a bit too young to care. But remember thinking rather poorly about him.

Reagan -- To be honest - I actually likes Reagan during his first term -just not so much during his second term. He had some great "presidential moments" though which is why I think he's remembered so fondly

Never cared for Bush Sr. He seemed to always be trying to fight the "wimp" label, and never seemed to do much good for the country.

Never cared for Clinton. Little things like integrity just seemed too complex for him to grasp. He also cut military spending far too much while I was in the Marines.

GWB - Never cared for him but he did have the one great presidential moment around 9/11, but then he squandered all that good will. Everything since then has struck me as fairly evil.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 15, 2008, 02:56:09 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on May 15, 2008, 02:36:06 PM

Don't rule it out. During Reagan's presidency, (liberal) popular opinion regarded him as a warmongering simpleton who napped through his presidency. That's not how history ultimately sized him up, though. Bush's legacy will depend on the ultimate outcome in Iraq, which we probably won't know for at least another decade.

Back to Obama...I wonder if Edwards would accept the VP slot? He owns the anti-poverty, blue-collar, populist turf that Hillary is exploiting now, and could be a good counter to Obama's elitism. It would certainly sway my vote.

If Edwards did, McCain might as well not even bother running because the race would be over.   icon_biggrin
Logged
Freezer-TPF-
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


First in war and peace, second in the NL East.


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: May 15, 2008, 05:43:48 PM »

Many people have speculated that Jim Webb is on the short list. 
Logged

Signature on file at the county clerk's office.
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: May 15, 2008, 09:15:12 PM »

Quote from: Freezer-TPF- on May 15, 2008, 05:43:48 PM

Many people have speculated that Jim Webb is on the short list. 

That would be a fantastic ticket.  I can see some of the far left base freaking out, but I think it would be solid.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #64 on: May 15, 2008, 09:36:38 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on May 15, 2008, 09:15:12 PM

Quote from: Freezer-TPF- on May 15, 2008, 05:43:48 PM

Many people have speculated that Jim Webb is on the short list. 

That would be a fantastic ticket.  I can see some of the far left base freaking out, but I think it would be solid.

I like that ticket.  I also like Richardson.  He's not a spectacular speaker, but he certainly didn't "embarrass himself" and his record is exemplary.

To me, those are better than Edwards (who couldn't carry his home state of NC in 2004) or Hillary (whose antics have turned me off during this election cycle).
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: May 16, 2008, 04:33:20 PM »

Quote from: Freezer-TPF- on May 15, 2008, 05:43:48 PM

Many people have speculated that Jim Webb is on the short list. 

Jim Webb already said he has no interest.

I'm voting for McCain regardless, so I don't care!
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 16, 2008, 05:52:39 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on May 16, 2008, 04:33:20 PM

I'm voting for McCain regardless, so I don't care!


 saywhat
Logged
Freezer-TPF-
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


First in war and peace, second in the NL East.


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: May 16, 2008, 06:17:51 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on May 16, 2008, 04:33:20 PM

Quote from: Freezer-TPF- on May 15, 2008, 05:43:48 PM

Many people have speculated that Jim Webb is on the short list. 

Jim Webb already said he has no interest.

Everyone says they have no interest in the VP position. 
Logged

Signature on file at the county clerk's office.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: May 16, 2008, 07:44:58 PM »

Quote from: Freezer-TPF- on May 16, 2008, 06:17:51 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on May 16, 2008, 04:33:20 PM

Quote from: Freezer-TPF- on May 15, 2008, 05:43:48 PM

Many people have speculated that Jim Webb is on the short list. 

Jim Webb already said he has no interest.

Everyone says they have no interest in the VP position. 

O Rly?
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Freezer-TPF-
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


First in war and peace, second in the NL East.


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 16, 2008, 08:30:26 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on May 16, 2008, 07:44:58 PM

Quote from: Freezer-TPF- on May 16, 2008, 06:17:51 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on May 16, 2008, 04:33:20 PM

Quote from: Freezer-TPF- on May 15, 2008, 05:43:48 PM

Many people have speculated that Jim Webb is on the short list. 

Jim Webb already said he has no interest.

Everyone says they have no interest in the VP position. 

O Rly?

Thanks for proving my point. slywink  But it's always good to see that some Senators have a personality and a sense of humor.

Quote
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)
“Yes. Sign me up. I’ve been kidding people for years: The hours are better, the wages are just as good — whoever heard of a vice president getting shot at? — and it’s a great opportunity to travel. And actually since time has gone by, the job is robust … So sure. Anybody here would, if they’re going to be honest. The chances are slim to none. But I promise you, I would deliver all three of Delaware’s electoral votes.”

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.)
“I’d say, ‘Please read the Constitution.’ I wasn’t born in America; I can’t be VP.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
“The chances of that are so remote that I’m more likely to be hit by an asteroid.”

Quote
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)
“I don’t get into hypotheticals. No, I haven’t considered it. I don’t have a clue, honestly.”

With some exceptions, of course.

Logged

Signature on file at the county clerk's office.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: May 16, 2008, 09:12:40 PM »

I really liked this one:

Quote
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
“Are you kidding? Every senator would accept that offer. My guess is that almost every senator looks at themselves in the mirror in the morning and sees either a future president or vice president.”

See, not EVERYONE says no. slywink
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Freezer-TPF-
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


First in war and peace, second in the NL East.


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: May 16, 2008, 10:55:22 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on May 16, 2008, 09:12:40 PM

I really liked this one:

Quote
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
“Are you kidding? Every senator would accept that offer. My guess is that almost every senator looks at themselves in the mirror in the morning and sees either a future president or vice president.”

See, not EVERYONE says no. slywink

Like N.D. is even a state.  I think all the residents just take turns being Senator there anyway.
Logged

Signature on file at the county clerk's office.
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: May 27, 2008, 02:58:18 AM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 14, 2008, 04:21:38 PM

Vice Presidential picks can be shown to effect party unity, but I've never seen a study where they impact "independent" voters.

Go down a checklist of issues. Find me major areas of disagreement between Clinton and Obama. They're running on basically the same platform, with different focus issues. A Vice President Hillary Clinton would not change the legislative or diplomatic substance of an Obama administration. Since that is what the point of a presidential election is -- the agenda set out by the candidate -- any vote against Obama because Hillary Clinton and not, say, Ed Rendell, is his Vice Presidential candidate is just flat out illogical.

You'll vote for more of the same on the war, more restrictions on personal freedoms through frighteningly conservative judicial appointments and more fiscal irresponsibility just because you don't like Hillary Clinton as a person? Even though she wouldn't change any of Barack Obama's policy positions?

That's just fucking insane.


Still not going to be active in this forum, but for some reason I peeked in here and saw this thread.    I need to throw some across-the-isle support to my brotha Fireball here.

1980 -- Reagan and Bush had a bitter primary campaign in which nobody expected they would join forces because they didn't seem to like each other too much after all was said and done.    Reagan called Bush.   The party was united.     The rest is history.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: May 27, 2008, 05:11:09 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on May 27, 2008, 02:58:18 AM

Still not going to be active in this forum, but for some reason I peeked in here and saw this thread.    I need to throw some across-the-isle support to my brotha Fireball here.

1980 -- Reagan and Bush had a bitter primary campaign in which nobody expected they would join forces because they didn't seem to like each other too much after all was said and done.    Reagan called Bush.   The party was united.     The rest is history.

That's good historical perspective.

Hillary certainly wouldn't be my pick, but she may very well broker a deal to be the Veep (or Senate Majority Leader) and it might be out of Obama's hands. 

It didn't change my vote for Bush Sr. because I thought Quayle was an idiot.  It won't change it now.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 27, 2008, 09:02:21 PM »

After giving it a lot of thought, I've decided that what Obama needs is a proven winner, a running mate that adds adorableness, loyalty and possibly even the state of Texas to Obama's campaign arsenal:


Logged

cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: May 27, 2008, 10:30:10 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 27, 2008, 09:02:21 PM

After giving it a lot of thought, I've decided that what Obama needs is a proven winner, a running mate that adds adorableness, loyalty and possibly even the state of Texas to Obama's campaign arsenal:



Horrible choice. His handler believes Kennel Cough was created by the government to get rid of Black Labs.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15372


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: May 28, 2008, 01:06:42 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on May 27, 2008, 10:30:10 PM

Horrible choice. His handler believes Kennel Cough was created by the government to get rid of Black Labs.

Ok Ok. 2 Pts for that one biggrin
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15372


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: June 03, 2008, 09:06:19 PM »

Hilary is open to the idea.

Huge mistake if Obama does it.
Logged
SuperHiro
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1199

Pants on Fire


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: June 05, 2008, 03:17:09 AM »

If Hillary is VP, I'd probably still vote for the ticket, but I'd feel really yucky.  And I'm not sure that's a feeling the Obama campaign wants to cultivate.
Logged

Just Hiro will do.
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 05, 2008, 11:13:39 PM »

Obama McCain !  icon_biggrin
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.176 seconds with 102 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.038s, 2q)