What if Hillary Clinton steals the Nomination? - Page 2 - Political Forum

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 04-23-2008, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swialiberal

I would vote for a good third party candidate, if one surfaces.

I try to form my opinions on a candidate not based on their party, but based on the candidate and what they value. I will always vote for who I view as the best person to lead our country, be the party they belong corrupt or not.

If a candidate showed that they didn't care about what I thought, there is no chance that they would recieve my vote.

Part of the candidate who runs is what party they represent. I wouldn't vote for Martin Luther King Jr. if he ran at the head of the Nazi Party. There's a price to be paid for violating certain principles, like democracy. When a party does something like that, it's up to the citizens to bring that party down. Heads must roll. If not, then the country has already failed. If citizens allow their rights to be ignored and continue to slavishly support those who take away their rights, then that is the forfeiture of democracy and human dignity.

WEB

swialiberal · 04-23-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

Part of the candidate who runs is what party they represent. I wouldn't vote for Martin Luther King Jr. if he ran at the head of the Nazi Party. There's a price to be paid for violating certain principles, like democracy. When a party does something like that, it's up to the citizens to bring that party down. Heads must roll. If not, then the country has already failed. If citizens allow their rights to be ignored and continue to slavishly support those who take away their rights, then that is the forfeiture of democracy and human dignity.

WEB

If something like that does happen, I have no doubt that heads will roll and the guilty party and its leaders will suffer.

Unfortunately, not everybody will see it the way you do and many will continue to blindly vote for their party without any regard for what is right or what should be done.

Freedom Rider · 04-23-2008, 08:45 PM

I've noticed that most people seem to be putting their personal like or dislike of the candidates ahead of the issues. There is a good debate to be made, "what is more important, a candidate's perceived character or where they stand on the issues?"

Ideally, the perfect candidate is someone whom you like and respect, plus you agree with their stance on the issues. That is why I'm supporting Obama.

However, Hillary and Obama are very, very close on most issues. So if Hillary were to somehow weasel her way into the nomination, I would hold my nose and vote for her. The issues are the most important thing in the race for me (although I know for many character is more important).

I fear that if Hillary gets the nomination, its going to alienate the youth vote and the Black vote. If Obama gets it, its going to alienate the women's vote (a lot of white women, anyway).
I hate to see race, age and/or gender become such important factors...and not just in the candidates themselves, but in voting blocks.

I have a growing concern that the democrats are going to lose this race. Given the closeness of Obama's & Hillary's positions on the issues, it seems crazy to me that there is such rampant aminosity between the two's supporters...and the longer the race goes on, the stronger the animosity.

The democrats have had a history of screwing up elections which early on seemed like sure things, and its looking like history is going to repeat itself this time...I hope I'm wrong about that.

Shiva_TD · 04-23-2008, 08:51 PM

I'm sticking with my write-in for Jesse Ventura. He isn't running but he's better than McCain, Obama, or Clinton.

Freedom Rider · 04-23-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

I'm sticking with my write-in for Jesse Ventura. He isn't running but he's better than McCain, Obama, or Clinton.

Based on what I've read about his political positions, seems to me like he might make a darn good president. If he ran, I'd seriously consider voting for him.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 04-23-2008, 09:38 PM

May want to read this before casting that vote: Jesse Ventura Says WTC Collapse a Controlled Demolition : Tue, 08 Apr 2008 : eNewsChannels™

Freedom Rider · 04-23-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

May want to read this before casting that vote: Jesse Ventura Says WTC Collapse a Controlled Demolition : Tue, 08 Apr 2008 : eNewsChannels™

Actually, his outspokeness on this issue is one of the reasons I'd vote for him.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 04-23-2008, 10:21 PM

* Groans *

Caltex · 04-23-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

* Groans *

Someone needs to pull out the Popular Mechanics 9/11 article I guess....

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Freedom Rider · 04-24-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

Someone needs to pull out the Popular Mechanics 9/11 article I guess....

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Oh please. That Popular Mechanics piece includes several errors, but more importantly it fails to address the biggest anomalies of 9-11.

Here are a few criticisms of it:

Quote:

"...One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.

"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.

The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.

The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day..."

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

If anyone's interested, they should also read
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11

Just remember, folks , don't believe everything you read...doublecheck with other sources, and think it over carefully and objectively. There's a lot of BS out there on both sides of this issue.