ilovefuzz.com

I think most people vote similarly -- the problem is the difference in the definition of "damage"

Yeah, true, "damage" is often defined along party lines.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot:

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8193751/li ... itary-coup

Plus, what is he, retarded? As if a president needed congress to do anything anymore. Just executive action that shit. But if a republican president can't get a republican congress to pass a bill, then wtf?

Chankgeez wrote:Talk about shooting yourself in the foot:

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8193751/li ... itary-coup

I think it's is time we actually found out what planet "conservatives" come from, send them back and blow it up

Mudfuzz wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:Talk about shooting yourself in the foot:

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8193751/li ... itary-coup

I think it's is time we actually found out what planet "conservatives" come from, send them back and blow it up

Just remember, though: if you're gonna try to blow up the space lizards' home world, you best not miss.

Democrats increase your taxes. Guaranteed. Republicans roll back consumer protections and other things that are generally pro-poor schmuck and they might increase your taxes.

For Democrats Hillary (unfortunately) has the best chance. John Q Public is in a state of Obama-fatigue with the Workforce Participation Rate at a 30 year low (at about 1978 levels) and this gives Republicans the advantage, but Hillary's "royalty" status can neutralize the "Obama-fatigue".

Hillary Ramen Clinton

echoraven wrote:Democrats increase your taxes. Guaranteed. Republicans roll back consumer protections and other things that are generally pro-poor schmuck and they might increase your taxes.

I hate to be condescending, but neither of those things have been campaign issues since the first President Bush.

For Democrats Hillary (unfortunately) has the best chance. John Q Public is in a state of Obama-fatigue with the Workforce Participation Rate at a 30 year low (at about 1978 levels) and this gives Republicans the advantage, but Hillary's "royalty" status can neutralize the "Obama-fatigue".

Hilary is the only strong Democrat with national traction that can stand up against the ready-to-break tea party wave (nothing against Warren or Sanders, Sanders should stay a senator and Warren should be at the ready for the next election). (I hope) people are realizing that all Republicans are going to do is be a bunch of fucking babies with no regard for policy based on what actually works.

snipelfritz wrote:

echoraven wrote:...I hate to be condescending, but neither of those things have been campaign issues since the first President Bush...

Perhaps. With wages stagnant and workforce participation rate at 1978 levels people are concerned about their finances especially when the government says "more" (notice the "please" lacking).

snipelfritz wrote:...Hilary is the only strong Democrat with national traction that can stand up against the ready-to-break tea party wave (nothing against Warren or Sanders, Sanders should stay a senator and Warren should be at the ready for the next election). (I hope) people are realizing that all Republicans are going to do is be a bunch of fucking babies with no regard for policy based on what actually works.

I think it's time for Warren. While populist she doesn't seem to have the megalomaniac tendency of Obama and Hillary and would hopefully put country before party; which is something Obama has failed spectacularly to do (given the state of the economy) and Hillary seems more of the same.

The country should vote libertarian and put both major parties on notice.

I thought there's supposed to be a separation between Church and State?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ailsignout

I mean, I understand voting according to one's beliefs, but let's try to leave religion out of politics.

Chankgeez wrote:I thought there's supposed to be a separation between Church and State?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ailsignout

I mean, I understand voting according to one's beliefs, but let's try to leave religion out of politics.

this has been going on forever and is not considered to be an issue re constitutional law.

It's interesting to me how many of you seem to feel voting for the lesser evil is a responsibility. I guess I'm in the aluminum reflector beanie camp that thinks that's exactly what they want you to do.

Oh, I realize the Church & State debate has been going on since the founding of our nation. Definitely nothing new there. I just think it's crazy that it's still such a big issue.

As far as voting for the lesser evil. I don't feel it's a responsibility. I'd rather not have to vote for either the Republican or the Democrat. There's not much of choice there. I'd still rather vote than not vote though. When I lived in Massachusetts, concerning presidential elections, it didn't make a difference either way.

we need a none of the above/ redo option, preferably one that would bar the candidates that lost to none of the above.

I vote in favor of that proposal.