The Big 3

Cyclone85 · 05-26-2008, 11:07 PM

....and I'm not talking about GM, Ford, and Chrysler. I don't know (and I admit it could be my cranky mood), but is anybody inspired by the other Big 3; Obama, Clinton, and McCain?

Obama -- a freshman senator with no experience who has been practically campaigning for 2-years

Clinton -- a polarizing figure with more baggage than Rosie O'Donnell on a United Flight to Dubai?

McCain -- an agonizing centrist that suffers from the Stockholm Syndrome and doesn't understand the difference between an environmentalists and a conservationists?

I've already done the math -- I get hosed no matter who gets in. None of them inspire me any way, shape, or form. Is it un-American to say 'screw it'; I'm not voting because I couldn't care less about these candidates?

contini · 05-27-2008, 02:45 AM

I think you are underestimating the value of a vote and having a voice in your government. Even if you are not happy with the choices, you can still have a voice. For example, choose a third party or else write in a candidate...

Throwby · 05-27-2008, 04:15 AM

There is such a thing as the lesser of three evils.

Tight-Waist · 05-27-2008, 09:30 AM

To Throwby: Yes I will agree that there is a lesser of three evils, but that doesnt mean that they warrant a vote.

To Contini: For the most part I agree with you. But many states, like mine, have very restrictive ballot access to marginal candidates.

To Cyclone: I understand EXACTLY how you feel! If I vote for McCain, my party may misinterpret my vote as approval of his RockefellerRupublicanism.

Further, Presidents, like quarterbacks, get too much of the credit and too much of the blame. I believe this recession will continue and deepen and when it does I want the liberal Democrats to be fully incharge.

Throwby · 05-28-2008, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

To Throwby: Yes I will agree that there is a lesser of three evils, but that doesnt mean that they warrant a vote.

To Contini: For the most part I agree with you. But many states, like mine, have very restrictive ballot access to marginal candidates.

To Cyclone: I understand EXACTLY how you feel! If I vote for McCain, my party may misinterpret my vote as approval of his RockefellerRupublicanism.

Further, Presidents, like quarterbacks, get too much of the credit and too much of the blame. I believe this recession will continue and deepen and when it does I want the liberal Democrats to be fully incharge.

One major difference between the candidates is we know that Obama and Hillary will appoint judicial activists to the courts. This is an often overlooked but singularly important responsibility of the POTUS. Choosing not to vote is your privilege but it's pretty much like voting third party; it makes a statement only to oneself.

Tight-Waist · 05-28-2008, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Throwby

One major difference between the candidates is we know that Obama and Hillary will appoint judicial activists to the courts. This is an often overlooked but singularly important responsibility of the POTUS. Choosing not to vote is your privilege but it's pretty much like voting third party; it makes a statement only to oneself.

Earl Warren (liberal)............... appointed by Eisenhower
Byron White (conservative).... appointed by Kennedy
William Breenen (liberal)......... appointed by Nixon
David Souter (liberal)............. appointed by Bush Sr.

I could go on here, but you get the point. While I seriously doubt that either Hillary or Obasma would appoint a conservative, I have absolutely no confidence in McCain not to appoint another liberal.

I respectfully disagree with your last point. If I DO vote, the party may assume that I'm one of those who approves of our candidate. But when I dont then they know I dont approve.

I'd rather wish I had voted for him than wish I hadnt.

matclone · 05-28-2008, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Throwby

One major difference between the candidates is we know that Obama and Hillary will appoint judicial activists to the courts. This is an often overlooked but singularly important responsibility of the POTUS. Choosing not to vote is your privilege but it's pretty much like voting third party; it makes a statement only to oneself.

While I agree the appointment power of the President is enormously important, I have to ask: what is a judicial activist? If you were President, how would you know one when when you saw one? Are judicial activists (however you want to define it) limited to one party or another?

matclone · 05-28-2008, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

....and I'm not talking about GM, Ford, and Chrysler. I don't know (and I admit it could be my cranky mood), but is anybody inspired by the other Big 3; Obama, Clinton, and McCain?

Obama -- a freshman senator with no experience who has been practically campaigning for 2-years?

Clinton -- a polarizing figure with more baggage than Rosie O'Donnell on a United Flight to Dubai?

McCain -- an agonizing centrist that suffers from the Stockholm Syndrome and doesn't understand the difference between an environmentalists and a conservationists?

I've already done the math -- I get hosed no matter who gets in. None of them inspire me any way, shape, or form. Is it un-American to say 'screw it'; I'm not voting because I couldn't care less about these candidates?

I have this notion that those in power like it when people get discouraged and don't vote. It tends to ensure that those in power will remain so.

ban basketball · 05-28-2008, 01:14 PM

In our time, in fact, history, there has been no greater instance of "judicial activism" than the handing of the "presidency" to Bush. That was criminal.

Yet, rule in favor of gay marriage, and our society collapses.

WOW!!!!

Throwby · 05-28-2008, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

While I agree the appointment power of the President is enormously important, I have to ask: what is a judicial activist? If you were President, how would you know one when when you saw one? Are judicial activists (however you want to define it) limited to one party or another?

I agree with your previous post in that Republican Presidents have often done a miserable job of appointing judges at the Supreme Court level. How would you know an activist judge? Well, first you'd have to rule out almost anyone from Southern California.

I like the wiki definition: "a pejorative term for misuse of judicial power for the purpose of obtaining a predetermined judgement based on the political convictions of the judges without regard to the U.S. constitution". Are they limited to one party or another? Good question.

The Big 3

Politics & Religion