Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are bluedog Republicans. Why not Reddog Democrats? Purple staters is another group out there. They like parts of both platforms.
I suppose you're right. As a true blue Democrat, I just find it hard to fathom voting Republican for any reason, particularly as a protest against my party's nominee. Heck, I support Obama, but if Hilliary gets the nomination I'm not going to vote for McCain.
To put it bluntly, you do not meet the definition of a Democrat if you would vote for a Republican every time the Democrats nominate someone you don't like. A true Democrat would withhold their vote from a Republican.You sound much more like an independent to me, perhaps with Democratic leanings.
You are actually correct. I do not meet the definition of a "typical" Democrat, although I do generally find myself in agreement with more Dems than Reps. Honestly, I am eagerly awaiting the Republican Party's moving back to the center. Once they can officially purge the Radical Right wing Evangelicals, the party can get back to it's roots.
I have long been a fan of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill, as you know was fiscally conservative. Barack Obama is far too left wing in his associations for my comfort and I truly don't believe that he is ready to lead the country at this time. So, if Hillary loses, which I still doubt, I will have to vote for who I think is more capable of leading, and between Obama and McCain, that's McCain.
Also, I think McCain has a pretty good moderate record overall as well. I have some problems with how he's moving to the right to appease the lunatics in the party to get the nod, but, I'll have to see where he ends up if need be. I also have some concerns about his stance on some social issues too.
A snowball has a better chance of surviving in hell than Obama has of getting my vote.
The problem with any of them is that they are all equally entrenched with and in debt to the special interest groups. That includes the "annointed one", Barack Obama.
The problem with any of them is that they are all equally entrenched with and in debt to the special interest groups. That includes the "annointed one", Barack Obama.
There were only 3, maybe 4 candidates that weren't. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. I didn't pay much attention to the other Republicans early on. All I heard was war war war war illegals.
There were only 3, maybe 4 candidates that weren't. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. I didn't pay much attention to the other Republicans early on. All I heard was war war war war illegals.
And then there's the endless babbling about Reagan. I am surprised they haven't dug him up yet and threw him on the ballot! He caused far more damage to this country than any of the perceived good he may have done.
Barack Obama is far too left wing in his associations for my comfort
Far left wing? You've got to be kidding. Hillary's mandated universal health care program is the ultimate big government leftist pipe dream. At least Obama's plan is not mandatory. I suspect you have other objections to Obama besides his so-called far left associations. Come to think of it, Obama's and Clinton's programs are not that much different from each other, except for the health care plan. On the question of experience, Hillary has no executive experience whatsoever. And her legislative experience is actually shorter than Obama's (if you count Obama's stint in the Illinois state senate). So there is something else about Obama that turns you off. C'mon, you can be honest with us. What is it about Obama that really turns you off?
And then there's the endless babbling about Reagan. I am surprised they haven't dug him up yet and threw him on the ballot! He caused far more damage to this country than any of the perceived good he may have done.
He had good ideas. He failed to implement most of them. Government is not the solution, it's the problem.
It's mandatory for employers to pay into the system. They're going to be forced to pay a portion of their payroll into the system.
It's also mandatory for children.
Only self employed adults can chose not to participate. Assuming you don't buy anything from the companies forced to pay a portion of their payroll into the system.
What worries me most is that his plan does not include any hard numbers. Like this:
Quote:
The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
Quote:
Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status.
Quote:
Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
Far left wing? You've got to be kidding. Hillary's mandated universal health care program is the ultimate big government leftist pipe dream. At least Obama's plan is not mandatory. I suspect you have other objections to Obama besides his so-called far left associations. Come to think of it, Obama's and Clinton's programs are not that much different from each other, except for the health care plan. On the question of experience, Hillary has no executive experience whatsoever. And her legislative experience is actually shorter than Obama's (if you count Obama's stint in the Illinois state senate). So there is something else about Obama that turns you off. C'mon, you can be honest with us. What is it about Obama that really turns you off?
Are you accusing me of being a racist? Don't beat around the bush, SAY IT. Show your own true colors. Aren't you tired of that worn out argument yet?
As to experience, I won't even have this debate with you, as no matter what anybody says, it's the same outcome with you. By insinuating that I am a racist, you just proved that theory.
I'll leave you with this: If Hillary's plans and proposals aren't better than Obama's, why is he constantly stealing them and re-proposing them in HIS name?
We have no say in it at all this year. Who made the asinine decision to move our primary to May?
I think voting in May is more logical than voting in snow storms and tornados. Everybody needs to vote in May. What I don't understand is a state changing to vote at another time and their votes not being counted. Of course they changed so they would have some say in the decision. It just makes more sense to me that everybody vote at the same time and May is early enough.
Surely six months is long enough to choose another president. I think NC is the logical state in this situation. Everybody else needs to move their date. Maybe Harlem would have come out to vote if it had not been so cold. (Had to get back on topic.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
