OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C5ycr47U8AA3cry.jpg:large
 
Dogsinotpalc said:
I'm hearing all sorts of people being impressed about what I'm told was a coherent speech...this should be expected and not a sign of great leader emerging.

He is still a shitty person and his policies still suck the most amount of suckiness possible...actually they could get worse.
Click to expand...

agreed.

putting a pretty mask on a shit-gibbon doesn't change the fact that it's a shit-gibbon. the laws and policies he wants to enact are still bad for everyone except the rich.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
Possibly, but they didn't because the Democrats don't take independent and swing voters into consideration. Choose candidates that middle America will identify with to steal voters from Republicans and maybe get some of the no-shows to actually participate. That's who wins.
Click to expand...

Has any President ever been elected strictly on qualifications? I think your point omits some of the fatal flaws those candidates possessed that stood between them and the presidency or spectacular issues or poor campaigns that harpooned their run. Whatever the reason though, most of those candidates you previously listed didn't get their party's vote out to the polls. Republicans have had their own issues running viable candidates over the past number of years; Bob Dole, Mit R, McCain, 1 term Bush, Ford. At the end of the day both parties have the same job; counter apathy with-in (motivate your party & those who identify like to show up at the polls, in greater numbers than the opposition which is critical) and sway non-committed voters to your side.
 
Lerxst said:
Has any President ever been elected strictly on qualifications? I think your point omits some of the fatal flaws those candidates possessed that stood between them and the presidency or spectacular issues or poor campaigns that harpooned their run. Whatever the reason though, most of those candidates you previously listed didn't get their party's vote out to the polls. Republicans have had their own issues running viable candidates over the past number of years; Bob Dole, Mit R, McCain, 1 term Bush, Ford. At the end of the day both parties have the same job; counter apathy with-in (motivate your party & those who identify like to show up at the polls, in greater numbers than the opposition which is critical) and sway non-committed voters to your side.
Click to expand...

I think we're in agreement and the limits of message boards have us hashing out specifics in a clunky way. :thu:
 
Lerxst said:
Has any President ever been elected strictly on qualifications? I think your point omits some of the fatal flaws those candidates possessed that stood between them and the presidency or spectacular issues or poor campaigns that harpooned their run. Whatever the reason though, most of those candidates you previously listed didn't get their party's vote out to the polls. Republicans have had their own issues running viable candidates over the past number of years; Bob Dole, Mit R, McCain, 1 term Bush, Ford. At the end of the day both parties have the same job; counter apathy with-in (motivate your party & those who identify like to show up at the polls, in greater numbers than the opposition which is critical) and sway non-committed voters to your side.
Click to expand...

But even their winning candidates had debatable viability, e.g.: Dubya and now Shit for brains. Getting elected or serving two terms doesn't make you great or confirm viability, just as lack of getting elected or only serving one terms doesn't mean you're bad.
 
Dogsinotpalc said:
But even their winning candidates had debatable viability, e.g.: Dubya and now Shit for brains. Getting elected or serving two terms doesn't make you great or confirm viability, just as lack of getting elected or only serving one terms doesn't mean you're bad.
Click to expand...

It's an either or choice at the end of the day & you run against who the opposition nominates. Viable only matters in that context. I would have suggested that otherwise it's like talking about who would win in a fight between batman and superman but we've already seen that :wink:
 
Lerxst said:
It's an either or choice at the end of the day & you run against who the opposition nominates. Viable only matters in that context. I would have suggested that otherwise it's like talking about who would win in a fight between batman and superman but we've already seen that :wink:
Click to expand...

Superman
 
sonik said:
DC sucks.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but I find various Image titles to be among my favorites. It's more about teh story and less about the publishing house. Legacy work is harder to with/within. The freedom of being able to create something from scratch might be easier...at least less restrictive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top