Slashdot Mirror


Best Presidential Candidate, Democrats

This story is to discuss the remaining democratic candidates for president. Please keep discussions limited to talk about Hillary and Obama. Keep discussions of the other party in the other story.

6 of 947 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Combined ticket is probably a mistake by sayfawa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This whole election's outcome will be based on peoples' prejudices. What does America dislike the least:
    a) women
    b) old people
    c) funny religions
    d) blacks

    --
    Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
  2. Re:meh by airship · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She's not a lunatic - she's a cold, calculating machine politician. We don't need another Clinton or Bush in the White House. Enough of the dynasties.

    Obama is naive, compassionate, charismatic, and idealistic - just the kind of change in leadership this country needs.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  3. Re:Gravel? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The uneducated masses pick the candidates who get the best press rather than bother to research what the candidates' positions and records are. Unfortunately, you must let the uneducated masses have an equal voice if you hope to call this a democracy. The best tack, then, is for the educated elite to push for better education... which for some reason they tend not to see as obvious.

    On the other hand, our founding fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses, either. We have a largely unelected judiciary, and even the Senate was not originally elected. The popularly elected House then was only given a term of 2 years vs 6 in the Senate! Even the presidential election is slightly skewed from true democracy by the electoral college.
    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Re:meh by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you actually watched the woman talk for more than 2 minutes? That's all the example that you need.

    Hillary is the epitome of saying whatever it takes to get the most votes. Running to become the next leader of the free world while spouting off boilerplate sayings just to look good in the polls is frightening. I don't know about you, but I don't want my leader to do their best to appeal to the masses...I want them to focus on running the fucking country.

    Not to mention she is a backstabber. Did she or did she not agree with Obama to not sling crap at each other any more? And what is she doing now? Slinging shit again. Fuck that. I do NOT want the leader of my country to be trying to make others look bad so I will vote for them. You tell me why I should vote for YOU, not why I SHOULDN'T vote for someone else. This applies to all the other candidates as well.

  5. Not necessarily against by wurp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I actually agree with your conclusion (given the false dichotomy you've given) to prefer Bob to have to pay for insurance. That said...

    What kind of heartless asshole thinks only people who have money should get treated at a hospital? Money is far from the best measure of the worth of a person. Yes, there is a disproportionate number of worthless people who have no money. HOWEVER, there are also a disproportionate number of worthless people who are stinking rich. And there are a disproportionate number of wonderful people who are a great boon to humanity who have almost no money. People much better than I: all of the people out there teaching Head Start, all the people out there volunteering in the Peace Corps, working at rehab centers, and just plenty of normal people working the job within their abilities that helps the most, while raising decent children. If I don't have the fortitude to take the loss of income to go do the right thing, at least I can work towards a society that supports those who do.

    1. Re:Not necessarily against by PinkyDead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to say I'm appalled by your (plural) callousness in regard to this issue. I do not live in the US and my point of view is completely from the outside - but where I live we pay 1 half of 1 percent of our salary to pay for healthcare for everyone. Granted our public system isn't the plushest of stays, but you get what you need and no questions asked. And when you think about it, what are you out? $50 a month? Are you that greedy and obsessed with amassing your little cash pile that you'd miss such a paltry sum?

      You talk of freedom of religion as more important than healthcare, but healthcare (and education) has got to be a fundamental of human dignity, a dignity without which that religion are just a hollow clamour. The last time I looked the US was pre-dominantly a christian nation - what does this christian thing mean, is it just some kind of country club that only the rich are entitled too and where you are not required to pay any heed to the basic tenets of the faith. (Insert other religions as required - they're all pretty much the same on this issue).

      I'm sure you'll say that my point of view is communist or some other bullshit - but if it is then call me comrade, because what you've got makes a mockery of the basics of human decency. "One nation indivisible" my arse.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!