the vynsane asylum

...'bout our election farce?

Just kidding about the "furner" part. But, really, what do you think? Is the system a joke when viewed from outside? Any of the candidates particularly looking good or bad to the rest of the world?

I realize our non-USA posters here means two Canadians, but I'd rather not post this in the Pit, where it will be ignored by most and just lead to an argument by the same five people.

anarky wrote:I realize our non-USA posters here means two Canadians

...and a Kazakhstani. And a Jamaican. And a Spaniard. And a Frenchman.

And a few Cybertronians. And a weird critter from Third Earth. And a Swedish dude.

Wait, did you just call The Grip French? I think I'm going to back out of this thread now, before the sparks fly.

Your system, it is silly. Ah lahk. It is good for laugh. I am hoping Republican wins, because Democrats are weak women or black as night itself. And there a Jew Democrat though he not run this time. Though Hillary, she is quite sexy. She could be verah successful prostitute in Kazakhstan. We both know she sucks men's wieners for their votes! Hah-fahve!!

I don't even quite have my head around how someone wins the party nomination. I guess each state has a caucus or primary? Is there any difference, or do they mean the same thing?

The MSN site is showing the total number of delegates - but what does that mean? Is it like the voting for President where each state, based on population, is worth a certain number of points?

Politics makes my head hurt.

I don't even know how it operates.


I think politics are/is stupid.

jjreason wrote:I don't even quite have my head around how someone wins the party nomination. I guess each state has a caucus or primary? Is there any difference, or do they mean the same thing?

They're the same thing, just different. A primary is "open" to any party while caucuses are for individual parties. And then there are different types of caucuses: Closed caucuses can only be attended by card carrying members of the party that is being voted for (i.e. only republicans can vote in a closed republican caucus) and Open caucuses are more of a "spoil party" for the group they don't pertain to. For example, if the Democrats were holding an open caucus, a bunch of Republicans might attend and vote for, say, Dennis Kucinich (or any other weak candidate) in an effort to waste delegates that would've otherwise went to worthwhile candidates, thus "spoiling" the caucus. Or they will use it as an opprotunity to cast votes for the candidate that they believe they'll have the best chance of defeating.

Anyway, my money has been on Mitt Romney. But since that's looking less and less like a reality I need to start looking elsewhere. I've never been a fan of John McCain (Yes, you were a a POW. That is truly admirable. But how you can possibly bring that up in a discussion about the economy still has me scratching my head). And I really don't want to vote for Hilary or Barack, mostly because I'll be sick of hearing the phrase, "They're the first (insert 'female' or 'black') president to do 'x'" well before their "first hundred days" are up.

Antropov wrote:For example, if the Democrats were holding an open caucus, a bunch of Republicans might attend and vote for, say, Dennis Kucinich (or any other weak candidate) in an effort to waste delegates that would've otherwise went to worthwhile candidates, thus "spoiling" the caucus. Or they will use it as an opprotunity to cast votes for the candidate that they believe they'll have the best chance of defeating.

Which is the only explanation I can figure for why that cunt is doing as well as she is, since everyone seems to hate her fucking guts.

I have nothing against a female candidate. Just that female candidate.

I have no idea what all this woman/black president talk is all about - Clinton and Obama are two of the whitest men I've ever seen.

I still can't decide between Slicker or Cappy. I'm leaning towards Cappy for the free nachos.

anarky wrote: Which is the only explanation I can figure for why that cunt is doing as well as she is, since everyone seems to hate her fucking guts.

I absolutely will not vote for her. No way, no how. And for Obama, how the fuck am I supposed to trust a first term senator from Illinois to deal with Iran/Iraq/China/Canada? The guy isn't bad, but he's a bit out of his league and I think people are too blinded by the "feel good" aspect of it all to see that. And Oprah's fat ass. If she told people to vote for a toaster, they would. Because if Oprah says its good it must be true. o yes

DB wrote:I have no idea what all this woman/black president talk is all about - Clinton and Obama are two of the whitest men I've ever seen.

That, my friend, is hilarious.

Antropov wrote:That, my friend, is hilarious.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I don't see how anyone in the race except McCain has any real experience with international issues. Trouble is, he's as much a lying cunt as Clinton.

anarky wrote:I don't see how anyone in the race except McCain has any real experience with international issues. Trouble is, he's as much a lying cunt as Clinton.

at least they haven't had the international experience that bush/cheney/rumsfeld have had...



seriously, the current state of the union is poor - almost as poor as it was in the 70's and 30's. we need a new direction. personally i'm not positive any of the candidates are worth voting for - to me the most worthwhile however is obama. the old-hat candidates have had their way for the last 8 years and fucked it up royally. a fresh perspective is required.

for the record, i would've voted for steven colbert at the drop of a hat. i want a dennis miller/bill maher ticket.

oh, and also for the record, i absolutely DESPISE mitt romney. the way he speaks just makes me sick. so false and "pleasant" - he doesn't seem genuine in any way.

Even though there's kind of another election thread and I've chimed in somewhat . . . I support Obama, and really hope he does well today. All the shit with delegates and superdelegates and whatever the fuck else they have is too confusing to even try to understand, so I won't. He and McCain seem to be the most willing to work with members of both parties, while none of the others do, which is troubling and won't get anything done (just look at the last seven years).

And perhaps I'm being glib, but didn't Lincoln have very little experience when he was elected, or at least national experience? Call me crazy, but I think he did pretty damn well.