<p>P.S. 1of42: I'd love to debate you on the subject back at Old Nassau when I return this spring. Hope things are going well this term. Oh, do you happen to know a guy in Whitman College named Ian Brasg? He's from Toronto too.</p>
<p>Theyus you are a crazy delusional guy. In a political world it makes no sense. Every candidate that wants to win to become President know that they cannot win as an independent. A candidate who chooses to try and influence the public by running as an Independent does not run Independent to win the election but rather to influence the election. Obama or Hillary do not fit the bill. They want it all. If Obama loses, big whoop. He lost the first time he ran for Senate. He just waited and ran again a term or two later. He'll probably pull a repeat, after all hes still young. Clinton also will not run as an Independent because it means her political death. Clinton can't win or even hope to win with votes for her alone. She needs to be the Democratic nominee to win. It's simple, relying on just support for her is risky and probably enough people will rally against her. But if she happens to be the Democratic nominee, she wins a large portion of voters that wouldn't vote for her in the primary because she is the Democratic nominee. Most people will view choosing Clinton as a lesser of two evils, the other evil being a Republican. The general public usually has a strong pull toward party alliances. Therefore Clinton requires the Democratic nomination to win and will not run as an Independent.</p>
<p>Ron Paul is the only candidate who I could imagine running as an Independent.</p>
<p>im voting for obama</p>
<p>Admittedly, Obama will probably not run if he loses the democratic primary.
Hillary won't though. As stated above, this is her last chance.</p>
<p>And given the fact that she will likely NOT get the primary, she'll more than likely follow as I defined previously and would split the vote (some people like Hillary for some reason, more power to'm, but it's a split vote none the less).</p>
<p>And given the fact that the American people has seen the electing a democratic congress only caused more trouble than help, it's unlikely the people will shove a gun-ho mandate for a democratic government. Case in point: The predictability of the election is out the window. </p>
<p>Ergo, if a democratic nominee is up other then Hillary, there will be a split vote. If it is Hillary, then she'll lose because it's almost certain she doesn't have enough votes. Either way, A republican wins.</p>
<p>Clinton sucks! Ide never vote for her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow... Stooping to a personal attack was not necessary.</p>
<p>I am most certainly a Democrat, and in most aspects a liberal. And as you can obviously see, I can read and write. I am very educated in politics, I'll have you know that I have attended several conferences on politics, including the Young Democrats of America Convention. I have canvassed and phone banked for different candidates. I have seen all the debates, Democrat and Republican. I have read the plans of many candidates on both sides of the aisle. I would say that I am very far from being illiterate in the knowledge of politics.</p>
<p>Now you want to know why I would vote for Ron Paul if I happened to not like a Democrat candidate. Thats because I judge someone as a person, not what party they are part of. I judge them for their convictions and beliefs. Democrats may want to, as you say, increase services, while Ron Paul wants to get rid of government programs and services. Well the thing is, I can see that just as a Democrat would be better suited to administering those programs, Ron Paul would be equally be skilled at maintaining a small government. He wants the government out of peoples lives, whereas all the other Republicans want to push their own agendas. Democrats on the other hand want to also push an agenda, but its an agenda that I agree with. Now if the Democrat candidate for president happened to be one that I did not agree with then I would rather have a government that is totally not involved in my life than one that would be pushing something on me that I don't agree with.</p>
<p>I hope that is explanation enough for you. If you still think that I can't talk about politics, please let me know why and I will try to explain myself further.</p>
<p>Barack Obama</p>
<p>No. Clinton will not run as an Independent. I don't understand what you don't get. How many times in history has a major primary runner that lost run as an Independent and win the election. NEVER! Clinton knows this too. She also knows there will be a split vote, meaning she won't win. Clinton wants to win. I don't get what makes you think she'll run as an Independent.</p>
<p>tokyorevelation9:</p>
<p>That article affirmed what I was saying. The neoconservative focus on a strong central government and the focus on using American power to affect change (especially to install democracy) abroad are both things that Giuliani is very much associated with. The desire to create a national unity through patriotism/whatever else is also clearly a Giuliani - aka Mr. 9/11 - specialty.</p>
<p>So yes, I still very much think Giuliani is a neocon. That said, my main issue with him is he has a horrible authoritarian track record. It worked in New York, but will it work for the nation as a whole? I sincerely doubt it. That said, he's not nearly as wacky as most Republicans and I'd vote for him long before them.</p>
<p>I'll put it as simply as I can.</p>
<p>No, no one has ever run independent and won after losing the primary (Teddy got close, but no cigar).</p>
<p>Clinton knows this.</p>
<p>However, she also knows that as soon as she's out, she's out of politics.
Understand, she loses, no democrat will associate with her.</p>
<p>There Are three reasons an independent runs:
1. They think they can win (naively)
2. They want to get a message across
3. They think they can gain political power with some attention</p>
<p>Clinton probably knows she can't win without the primary, but she knows it would be worth continuing running if she got enough of a political face. (She might also have that faint glimmer of "Maybe I will win").</p>
<p>It's like trying to kill a deer and someone takes the gun from your hand. When you desperately need that deer, you will try to kill it regardless, even if in your logical mind you don't think you can.</p>
<p>She has the money to do it, she could run totally independent if she needed to, and as stated again, will if she feels the need to. (She does)</p>
<p>I know she won't win
You know she won't win
She probably knows she won't win.
But she'll continue running</p>
<p>I'm a full supporter of Ron Paul. No other candidate really wants to get the government out of peoples lives or will stand by what they believe in so strongly. I'll be in Iowa helping out the campaign before the caucuses.</p>
<p>1of42, I understand your angle, but I have to say let's agree to disagree on the matter. What I'm trying to say is that Giuliani is more interested in cutting down inefficient government and not building his candidacy on a moral platform than the others in the GOP race.</p>
<p>I'm not voting. The Electoral College makes it pointless. I already know what party my state's votes are going to. My preference is whatever candidate will support separation of church and state.</p>
<p>^ The unfortunate truth in some states.</p>
<p>I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primaries.</p>
<p>I think that there is too much talk about the canadates in terms of their moral or religious stances. The truth is...NOT ONE of these cantidates will get legislation passed (for or against) any civil rights. Homosexuality, abortion, and immigration, while very important, will be much less relevant than dealing with Iraq, Healthcare, and other issues in the foreign policy/economic spheres. </p>
<p>That is why-(despite his ignorant religious convictions)-I like Huckabee. He seems to have a solid grasp on how to regain soft-power in this country.</p>
<p>^^ That's one of the few grounded, honest opinions I've heard in while. I have to agree with you about Huckabee, but the things you find distasteful about him turns me away much more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol @ him. Why don't you run for President since your simple use of economics can decide whether something is beneficial or not. Ron Paul isn't someone I agree with but he isn't saying anything to gather votes. If you knew anything about Ron Paul you should know that. He doesn't give a flying **** about poll standings or approval. He's a man who truly stands for what he believes in regardless of the outcome. He was one of the few people who didn't support the Iraq War in the beginning. Ron Paul is strange but before you go trashing him, research him some more and stop mindlessly following the Ron Paul bashing squad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously you've never taken economics else you would agree. Speak to an economics professor at any major college and ask what they think about protectionism and how it would affect our economy. Don't let this seem like a personal attack, it's just that I don't like pseudo-economists (the majority of the public) who think that jobs going overseas is always a bad thing regardless of the comparative advantage of certain countries to produce goods more efficiently.</p>
<p>Let's leave the Iraq war out of this shall we; I was simply speaking about his opinion on economics and protectionism. For the record, I do like Ron Paul better than most of the Republican candidates, especially Mike Huckabee and would gladly vote for him in a general election vs. Clinton.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that there is too much talk about the canadates in terms of their moral or religious stances. The truth is...NOT ONE of these cantidates will get legislation passed (for or against) any civil rights. Homosexuality, abortion, and immigration, while very important, will be much less relevant than dealing with Iraq, Healthcare, and other issues in the foreign policy/economic spheres.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The point is not necessarily that something will get passed, as much as the president will add another wall from policy being made.</p>
<p>Moral standing is very relevant, especially when picking supreme court justices that could have an impact on overturning previous court cases...</p>
<p>I think any politician who lies or doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should be immediately fired and banned from politics for 15 years. Own up to your mistakes, it makes me less inclined to fire you. I value integrity and place second on the most important traits of anyone I hire to do anything, after ability/effectiveness/skill/merit. I don't care that there are politics in politics, I don't tolerate lying from my accountant or my lawyer, so why should I tolerate lying from a politician? They work for me too. In fact they work for anyone who pays taxes.</p>