Hillary Clinton & John McCain Win in New Hampshire

reply to post by grimreaper797

---

Votes are impersonal, your opinion does not matter. Your vote is just one vote among a collection of other votes, grouped together to decide a majority. Purposely putting your vote in the loser pile is anything but intelligent. You'd be better off staying home, because then as you put it your non vote will be among the majority of non voters.

Your reasoning behind voting is anything but intelligent, but I dont discourage you from throwing away your vote on a bogus candidate. You don't have to like my opinion, but Im going to voice it anyway, and I couldn't give a damn whether you like it or not.

reply to post by grimreaper797

---

You cannot attach an opinion nor even a word to a vote, it is just a vote among other votes. Knowing you are wasting your time going through the process of voting by placing your vote on a known loser is just that, a waste of time any way you slice it. Go to the horse track and bet on the 100 to 1 nag ready for the glue factory, same thing.

My vote is my word. It says "I am not voting for them" It doesnt matter if my name is attached to the vote. If 1% votes for ron paul, that is 1% that refused to vote for a possible winner rather than what they believe in. This isn't a popularity contest, its a election to vote for WHO REPRESENTS YOU BEST, and that is how I am going to vote.

ArchAngel, your reasoning actually defeats the purpose of voting. So, if everyone should stop before they for the loser, why have candidates at all? Why dont we just anoint someone as King?

Just vote and don't worry about what other people will think of your vote. Especially don't worry about that little-old-lady talk of wasted votes. It's garbage to maintain the status-quo.

reply to post by grimreaper797

---

Actually it's a contest to determine who is President of the most powerful nation on earth, not who is going to change your diaper and wipe your nose.
Unless Ron Paul encourages his supporters to cast their lot with another candidate towards the end, it is a wasted effort to support him.

Looks to me like the Clinton organization got more people to the polls. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was the case. 200 extra driver to cart people around may have made all the difference.

The NWO people have set everything up a long time ago. Hillary is going to be president, no matter how people vote. There is no way they are going to let someone who is not their hand picked candidate get in as president. It has already been set up, that the groudwork for Huckabee to run as an independent is in place. Once the primaries are over, Huckabee is going to run for the support of the religious voters. That will pull more votes from the Republican Party than from the Democratic Party. That guarantees that Hillary wins.

From the stats page at CNN with 96% precincts reporting in, I tallied up up some totals.

www.cnn.com...

From a state with 850,836 registered voters, with 26% registered Democrat, and 30% Republican, and 44% Independent (wow), the total votes cast for Democrats was 54% of the total compared to the Republicans.

As it is, it's pretty easy to see how they will vote in November, but you throw in a strong Independent candidate like Bloomberg, and who knows what would happen.

Like others have said ... this isn't a class president vote of popularity nor a game to try and pick a winning side.


Democratic republic. People vote for those who represent their ideals so that things are done in that way.


This isn't the packers vs bears ... we are not placing money at a bookie and hoping we beat the spread.

This is real life. This is for those who we believe in most.

If you would take away your attitude, quit spreading it, and spread the proper attitude and vote accordingly, then, the vote isn't wasted, and underdogs that deserve the position do win.

Don't blame the independent party because your team didn't win. That is misplaced anger.

I may not fully trust Ron Paul, but I believe in the lessening of what has become a bloated government. I do like Dennis Kucinich, but don't agree with everything he says.

Why is voting for a crook better than voting for someone you feel is worthy?

Why is not voting considered giving up your freedom? In the same spirit of voting for who you feel is worthy, if you feel no candidate is worthy, then why would you vote for any of them?


It really is a shame ... people don't do research for themselves. They have no real understanding of the system. That is why it fails. If you rely on CNN, Fox, of any other media source for all of your information ... you and the u.s. public lose. It really is that simple.

There is no such thing as fair and balanced from any non-publicly funded media. Advertisement and the station owner's agenda will always be put in play to some extent. Lately, it is air time. If it really was fair debates, every candidate would get equal airtime and field every question. We would already have debates with all parties and canditates, no matter how much money they raised ... which money raising is a sick focal point in today's races.


In fact, if this was truly a democratic republic, we would have more than two or three parties.


Don't go to the voting booths and take it like a scantron test ... hoping to randomly pick the right answer. It doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as it is for someone you feel is best fit to your values and the job ... they don't have to be old, they don't have to be experienced ... those reasons are false. Washington had no political experience ... Kennedy was young ...


The only real wasted vote is one done without proper research, without listening to their speeches, their agendas ... deciding for yourself, not who you are told is best. A vote that doesn't follow your heart, mind, and instincts is a wasted vote.

If you have voted from your heart, mind, research, and chose the best person you saw fit for the job and spoke of the path you wish to see for this nation ... then no matter who you chose, your vote was the most valuable ... even if you were the only vote for that person.

It would not matter if I or anyone else questioned your vote, your reasons ... at least you voted from purity, not some sick popularity contest or skewed rules that you must vote for a or b ... c hurts america b.s.

Even if you wrote in Dan Quayle and Paris Hilton ... if you felt with your heart that was the best team, then good for you.

if voting for an obvious loser is a wasted vote, then I would venture to say, there are many, many wasted votes in the main election. I mean, there's a few states out there that traditionally go either republican or democratic every time, and since the states delegates all go to the winner, it does make the losing votes rather irrelevant, doesn't it? I mean, NY usually goes democrat, so why should any of the republicans vote in NY in the main election? In the end, their vote will go more unheard than any of the votes for a third party candidate?

I agree ArchAngel!
I absolutely adore the idea of Ron Paul and if his electability was higher then I would be backing him but that's not how it is ...
The bottom line is that we, the people of America are now being called upon again to choose not only the next leader of our own country but also essentially the next leader of the entire FREE WORLD!
Let's not botch it up like we did the last 2 times because thanks to Bushco, we are now teetering on the brink of WW111! We need to get our act together and keep the Guilani's, Romney's, Huckabee's and McCain's out of that office. In this case THERE ARE better choices. Support the Democrat who has the best chance of defeating whomever the Republican nominee ends up being.

Actual poll number per county ( www.politico.com... ) I thought Paul would have done better

[edit on 1/9/2008 by zman]

This whole thing is hardly surprising. After McCain's "100 year" statement and Hillary crying under pressure, of course the people in NH would vote for them.

[edit on 1/9/2008 by SonicInfinity]

Sorry , But your vote will be changed to suit the elites . Just as what is shown on the video.
www.youtube.com...

I almost lost my breakfast pulling up politico this morning. Just look at this picture.


image source: http://images.politico.com/global/080109_clinton_simon.jpg



Have a nice day!


>

There are?

They certainly aren't among the Democrats. Not the top three anyway. I'd rather have a war monger than some socialist piece of dirt who wants to gut this nation worse than Bush has. The only one I might bend on is Obama simply because I don't think he has the experience to be as dangerous as the other two. As long as he keeps the Jacksons and Sharptons at the gate.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by apc]

Hopefully the Racist Paul supporters will go back to their parent's basements. NH was supposed to be big for him, given all the independants.

The votes might have been mis reported. Check this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The pollsters blew it big time on this one, calling it for Obama. Clinton won the older female vote and a sizable portion of the young vote.

Her organization came through in the end.

McCain had many supporters from previous election. No big secret there. People also think he will be best and toughest on foreign policy.