The American People won today!!!

With John McCain defeating Mitt Romney in Missouri and California he pretty much secure the Republican nomination and that has handed the Presidency to either Obama or Clinton.

As a moderate conservative I can not vote for McCain, I rather vote for Hillary or Obama. If we going to have open borders at least I have it at the expense of CHANGE. I'm in the military, im weary, sick and tired of U.S. foreign policy, im tired of the war, and John comes and says this yesterday: McCain insists on Iraq long-term stay

Bottom line today the people that want change won, McCain is as unelectable as John Kerry was in '04, he has absolutely no chance against neither Obama or Clinton and you know what, THAT'S A GOOD THING!!

reply to post by Bunch


You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this particular issue...

Mitt Romney is the best choice in an admittedly flawed field on both sides. While it doesn't look good, having lost California, it's far from over... McCain bothers the hell out of me, his "open borders" support is only part of it. Obama is a vacuous say nothing except useless bromides. Clinton, I, quite simply, don't believe a word she says. If she were to tell me the sun was shining brightly, I'd break out my flashlight. I don't trust her, or for that matter, her husband...and where one is, lo and behold, there's the other.

As I said, a flawed field. I've no idea who I'm ultimately going to vote for, none at all.

The "Change" that Hillary and Obama are talking about is what is left in your pocket after taxes.

I really don't see much difference in McCain, Hillary or Obama.

We're screw!

Roper

there will be "no change"... who ever is "elected" will continue down the road to destruction... that's why they'll be elected... i mean, you don't even get a shot at the whitehouse unless you're going to make sure things run the way they always have... the assasination of JKF sent a very clear message to any president who screws with the status quo.. ie. "don't # with us"

[edit on 6-2-2008 by never_tell]

reply to post by seagull


I completely agree with you. The field is flawed, I believe Romney to be the best candidate out of the Republican Party, what I learned yesterday is that the Republican Party is full of war craving, far right christians fanatics, they wont vote for Romney because he is a mormon, the vote in West Virginia proves that. The RP dont deserve to win a election if all the can muster is a ticket of an old style war monger flip floping politician and another guy that is just there because he is a Christian.

Believe me thats a recipe for disaster, is like Bush and Cheney, only this time the war monger if elected is going to be the President and the far right Christan fanatic VP.

McCain is going to be more of a puppet than Bush.



[edit on 6-2-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 6-2-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by Roper
The "Change" that Hillary and Obama are talking about is what is left in your pocket after taxes.

I really don't see much difference in McCain, Hillary or Obama.

We're screw!

Roper

Are you kidding me? Those 3 people couldn't BE further from each other.

What exactly are you referring to?

Do we really need more of this?



John McCain: "There's going to be other wars, I am sorry to tell you"

[edit on 6-2-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by Roper
The "Change" that Hillary and Obama are talking about is what is left in your pocket after taxes.

You're assuming he's Paris Hilton. Unless he's part of the one and half percent they pay you guys to advocate for on-line, he'll be fine.

You are absolutely making no sense in your statement to me.

Sorry to tell you this but Obama said in his speech when he announced for his run for office that , ( I paraphrase) we the citizens of the USA need to sacrifice. I take that as we will be taxed into submission and those on some entitlement will get cuts.

He has also said that" he and other like him need to pay more taxes." Now we all should know by now that politicians always say they will only raise taxes on the rich, when they mean on the middle income Americans.

The rich will get loop holes.

Roper

To bigbert81,

Dude! Where have you been? Bill C. even said that John and Hillary were close to each other politically.

None of the top 3 candidates will do anything about illegal immigration.

We are screwed.

Roper

I apologize, but have I just entered the twilight zone?????

Romney a good choice? The man who refuses to speak against guantanamo bay and waterboarding and who said the a presidential debate that he believes we should "modernize" islam is not BY FAR the best candidate.

Have I entered the twilight zone? This man argues with McCain as if they are different candidates, wears an earpiece to probably every debate and you people say he's the best candidate?

I guess it's true what they say, people get the president they deserve.
What's sad about this is that the middle east isnt' voting for these pro-war candidates, so why should they derserve continued tyranny?

Originally posted by Roper

He has also said that" he and other like him need to pay more taxes." Now we all should know by now that politicians always say they will only raise taxes on the rich, when they mean on the middle income Americans.

The rich will get loop holes.

Roper

I'd sooner die than have Paris Hilton pay taxes. She built a mill in my town and employs 12,000 Americans that used to buy stuff at Wal-Mart from China, but now buy crap from her and makes the trains run on time.

Thank Gawd for Trickle Down Reaganomics and 8 years of Republican rule.

reply to post by Bunch

Originally posted by Bunch
I completely agree with you. The field is flawed, I believe Romney to be the best candidate out of the Republican Party, what I learned yesterday is that the Republican Party is full of war craving, far right christians fanatics, they wont vote for Romney because he is a mormon, the vote in West Virginia proves that.

The WV caucus requires that the winner get 51% of the vote. Romney won the first round, but didn't get 51% (he only got 47%), at which point McCain supporters were told to throw their votes to Huckabee.

Final vote: H=52% R=47% Mc=1%

That's why Huckabee won WV.

Originally posted by jsobecky

,at which point McCain supporters were told to throw their votes to Huckabee.

Final vote: H=52% R=47% Mc=1%

That's why Huckabee won WV.

And why not tell them to vote for McCain or better yet let them make their own decision.

Anyways Romney is out of the way, and all we have left is this 2 guys.

Obama gets my vote.

Originally posted by Bunch

Originally posted by jsobecky

,at which point McCain supporters were told to throw their votes to Huckabee.

Final vote: H=52% R=47% Mc=1%

That's why Huckabee won WV.

And why not tell them to vote for McCain or better yet let them make their own decision.
:
Obama gets my vote.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Whatever. McCain knew he'd win the majority of primaries/caucuses that day anyway, so why not throw the Huckster a bone.

You cannot deny it happened; the smoking gun is the fact that McCain received only 1% in the final vote. The animosity between McCain and Romney was getting worse every day.

Same type of thing happened to Howard Dean in Iowa in 2004, btw.

I would never vote for Obama. He's an empty suit, All he is good at is mouthing platitudes which sound good but mean nothing. Romney referred to him as "an economic neophyte" or similar today. Good one.

I say the Republicans should work on regaining the House and Senate, because that's where judges are appointed and laws are made. Give the Dem's the POTUS; then block them from turning the US into the United Socialists of America.

Originally posted by jsobecky

I say the Republicans should work on regaining the House and Senate, because that's where judges are appointed and laws are made. Give the Dem's the POTUS; then block them from turning the US into the United Socialists of America.

On that we can agree. To me it would be more if the Reps win Congress. I dont think they have a chance for POTUS at all.

reply to post by Bunch


It's interesting that Romney "suspended" his bid. What's the diff between that and totally dropping out? I think it means he can re-enter later if he chooses. It also has implications on fundraising, I believe.

reply to post by jsobecky


I guess he wants to see how he do in the next couple of states without campaigning at all. If he makes a comback without spending any money he might just jump right back in and spent whatever money he got left.

But he sounded very sincere in his intentions of droping out of the race though.

The American people won nothing today. The Democrats won today, Republicans are waiting for their next leader.

It took Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan. Mrs. Bill Clinton or John McCain will be the next Carter. Who will be the next Reagan? It's a shame what America will have to go thru the next 4 years, but we survived Carter once, we can do it again.

You are in part correct. Also Romney will hold on to his delegates. He can use them at the convention and try to influence the platform and convention in general, deal making type stuff.


Rant, what kind of "mill" did Hilton build?

Roper

[edit on 8-2-2008 by Roper]

It's possible that the Republican party leadership wants one thing, while the voters want something else.

Consider that McCain has come from behind and he still has no money, even though he is riding a populist wave.

Ultra-right conservatives cry about his willingness to reach across the aisle, but the voters say (in exit polls) that they like that capability to compromise in McCain.

Voters in many States have obviously rewarded McCain for his turnaround on several issues.

For the sake of discussion, I ask one question. Is it wrong for a national leader to say, "I hear you" as they modify their stance to conform to the will of the majority?