By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 08 March 2008
Edit Thread
HappySqurriel said:
Kasz216 said:
supermariogalaxy said:
@Kas

Yeah, and some people even vote for Hilary because she has Clinton in her name

Yeah... eh. At this point i'm more interested in the possible Serbia election. The US election is spore all over again... too much build up to where i'm starting to not care anymore and will have to wait and see more towards the election.

It's tough when you actually agree with all three candidates in some areas... yet also disagree with all three in major ways. When it was Bush V Kerry it was easy, Bush I was sure was going to screw up the country, Kerry I was just about 70% sure he would screw up the country.

With Hillary, Obama and Mccain it's about 55-45, 50-50 and 50-50.

Really, I wonder which way the Serbians will choose... to move foward with the EU, or to try and take back Kosovo in what would seem like futile attempts.

There seem to be a lot of elections lately.


As much as many people will probably not agree with me the way people voted in the last election made a lot of sense ...

George Bush has been an awful president but (at the time) the ecconomy was pretty strong and you knew what kind of an awful president George Bush would be. The Republicans were successful as painting John Kerry as a 'Flip-Flopper' and Dan Rather's (remarkably stupid) false negative story on George Bush's military history really made a large portion of the population distrust both the media and John Kerry. The end result was the independant voters who decided the outcome voted for the 'Devil they knew' because they simply couldn't trust John Kerry ...


 To me it didn't seem like the independents decided anything.  It was more of a the republicans got pissed back and motivated their base to vote move due to those events.

We'd be better off with 4 partys and run off elections. 

There are groups in the Republicans and Democrats that just don't make sense where they are.

I mean how can you have both enviriomentalists and unionists in the same party? 

There should be partys for the fiscal conservative and  social liberal... and the fiscal conservative and the social conservative.  Since the Neo-cons seem to have taken control over the republican party.

There isn't a party of fiscal conservatism anymore really.