The lesser of 2 evils

W

WINSTON THE WOLF

Moderator
I know everybody has heard the term the lesser of two evils. Well in the 2008 election. It is the lesser of evils again. How would you rate these 3 candiates?

Worst to least.

Hillary
Mccain
Obama:
 
Last edited:
First, Ron Paul is no longer an option. It's going to be one of the two Dems, probably Obama, or McCain. Second, I don't think that you've fairly characterized the likely results.

Every election is over the "lesser of two evil." Every candidate that ever ran in an election was a lesser evil to someone. And every candidate ever elected was the lesser of two evils to some of the people who voted for him. And in every election, the winner would not have won unless enough people who thought he was the lesser of two evils voted for him.

The political process is such that you're unlikely to get exactly your top choice as one of the viable candidates. Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and some of the others to mind had things to recommend them over McCain. But they were unable to inspire enough of the electorate to give them a chance at winning the presidency.

So for me it's McCain. He may not have been my first choice, but we almost never get our first choice in politics. And if the guy were my first choice, he's someone else's lesser of two evils. So while McCain may not be my first choice, he at least will be more receptive to conservative influence than either of the two neo-socialist Dems.

I'd hate to see either Hillary or Obama as President. And the only way that Hillary or Obama, as the case may be, will not be President is if McCain wins.
 
If there really is justice in the political system. Mccain will not be allowed to run for president. He has broken 2 laws. One he wrote himself. There is one for spending limits and the other is for accepting funding from a foriegn entity.

If he breaks the law now. What will he do if he is president?:eek:

Um and Ron Paul is still an option. He might be the only republican option. I already know he is the only only option for me.

CNN yesterday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWMDF92ZE7c
 
I know everybody has heard the term the lesser of two evils. Well in the 2008 election. It is the lesser of evils again. How would you rate these 3 candiates? Worst to least worst.

Hillary
Mccain
Obama:
Click to expand...

I think its sad that those three are the "best" this country can do..... I don't know that I can honestly vote for any of them.
 
I disagree with McCain on a lot of things, but I don't think he's nearly as ikely to promote any gun control legislation like Obama and Hillary would. I rank them:

1. McCain
2. Hillary
3. Obama
 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VIEW FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION


"We in Europe cannot figure out why you Americans are even bothering to
hold an election.

On one side, you have a b..ch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and
a lawyer who is married to a b..ch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a
huge chest who owns a beer distributorship."
 
On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship."
Click to expand...

And just what is wrong with that?...I mean the chest & beer part:D

My lousy choice is:

Obama
Hillary
McCain
Harry Truman (he would be a Republican by todays standards and he would kick ass and take names...no more mister nice guy stuff from the USA) And yes we can bring back the dead....Jimmy Carter, I rest my case.
 
I would call it a 3-way tie for last place.

Up until a few years ago (when McCain showed a willingness to roll over, kiss boot, and then toe the party line) I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Now he is coming across as a pro-corporation rule, war mongering, business as usual party man.
 
Up until a few years ago (when McCain showed a willingness to roll over, kiss boot, and then toe the party line) I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Now he is coming across as a pro-corporation rule, war mongering, business as usual party man.
Click to expand...

Sad but true. I would have voted for him too until he sold his soul to get the nomination.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship."
Click to expand...

Can't fault him for that! :D
 
I'm recalling a South Park episode where the schoolchildren are holding an election for a school mascot, because their original mascot was deemed politically incorrect after a series of protests. A prank that went too far led to the final two mascot choices being: 1) a sandwich unfit for consumption, and 2) an oversized feminine hygeine product.

Stan, one of the main characters, felt that either choice was terrible and thus, refused to vote. The entire town objected - apparently, *not* voting is one of the worst crimes to commit - and banished him.

During his exile, the topic of his banishment comes into conversation with an adult. The adult says,

But Stan, don't you know, it's always between a [EDIT: oversized feminine hygeine product] and a [EDIT: sandwich unfit for consumption]. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some [EDIT: the former] and some [EDIT: the latter]. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics.
Click to expand...

Stan came back out of exile to cast a vote. After the votes were tallied, the result came back that the mascot Stan voted for lost in a giant landslide anyway. Stan then complained that his vote didn't count. Stan's father, Randy, explained with, "You can't judge the merits of voting on whether or not your candidate won."

Soon after the vote, however, news arrives that the people who protested the original mascot were all... dead. Since there was no longer anyone to object to the original school mascot, it was reinstated. Consequently, Stan's vote didn't count.

Moral of the story? Vote for Harry Truman. Well, he's dead, unfortunately. Then vote for Lyndon LaRouche.
 
Worst to least.


Obama:worst by a bit
Hillary:absolutely horrible
Mccain:not absolutely horrible, or the worst, but close.

^
pretty sad thats all McCain has going for him. Gret election choices this term :rolleyes:
 
Anyone who votes for someone not on the ballot (like Ron Paul, Harry Truman or Mickey Mouse) in a protest vote is throwing their vote away. A protest vote is a vote for Obama.
 
Anyone who votes for someone not on the ballot (like Ron Paul, Harry Truman or Mickey Mouse) in a protest vote is throwing their vote away. A protest vote is a vote for Obama.
Click to expand...
Am I dating myself by comparing this to a "broken record"?

A vote cannot be simultaneously "wasted" and "for Obama". You'd best hope that the race isn't close, else I'll demonstrate the difference. ;)
 
Im new here so I may need to duck and cover but, Obama is such a liar, not that the rest aren't, its just that he's really bad at it. Electing Hillary would be the same as re-electing Ol Bill again. Im a one issue voter and am mainly concerned with gun rights and I feel Mccan is the least likley to encroach on my freedoms. However he is not going to be able to repair the damage that Bush has done to our image in the rest of the world. There are a little over 500 people in government that have had the power to damn near destroy this country (including Senator, Represenitives, ect) and the world perceves the other 250,000,000 agree with them. Im afraid that at the ripe old age of 55, I don't have a clue. I don't like any of them.
 
SugarMillMan
Anyone who votes for someone not on the ballot (like Ron Paul, Harry Truman or Mickey Mouse) in a protest vote is throwing their vote away. A protest vote is a vote for Obama.
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought my vote was for the person I voted for. I had no idea that i was voting for Obama if I do not vote for McCain. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

That's the beauty of America. People are (still) free to believe anything that they wish, even when it is something as assanine as this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top