The American election - are you sick of it yet?

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Are you over it yet?

Poll ended at 2008-05-11 10:40pm

Quickly - to the DeLorean! Take us to November 08 at least we can skip to the final act!
87
68%
No, I'm thrilled by this, the more Obama and Hillary bitch, the more chance the GOP can win!
6
5%
Seriously, I'd take 4 more years of Bush if it meant that I didn't have to hear another Democratic debate.
4
3%
No, this is important and should be taken very seriously indeed. After all, America is more important than your country.
17
13%
Abstain, because I'm not enrolled to vote or failed to vote and as such am worthless.
1
1%
What's this about just skipping to November 08? I hate them all, bring on 2012 and Huckabee/Colbert.
13
10%
 
Total votes: 128

User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

havokeff wrote:Oops sorry about that.
I guess I have been misrepresenting myself. I HATE the current primary system. I'm not trying to defend it at all, I'm just trying to see a way to do it without someone like Obama being lost in the crowd. In my mind I just see a shortened primary with all the candidates of both parties vying for national attention and all I can imagine is a giant cluster fuck of the candidates attacking each other, the super rich having the TV advantage and no clear cut winners.
Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Post by Havok »

General Zod wrote:
havokeff wrote:It is not BROKEN. It is working EXACTLY as it is supposed to. Your original point is that you think the system is dumb, NOT that it is broken, and DEMs should be done with this process and be on to McCain already.
My original point is that the system is flawed. Are you through nitpicking over semantics and going to try actually refuting my point now? Or do you need more time in the kiddy pool?
Hmmm.. Well at least you finally got to the system being broken, of course not in your original post like you claimed. Just you whining about it and "OH NO the republicans are getting ammo!" which is what your point really is. You are scared that the big bad Republicans are going to beat the DEM nominee, no matter who it is because they've had all this extra time to prepare, and because you think whoever comes out is going to seem or be weaker, which is what the real bullshit is.
Take your shrill bleating elsewhere and come back to me when you're capable of actually refuting my point instead of throwing out strawmen to knock down. My point being that being the Democratic nomination process is horribly flawed, and thus broken. If it's not producing the desired results (ie - creating a candidate capable of winning), then it's not working properly. This is basic logic for anyone with more than three active brain-cells to rub together.
Fucking christ. I am saying the system is not flawed or broken, as it working EXACTLY as intended and and the process should be played out according to the rules laid out and not changed for over 50 years by the group using it.
You are saying it's flawed because... YOU don't like the outcome. The burden of proof is on you to show how the system is flawed and broken as you claim, even though you have already said it is working. It is YOUR OPINION that the process will not create a strong candidate. It is your responsibility to back your claims up not mine.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Post by Havok »

Darth Wong wrote:
havokeff wrote:Oops sorry about that.
I guess I have been misrepresenting myself. I HATE the current primary system. I'm not trying to defend it at all, I'm just trying to see a way to do it without someone like Obama being lost in the crowd. In my mind I just see a shortened primary with all the candidates of both parties vying for national attention and all I can imagine is a giant cluster fuck of the candidates attacking each other, the super rich having the TV advantage and no clear cut winners.
Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.
OK. I see your point. What I meant about someone like Obama, wasn't so much his monetary status, but more his lack of perceived qualifications.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Darth Wong wrote:
havokeff wrote:Oops sorry about that.
I guess I have been misrepresenting myself. I HATE the current primary system. I'm not trying to defend it at all, I'm just trying to see a way to do it without someone like Obama being lost in the crowd. In my mind I just see a shortened primary with all the candidates of both parties vying for national attention and all I can imagine is a giant cluster fuck of the candidates attacking each other, the super rich having the TV advantage and no clear cut winners.
Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.
Obama is probably a bad example of an "unknown" (meaning I take back what I said earlier), since he had quite a bit of national exposure in 2004. Bill Clinton might be a better example of a relative unknown using the primaries to "bounce" upwards in 1992 (he used a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Primary to position himself as the "comeback kid" after Tom Harkin not surprisingly won Iowa), and Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1976. Carter was a nobody at the national level when he started his run; his explicit strategy was to use primary victories to boost his profile.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod »

havokeff wrote: Fucking christ. I am saying the system is not flawed or broken, as it working EXACTLY as intended and and the process should be played out according to the rules laid out and not changed for over 50 years by the group using
it.
Yet the fact remains that there are far more efficient methods a candidate can be chosen. Trying to cling to the delusion that our system is somehow perfect is laughable.
You are saying it's flawed because... YOU don't like the outcome. The burden of proof is on you to show how the system is flawed and broken as you claim, even though you have already said it is working. It is YOUR OPINION that the process will not create a strong candidate. It is your responsibility to back your claims up not mine.
Remind me again how a system is actually working if it doesn't produce a candidate who can win? The fact that several polls suggest a significant chunk of supporters from either Hillary or Obama will defect to the Republicans is just one symptom of this. Also, see: Michigan & Florida, which Shillary keeps claiming she "won" despite Obama not even being on the ticket, and is actively trying to reinstate so she can win them uncontested without fair competition. So much for the system working.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Guardsman Bass wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
havokeff wrote:Oops sorry about that.
I guess I have been misrepresenting myself. I HATE the current primary system. I'm not trying to defend it at all, I'm just trying to see a way to do it without someone like Obama being lost in the crowd. In my mind I just see a shortened primary with all the candidates of both parties vying for national attention and all I can imagine is a giant cluster fuck of the candidates attacking each other, the super rich having the TV advantage and no clear cut winners.
Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.
Obama is probably a bad example of an "unknown" (meaning I take back what I said earlier), since he had quite a bit of national exposure in 2004. Bill Clinton might be a better example of a relative unknown using the primaries to "bounce" upwards in 1992 (he used a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Primary to position himself as the "comeback kid" after Tom Harkin not surprisingly won Iowa), and Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1976. Carter was a nobody at the national level when he started his run; his explicit strategy was to use primary victories to boost his profile.
You know, if the arbiter of the best candidate selection process is that it must produce exactly the same outcome as the current process, then yeah, I guess you can't change it. That's a pretty stupid criterion, though.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

I'm so sick of it I'm not even reading the rest of this thread.

Normally, since the Indiana primary usually means jackshit, we're ignored until at least summer but THIS time our votes might actually mean something so we're getting hammered this time around. Thank Og I can vote tomorrow morning when the polling place opens down the street and get a smidgeon of relief until the fall.

Ugh.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Post by Havok »

General Zod wrote:
havokeff wrote: Fucking christ. I am saying the system is not flawed or broken, as it working EXACTLY as intended and and the process should be played out according to the rules laid out and not changed for over 50 years by the group using
it.
Yet the fact remains that there are far more efficient methods a candidate can be chosen. Trying to cling to the delusion that our system is somehow perfect is laughable.
Certainly there are more efficient ways. Please find where I said it was perfect. I said it is working as designed, good or bad, and it is. Can you dispute that or not. Answer.
You are saying it's flawed because... YOU don't like the outcome. The burden of proof is on you to show how the system is flawed and broken as you claim, even though you have already said it is working. It is YOUR OPINION that the process will not create a strong candidate. It is your responsibility to back your claims up not mine.
Remind me again how a system is actually working if it doesn't produce a candidate who can win?
Again, your say so.
The fact that several polls suggest a significant chunk of supporters from either Hillary or Obama will defect to the Republicans is just one symptom of this.
Yes and polls are absolutely correct and infallible and NEVER change.
Also, see: Michigan & Florida, which Shillary keeps claiming she "won" despite Obama not even being on the ticket, and is actively trying to reinstate so she can win them uncontested without fair competition. So much for the system working.
Something that hasn't even happened yet.

Look Zod, just stop whining about it. I get it. You don't like it. You don't think any outcome except Hillary dropping out right now is going to allow the DEMs a shot at winning with Obama, and they have zero shot with Clinton. I get it.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Post by Havok »

Darth Wong wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.
Obama is probably a bad example of an "unknown" (meaning I take back what I said earlier), since he had quite a bit of national exposure in 2004. Bill Clinton might be a better example of a relative unknown using the primaries to "bounce" upwards in 1992 (he used a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Primary to position himself as the "comeback kid" after Tom Harkin not surprisingly won Iowa), and Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1976. Carter was a nobody at the national level when he started his run; his explicit strategy was to use primary victories to boost his profile.
You know, if the arbiter of the best candidate selection process is that it must produce exactly the same outcome as the current process, then yeah, I guess you can't change it. That's a pretty stupid criterion, though.
Do you think you could put up how you think a better system would work? I'm curious to see exactly how you would do it.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod »

havokeff wrote: Certainly there are more efficient ways. Please find where I said it was perfect. I said it is working as designed, good or bad, and it is. Can you dispute that or not. Answer.
I don't give a fuck if it's working as designed you illiterate moron, my whole fucking point is that it's designed badly. So pull your thick head out of your ass and stop strawmanning me.
Again, your say so.
What the fuck else is the point of having an election system if not to produce candidates that can win? Or are you just going to repeat yourself like a broken record again?
Yes and polls are absolutely correct and infallible and NEVER change.
Polls are data indicating a trend you stupid retard. Which is more than you have going for your asinine claim of "lalalala teh system is working perfectly!!11!1!"
Something that hasn't even happened yet.
It doesn't matter if it's happened or not yet dipshit. The fact that she's trying and seems to have some degree of support for it indicates that checks and balances to try and keep some sense of fairness are not doing their job.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Post by Terralthra »

Darth Wong wrote:Would the nation not be better served by parties which simply select their own candidate to promote policies the whole party generally agrees upon, and having more parties in order to satisfy peoples' desire to see more variety in candidates?

This focus upon the leadership candidate as an individual, as opposed to merely being the head of a party, is half the problem.
I can't remember the particular political scientist who did the work, but there's a hypothesis out there that predicts that any first/furthest-past-the-post electoral system will eventually turn into a system dominated by two opposed monolithic parties. Without proportional representation or instant run-off voting, fringes are so cowed by the worst possibilities of the other binary party winning that defection to a third/other party is considered wasting one's vote.

And that's exactly what people said to voters for Perot when he ran as a third candidate.
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14804
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

I was already sick of the US election by last Thanksgiving, the Canadian Thanksgiving that is. I've hit the point where I refuse to watch the news on TV, seeing US election "news" literally makes me sick, if I lived in the US I'd likely have either slit my wrists or gone on a killing spree by now.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Post by ArmorPierce »

This primary is looking like a boxing match that has gone on for far too long. Presidential election is around the corner and the democrats have yet to stop fighting each other to decide to put up against the opposing team. Instead they are busy fighting each other with one of them throwing plenty of cheap shots and dirty moves and is just hurting themselves in the end.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Darth Wong wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Obama went into this campaign with a large war chest. You seem to subscribe to some preposterous fantasy version of the existing process, where a poor guy with little money can run some town hall meetings leading up to the first regional primary, and then vault himself to national recognition by his skillful oratory. That just isn't the case. A shortened campaign would have the same dynamic as the existing one, but with far less time for people to get bored of discussing the issues and turn to personality wars.
Obama is probably a bad example of an "unknown" (meaning I take back what I said earlier), since he had quite a bit of national exposure in 2004. Bill Clinton might be a better example of a relative unknown using the primaries to "bounce" upwards in 1992 (he used a second-place finish in the New Hampshire Primary to position himself as the "comeback kid" after Tom Harkin not surprisingly won Iowa), and Jimmy Carter did exactly that in 1976. Carter was a nobody at the national level when he started his run; his explicit strategy was to use primary victories to boost his profile.
You know, if the arbiter of the best candidate selection process is that it must produce exactly the same outcome as the current process, then yeah, I guess you can't change it. That's a pretty stupid criterion, though.
Nobody's saying that "it must produce the same outcome" is the best standard - we're using it as a standard with which to compare alternative proposals. It most likely hurts people who would be coming from "unknown" territory, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Not the most impressive candidates, but the example is still there - and I think it's a bad thing in that you can lose some potentially good candidates who don't have a national presence to attract the money and support for a nation-wide campaign.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

havokeff wrote:Do you think you could put up how you think a better system would work? I'm curious to see exactly how you would do it.
You know I've been talking about ideas for possible changes all throughout this thread, right?
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Guardsman Bass wrote:Nobody's saying that "it must produce the same outcome" is the best standard - we're using it as a standard with which to compare alternative proposals. It most likely hurts people who would be coming from "unknown" territory, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Not the most impressive candidates, but the example is still there - and I think it's a bad thing in that you can lose some potentially good candidates who don't have a national presence to attract the money and support for a nation-wide campaign.
And it's a bad thing that the campaign drags on for so fucking long, costs so much money, and is so subject to manipulations and influences that have nothing to do with picking the best candidate. For that matter, it's a bad thing that the personality of the candidate is so important, when (to my way of thinking), the candidate should merely represent the intentions of the party. Why is it so important to be capable of causing rapid changes to the popularity of candidates in mid-process? Yet again, it looks like somebody is taking a consequence of the current system, assuming it's a "benefit" despite the lack of any apparent connection to the goal, and then decrying an alternative for lack of this "benefit".

Also: if it's so important to have "democratic input" into the inner processes of each party, why don't the parties allow member voting on their actual policies? Why don't the Republicans hold a vote to see if people think they should drop the anti-gay thing? Why don't Democrats hold a vote to see if people think they should drop the anti-gun thing? This is not about being more "democratic"; it's about clinging to tradition.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

Voted.

In the primary, not just this thread.

Now leave me alone until November. :P
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Image

Yeah, I think this is a fucking farce. Can't the country implode or decide already? This thing is no longer funny (though the comic is).
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

That reminds me. Must check the TMW archive.
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Post by Havok »

Darth Wong wrote:
havokeff wrote:Do you think you could put up how you think a better system would work? I'm curious to see exactly how you would do it.
You know I've been talking about ideas for possible changes all throughout this thread, right?
Yeah, but I'm lazy and want you to put it all in one post for me. :wink:
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

That reminds me. Must check the TMW archive.
[X The Eliminator Music]Blasphemer!!!!! How can you not check TMW every week!!!![/X The Eliminator Music]
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
montypython
Jedi Master
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2004-11-30 03:08am

Post by montypython »

aerius wrote:I was already sick of the US election by last Thanksgiving, the Canadian Thanksgiving that is. I've hit the point where I refuse to watch the news on TV, seeing US election "news" literally makes me sick, if I lived in the US I'd likely have either slit my wrists or gone on a killing spree by now.
My sentiments exactly, it's days like this that I think that things would be better when the next revolution comes to line up all the b@st@rds on the wall for the firing squad...
Post Reply