Hillary tops Obama & Edwards combined

Topspin

Topspin

Verified User
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Hillary Clinton once again enjoys as much support as her top two challengers combined. The former First Lady attracts 38% of the vote from Likely Democratic Voters. Barack Obama is currently the top choice for 21% of Likely Democratic Primary voters while John Edwards attracts 16% (see recent daily numbers). New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich top the Democrats’ second tier. Both men now earn the votes from 5%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1:pke:
 
ib1yysguy said:
... that they're moderates? Hillary's not exactly a super-leftie.
Click to expand...

Right that is why Topper likes her, well that and he has the hots for her chubby legs :)
let the banty rooster crow, it is early. I hope I do not have to wind up voting for hillary but will before voting for a republican this time.

I guess I need to change my registration to demoncrat so I can vote for edwards in the primary.
psst if I had remained republican I was going to vote for paul in the primary, as a protest and since he has no chance of winning.
Don't tell string though.
 
uscitizen said:
Right that is why Topper likes her, well that and he has the hots for her chubby legs :)
let the banty rooster crow, it is early. I hope I do not have to wind up voting for hillary but will before voting for a republican this time.

I guess I need to change my registration to demoncrat so I can vote for edwards in the primary.
psst if I had remained republican I was going to vote for paul in the primary, as a protest and since he has no chance of winning.
Don't tell string though.
Click to expand...
Well, I plan on remaining republican, and voting for Paul if he is on the ballot by that time.

I am getting some pressure to run for County Commissioner against a particular guy whose idea of growth control is, "If you own the property you can do whatever you want with it."
 
Damocles said:
Well, I plan on remaining republican, and voting for Paul if he is on the ballot by that time.

I am getting some pressure to run for County Commissioner against a particular guy whose idea of growth control is, "If you own the property you can do whatever you want with it."
Click to expand...

Umm isn't that a libertarian / Republican ideal Damo. If it is your property you should be able to do what you want with it right ?
 
edwards the least viable and farthest left draws a lot of moron support from the loser crowd. No surprise USC is firt in line.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm isn't that a libertarian / Republican ideal Damo. If it is your property you should be able to do what you want with it right ?
Click to expand...
It is not a Republican idea. It is a libertarian one. But it isn't what I support. When did I ever say that I was 100% pure libertarian?

I have always stated I was a republican who leaned libertarian. Very much lean libertarian.

Anyway, there are the rights of other property-owners nearby that must also be taken into account. If I made my property a huge moto-cross course what would that do to my neighbors? Was it logical to use this way? Water usage must also be taken into account. In a state like CO, 80% of arable water is used by farming, of which we have a ton in our county, we need to be assured that water will be available later. Can't have people selling more than their own share....
 
Another testament that America deserves the government we get.

Hillary represents ZERO change in the horror of the Bush years .. which Americans also deserved.
 
Quit whinning already!

blackascoal said:
Another testament that America deserves the government we get.

Hillary represents ZERO change in the horror of the Bush years .. which Americans also deserved.
Click to expand...


am pretty sure y'all will get a Hillary/Obama ticket...however Duncan/Tancredo will kick their proverbial butts!:cof1:
 
Damocles said:
It is not a Republican idea. It is a libertarian one. But it isn't what I support. When did I ever say that I was 100% pure libertarian?

I have always stated I was a republican who leaned libertarian. Very much lean libertarian.

Anyway, there are the rights of other property-owners nearby that must also be taken into account. If I made my property a huge moto-cross course what would that do to my neighbors? Was it logical to use this way? Water usage must also be taken into account. In a state like CO, 80% of arable water is used by farming, of which we have a ton in our county, we need to be assured that water will be available later. Can't have people selling more than their own share....
Click to expand...

The neighbors can always move.
 
uscitizen said:
The neighbors can always move.
Click to expand...
They can. But is that a resolution? They have property rights as well, sometimes they will run contrary to the do as you will thought process. Sometimes you can be victimized without intent. The protection of the rights of the neighbors is a legitimate function of government, even to libertarians.

It is only the most extreme of libertarians who would suggest otherwise.
 
Damocles said:
They can. But is that a resolution? They have property rights as well, sometimes they will run contrary to the do as you will thought process. Sometimes you can be victimized without intent. The protection of the rights of the neighbors is a legitimate function of government, even to libertarians.

It is only the most extreme of libertarians who would suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

No. It's also Republicans who suggest otherwise. There was a very well publicized case a few years ago where I used to live where this guy just refused to take care of his property. It was driving down land prices of his neighbors, and shit was seeping into their well water, etc. This guy was a menace, but the very conservative local authorities and judges refused to make the guy clean up his act.

It's NOT extreme libertarians that do this shit. It's conservatives that want to get away with doing whatever they want to get away with doing at the expense of others.
 
ib1yysguy said:
No. It's also Republicans who suggest otherwise. There was a very well publicized case a few years ago where I used to live where this guy just refused to take care of his property. It was driving down land prices of his neighbors, and shit was seeping into their well water, etc. This guy was a menace, but the very conservative local authorities and judges refused to make the guy clean up his act.

It's NOT extreme libertarians that do this shit. It's conservatives that want to get away with doing whatever they want to get away with doing at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
The thing of it is, I live among many conservatives and find that this is not the case. You have one anecdotal story, yet wish to paint an entire group of people from that?

This is an extreme case, here they would have been voted out, and have been. Replaced with a more logical form of government. This sounds like extreme libertarian behavior, that they were members of probably the only functioning party in the area doesn't change that it isn't regularly a position of the R party to run over the rights of other property owners in order to protect the rights of one.
 
Damocles said:
They can. But is that a resolution? They have property rights as well, sometimes they will run contrary to the do as you will thought process. Sometimes you can be victimized without intent. The protection of the rights of the neighbors is a legitimate function of government, even to libertarians.

It is only the most extreme of libertarians who would suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

But where is the line drawn ? Once the gate is open....

What about the repeated cases of urbanity encroaching on rural land and forcing those who had long enjoyed the rural lifestyle out ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top