Games industry sucks up to Clinton [Archive]

Varsity

08-09-2005, 09:32 AM

Well, OK. Not the entire industry. Only two people in fact. (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=10668) But that's beside the point...
The videogames industry looks set to intensify its political lobbying activities in the USA, with ESA president Doug Lowenstein and EA's head of music Steve Schnur to co-host a fundraiser for outspoken industry critic Hillary Clinton.

Lowenstein and Schnur are listed as co-hosts of a $1,000 per plate breakfast with the New York senator, according to a report written by Brian Crecente, editor of popular gaming blog Kotaku, for the Rocky Mountain News.

Although the ESA denies that the fundraiser has anything to do with the organisation - describing it as being on Lowenstein's "private schedule" - the breakfast is described as having the hallmarks of "an industry trying to curry favour with one of its critics" by Steven Weiss of the Centre for Responsive Politics, cited in the Rocky Mountain News piece.
I'm with Mr. Weiss on this one. How slimy can you get?

Commissar Rob

08-09-2005, 09:43 AM

Slimy perhaps, but that's how this game is played. It's no different than any special interest trying to either get attention for their agenda.

Abednigo

08-09-2005, 09:47 AM

Hillary is just trying to set herself up for 2008. She'll never be in the White House.

Rafer

08-09-2005, 10:04 AM

Yeah I remember in the early 90's the Democrats used to be very critical of rap music (2 live crew, Sister Souljah). They stopped criticizing rap when the entertainment industry coughed up money in the form of campaign contribuitons and endorsements by musicians to vote Democrat.

Savok

08-09-2005, 10:08 AM

At least it's 2005, don't have to worry about Hillary coming in to screw everything up for another 2-3 years.

doubtingthomas

08-09-2005, 10:15 AM

Lobbyists? Campaign Contributors with corporate/monetary interests? In our country? The HORROR!!!

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 10:22 AM

Weren't people just recently saying that with all the crap going on in the game world we need someone on our side pushing politics to vote for the gamers on issues? So what's so bad about the industry finally trying to get politicians to do that with the only language that politicians know?

At least it's 2005, don't have to worry about Hillary coming in to screw everything up for another 2-3 years.

Yeah, she might really fuck up how great things are now!

Reanimated

08-09-2005, 10:25 AM

Not much more slimy than Hillary Clinton, I'm afraid.

Abednigo

08-09-2005, 10:30 AM

Weren't people just recently saying that with all the crap going on in the game world we need someone on our side pushing politics to vote for the gamers on issues? So what's so bad about the industry finally trying to get politicians to do that with the only language that politicians know?

I'd take anyone over Hillary. I can't stand that woman.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 10:34 AM

I'm not a fan either. But I'm just saying, at least they appear to be doing SOMETHING already, and wooing one of the biggest opponent's of gaming up to this point cannot hurt.

Crabby

08-09-2005, 10:40 AM

It sorta hurts if she has potential for being the true blue antichrist.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 10:44 AM

Biblical scholars and ignorant rednecks around the world agree that Hillary cannot be the antichrist because she's a woman.

darkwarrior

08-09-2005, 10:46 AM

Yet she accepted her husband back after a major hard core sex scandal with an intern.

But oh no, not pixel sex.

Mason

08-09-2005, 10:56 AM

This is how the world works, genius. You think there's a reason other than lobbyists that games are targetted when one half-includes some clothed humping, while your local Blockbuster houses plenty of real T&A? The game industry hasn't been buttering people up for decades, hence it's prime real estate for taking moral stands on.

This is good news for anyone who likes games. The industry badly needs more friends in Washington.

And for the record, it is only DLC Democrats like Clinton, who represent the conservative wing of the party, who really take shots at games. Republicans are already stuck in an obsession with certain other "moral" issues, and thus don't really have room on their plate to hate video games much at the moment (but that doesn't mean it'll always be beneath their radar, and when the fundies start bashing on something it becomes a generational conflict).

Mainstream Dems, who tend to favor privacy in all personal affairs, are about the only friends the industry might ever have.

Heretic Machine

08-09-2005, 10:59 AM

Hey, the guys sucking up are just doing what they have to do if you want to play GTA 6. So, STFU. Want to complain about someone? Complain about the gold-digging bitch who's eyeing the White House.

Mason

08-09-2005, 11:01 AM

Hillary is just trying to set herself up for 2008. She'll never be in the White House.

True, but only because the Republican slime machine will focus on her exclusively, driving her down in the primaries and sending a different Dem on as the candidate.

Biden maybe? He's a bit of a shill for creditors, but then he was pretty funny on the Daily Show.

Deadend

08-09-2005, 11:03 AM

the regular computer industry sucks preety bad at getting politicans in their pocket as well. I think it has something to do with anti-social and fairly honest people making games.

The game industry needs some Capitol Hill loving, and maybe then it will be less hated. At least until the jesusland folk get on their case.

EL CABONG

08-09-2005, 11:04 AM

EL CABONG

08-09-2005, 11:06 AM

True, but only because the Republican slime machine will focus on her exclusively, driving her down in the primaries and sending a different Dem on as the candidate.

Biden maybe? He's a bit of a shill for creditors, but then he was pretty funny on the Daily Show.

Well if he could read off a Q-card on the daily show then THAT clearly makes him the most quaified to be the leader of the free world.

Varsity

08-09-2005, 11:07 AM

This is how the world works, genius.
I don't recally anyone saying it wasn't. Try reading the thread over again.

Savok

08-09-2005, 11:07 AM

Weren't people just recently saying that with all the crap going on in the game world we need someone on our side pushing politics to vote for the gamers on issues? So what's so bad about the industry finally trying to get politicians to do that with the only language that politicians know?
Because it's extortion. And I thought you were avoiding me when it came to politics?

Mason

08-09-2005, 11:13 AM

Hey, the guys sucking up are just doing what they have to do if you want to play GTA 6. So, STFU. Want to complain about someone? Complain about the gold-digging bitch who's eyeing the White House.

Rational self-interest, dude.

Iran and N.Korea are both back to actively pursuing nuclear programs, and Bush-style diplomacy has ruined all chances of talking them out of it. Hell, Iraq demonstrated how important it was for "Axis" nations to actually own WMDs. Only troops on the ground or a fresh and credible restart of international diplomacy will change things now.

Most people on this forum are of draft age.

Pencils down in five minutes, please show your work.

Mason

08-09-2005, 11:18 AM

Because it's extortion. And I thought you were avoiding me when it came to politics?

Don't be dense. If game devs are going to make games which involve simulated sex acts in violation of their own voluntary rating system, politicians are going to grandstand about it unless given incentive not to. Welcome to reality.

Jacob Singer

08-09-2005, 11:21 AM

Reading this thread, you'd think Hillary Clinton personally shot all of your dogs.

Sheesh.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 11:28 AM

And I thought you were avoiding me when it came to politics?

I was. Or am. The part that was a response to you was pretty much just utter sarcasm which I shall try my damnedest not to move to the land of, whatchya-call-it, seriousness.

Reading this thread, you'd think Hillary Clinton personally shot all of your dogs.

Sony shot mine. :(

bean19

08-09-2005, 11:51 AM

Democrats that are for stronger controls on video games see the issue as one where they can be more moderate. . . approach the center.

And honestly, I don't have a problem with certain controls. How would placing stricter regulations on video game sales to minors affect me? They'd still make Mature rated games and they'd still sell well because most stores follow the policy of restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors already, and 80% of game sales are to adults.

What drives me crazy is when they alter the facts for publicity. I hate when legislators misrepresent violence in games or act like the industry is responsible when people give their children adult games. Yellow journalism that misrepresents the facts also makes me crazy.

Politicians asking for stricter laws to enforce the sale of adult games ONLY to adults does not bug me at all. I'm neither for or against the measure, but I understand why politicians would use it for political leverage. . . especially Democrats. Republicans gained a lot of votes by projecting themselves as the religious party based on the platform of restrictring marriage from gay people and being anti-abortion. Democrats enjoyed being the "moral" party for years and years before this rescent spin.

Democrats are famous for their support of such issues as lowering taxes for middle and lower class families, supporting our elderly with Social Security, keeping the environment safe, allowing lawsuits against corporations (protecting corporate victims if you like spin), etc. However, even though their platform SEEMS like it would be much more popular as there are a LOT more poor and middle class people than rich people, the Republican party has managed to spin them into being the pro-gay, prochoice party in the minds of most of the populace.

Democrats would do better if they attempted to set the agenda on things that matter more to people in my opinion. . . like keeping their grandparents fed, insuring fiscal responsiblity (balancing the budget) so that future generations can get returns from the social security taxes they pay now, raising the minimum wage, lowering taxes for the middle class, improving education, finding alternative fuels that keep the environment safe and stop sending money to the Middle East, etc. etc. They stand for a lot of things that a lot of people probably beleive in, but simply don't understand.

During the elections, several polls were taken to attempt to determine voter knowledge. An astounding 60% of the population that voted for Bush claimed that the cheif reason they voted for him was for issues that were on his OPPONENT'S platform. The Democratic Party did such a bad job of representing their issues that people stated they voted for his opponnent BECAUSE of those issues. Also astoundingly, 29% of the people who voted for Kerry, voted for him for reasons that were part of the Bush platform. That means that approximately 30.6% of Bush supporters voted for the wrong candidate and 14.2% of Kerry supporters voted for the wrong candidate. That's 44.8% of the population that would have voted differently if they had better voter knowledge. Please note that these figures are approximate.

Source finding: I attempted to find the source by looking at a government paper I did last semester siting this poll but I can't access it (online course and now the forum is locked). Trying to find it with google gives too many results for me to find it quickly. You'll just have to trust me on the figures, but you can read a lot about poor voter knowledge by doing a google on "voter knowledge".

Heretic Machine

08-09-2005, 12:02 PM

Most people on this forum are of draft age.

Most also know the general direction of Canada.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 12:09 PM

Most also know the general direction of Canada.

I memorized that shit fast in high school.

Heretic Machine

08-09-2005, 12:10 PM

the Republican party has managed to spin them into being the pro-gay, prochoice party in the minds of most of the populace.

Ya, that's mostly because poor people are poor for a very good reason... They don't know how to do anything except draw a disability check or make my hamburger. They usually fuck up my hamburger.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 12:12 PM

Ya, that's mostly because poor people are poor for a very good reason... They don't know how to do anything except draw a disability check or make my hamburger. They usually fuck up my hamburger.

While I agree about the fucking up the hamburger bit (I mean shit, that's annoying), I think it's quite a jump to just assume that most poor people are poor because they're unable to do anything well. I mean I'm certain that's the case in some, maybe even many cases, but I don't really see any stats showing that's how it is in all of them or a majority even.

Hell, how would you even make stats for something like that?

FyrionX

08-09-2005, 12:19 PM

Most of you probably have no idea of what is happening in the political world other than video games. You all complain about politicians attacking gamers, yet then you complain when the industry begins to become involved in politics and begins to lobby politicians. Make up your mind and pick up a newspaper once in a while.

askheaves

08-09-2005, 12:19 PM

While I agree about the fucking up the hamburger bit (I mean shit, that's annoying)[...]
Hell, how would you even make stats for something like that?

Put two grills in a room with a stack of patties and do science in bracket tournament style with hundreds of rich/middle-class/poor.

Consolation prize = your fucked up burger.

EL CABONG

08-09-2005, 12:20 PM

Democrats are famous for their support of such issues as lowering taxes for middle and lower class families, .
Dems are famous for raseing taxes. Dems are usllay for more government which means more taxes and rep are often for less federal government and less taxes , because most are pro buisness. Hell thats why I didn't like Kerry He said he was going increase taxes. If he said he wasn't going to jack up taxes and took a stance on what he was going to do about the war without changeing his mind like five time while he ws runnig he would have won in a landslide.

bean19

08-09-2005, 12:22 PM

Ya, that's mostly because poor people are poor for a very good reason... They don't know how to do anything except draw a disability check or make my hamburger. They usually fuck up my hamburger.

Well, I blame the democratic party for not educating voters.

Is this just flame bait?

Anyway, it's not just poor people that would probably be more in line with the Democratic platform, but all people who are not very wealthy. To be fair, people in the $100K/year or more tax bracket would probably still want to vote Republican if the biggest issue to them was lower taxes. However, so the lower upper class might vote Republican too. Also, people who are adamantly anti-abortion or who want to restrict marriage from gay people enough to pay higher taxes and not have Social Security when they are old and/or see the benefits of Social Security for our elderly decline to far below the poverty level would still want to vote Republican. Also people who work for Republican owned industries like weapons production or Haliburton, etc.

It's not that there aren't correct supporters for either party, or that people are too stupid. It's that the media does a terrible job of coverage of the actual issues by losing them in a cacaphony of noise about the "sexy" issues, and that the Democratic party is ineffectual in setting the agenda.

Heretic Machine

08-09-2005, 12:24 PM

Hell, how would you even make stats for something like that?

Well, I came up with it by remembering the time I saw a class of High School students who were all of voting age or damn near (all of whom come from families making $30,000 or less) proclaiming their love for Bush because, and I quote, "He doesn't like the fags."

Most of these people are now either working in fast food, not working at all, or are employed in manual labor positions that probably won't last very long before they are "disabled" and are able to legally leech off the American tax payers.

I dunno, a lot of what I'm saying isn't very coherent, I'm just ranting. I hate this damn country...

Jacob Singer

08-09-2005, 12:24 PM

Deadend

08-09-2005, 12:28 PM

Ya, that's mostly because poor people are poor for a very good reason... They don't know how to do anything except draw a disability check or make my hamburger. They usually fuck up my hamburger.

My family is dirt fucking poor, because there are no fucking jobs in Michigan. Car companies keep firing people, and are not hiring more, thus every other place is filled up leaving even fewer jobs that you can survive on available. Have you ever tried to live on a McDonalds income? When they cut your hours to 10 a week? It's hard as hell, so don't give me that "it's the poor peoples damn fault and that they are stupid". That is bullshit.

I think the Democrats suck, they do a shitty job of getting attention because they act like they have morals, and not just the kind that involve Terry Schrivo's still breathing corpse or telling people what to do with fetuses.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 12:33 PM

Well, I came up with it by remembering the time I saw a class of High School students who were all of voting age or damn near (all of whom come from families making $30,000 or less) proclaiming their love for Bush because, and I quote, "He doesn't like the fags."

Oh geez. Holy shit. You almost convinced me with that. :\

Anyways, I wouldn't have even questioned it, except that I come from a fairly poor family, probably lower middle class at best. My mom had to file for bankruptcy a couple years ago even and all that. But I know that all of that is not in spite of talent or trying, but various other fucked up situations that had an impact on it.

Either way, we're doing well now, though. And I get a shitload of money for college because of that. So... no biggie. :p

bean19

08-09-2005, 12:35 PM

Dems are famous for raseing taxes. Dems are usllay for more government which means more taxes and rep are often for less federal government and less taxes , because most are pro buisness. Hell thats why I didn't like Kerry He said he was going increase taxes. If he said he wasn't going to jack up taxes and took a stance on what he was going to do about the war without changeing his mind like five time while he ws runnig he would have won in a landslide.

El Cabong - Kerry said he would raise taxes for the wealthy to balance the budget. Also, I agree that Republicans SAY they are for smaller government, but Bush has created a new government agency and is bulging the deficit enormously with cash cow legislation for Haliburton and other special interest groups in the military infastructure.

What I am for is fiscal responsibility. Don't stifle the middle class with heavy taxes, but tax the uber wealthy more and lower government spending.

If you remember, Clinton lowered government spending enormously and balanced the budget for the first time in (I don't remember exactly the amount of years, but it was sometime in the 1950's or 1960's) approximately 40 years.

I'd totally vote Republican if they were actually about smaller government and lower taxes, but other than the initial tax cut everyone received (but was 70% in favor of the uber uber wealthy), all of Bush's tax cuts have been for the uber wealthy exclusively.

With the deals to Haliburton and the Bush family's oil interests and the deals to military infastructure companies and the tax cuts aimed at the uber wealthy, it strikes me as banditry.

However, you are correct about their PLATFORM. It's just the current administration that isn't actually doing it. Traditionally Republicans campaign on lower taxes and smaller government. . . who knew they'd cash in after getting into office.

Heretic Machine

08-09-2005, 12:35 PM

Anyways, I wouldn't have even questioned it, except that I come from a fairly poor family, probably lower middle class at best. My mom had to file for bankruptcy a couple years ago even and all that. But I know that all of that is not in spite of talent or trying, but various other fucked up situations that had an impact on it.

I'm not saying ALL poor people are stupid and will grow up to be jobless losers. I come from a poor family too, but I have no illussions about most people in the same income bracket as my family.

Goronmon

08-09-2005, 12:39 PM

And honestly, I don't have a problem with certain controls. How would placing stricter regulations on video game sales to minors affect me? They'd still make Mature rated games and they'd still sell well because most stores follow the policy of restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors already, and 80% of game sales are to adults.
I think people are more worried about outright bans on certain types of video games than harsher regulation on who is buying the games.

EL CABONG

08-09-2005, 12:42 PM

[QUOTE=bean19]Well, I blame the democratic party for not educating voters.

Is this just flame bait?

A Also, people who are adamantly anti-abortion or who want to restrict marriage from gay people enough to pay higher taxes and not have Social Security when they are old ["]
yes.

You may be right about the pro life not jobs.

In calif. they had a vote on gay marriage where the people could vote and it lost big time. And that state is one of the most left states there is. Many people don't want gay marriage not just holy-roller bible thumpers. Even the log cabin republiacans (a gay rep group)don't want gay marriage they what gay civil unions or something. I doubt many people who aren't gay are voteing who they are voting for soley or even mainly because of gay marriage. the fact is middle america doesn't real care.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 12:53 PM

In calif. they had a vote on gay marriage where the people could vote and it lost big time.

Not just Cali. A lot of states had them and they all failed. In my opinion, it was even more tragic than Bush getting elected.

OUX

08-09-2005, 12:56 PM

Yeah Ohio had one but they worded it to be confusing. Some people thought they were voting for it when they actually weren't. Tricky bastards.

bean19

08-09-2005, 01:16 PM

Not just Cali. A lot of states had them and they all failed. In my opinion, it was even more tragic than Bush getting elected.

Desegregation wasn't popular either. Some things just take time though.

Anyway, my point is that this is one of the cheif issues that defined the Democrats even though the Presidential candidates backpedaled from it stating that they didn't feel the U.S. was ready for gay marriage.

Despite that, they got the "Democrats like gays" label and many people voted on this and nothing else because it was something they understood (and that got tons of media coverage because it is a "sexy" topic).

Democrats should have been all about promoting the side of their platform that is palatable to the U.S. Stuff like making sure Grandma doesn't have to eat catfood in order to afford her medical prescriptions, lowering taxes for the middle class, and other things that they are GOOD about instead of allowing Republicans to set the agenda as fighting terror, restricting gay marriage, and anti-abortion.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue the issues so much as to argue that this is probably a bad step for Democrats because it is an invented issue and they should return to promoting their platform instead of wading in early on "sexy" issues just for the publicity.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 01:24 PM

Desegregation wasn't popular either. Some things just take time though.

Interesting way of putting it. You're probably right though.

they should return to promoting their platform instead of wading in early on "sexy" issues just for the publicity.

My major problem with both big parties in the US in the last ten years has been their all-around lack of any solid platforms. For example, as people have pointed out, Republicans are, in theory, supposed to be anti-big government. But the Bush white house certainly doesn't back that. They're also supposed to be pro-freedoms/anti-government-digging-into-your-business. Again, current Republican leadership doesn't really follow that. And you've already pointed out many of the major probs with the Democrats.

If they're going to call themselves a unified party they should actually get unified behind some issues and really stand behind them.

Alexious

08-09-2005, 02:31 PM

After reading this whole thread, I'm still just shaking my head... you guys just watch. Mrs. Clinton will run for President in 2008 and I'll bet you a pint of your favorite beer she wins. No really. Just watch.

grungebox

08-09-2005, 03:38 PM

I can't imagine an easier target for Republicans to tear apart than Hilary. If there's a Democrat who has a realistic chance of winning, I'd go with either Obama or Biden. Of course, the former suffers the same rookie syndrome and he's black in a country that's never seen a black person win a single primary. I don't have the source on that last bit of info, so take it at face value.

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 04:11 PM

you guys just watch. Mrs. Clinton will run for President in 2008 and I'll bet you a pint of your favorite beer she wins. No really. Just watch.

I'll take that bet!

51|RandoM

08-09-2005, 04:11 PM

GOOD. You'd think game makers would've been able to figure out how this game is played a long time ago.

Last of the Red Hot Mamas

08-09-2005, 04:55 PM

Of course, the former suffers the same rookie syndrome and he's black in a country that's never seen a black person win a single primary.

Jackson won five primaries in '84 and one in '88. But I hear the Republicans are planning to draft Jesus so any Democratic candidate faces an uphill battle.

B_Money

08-09-2005, 07:01 PM

Yet she accepted her husband back after a major hard core sex scandal with an intern.

But oh no, not pixel sex.

So forgivness makes you the anti-christ? Fascinating theological arguement.

Crabby

08-09-2005, 07:25 PM

The spider made the fly comfortable too.

B_Money

08-09-2005, 07:43 PM

The spider made the fly comfortable too.

Who's the spider and who's the fly?

Kefkataran

08-09-2005, 08:28 PM

Holy crap. Listen, I don't like Hillary Clinton much, but you anti-Hillary zealots stick to hyperbole like mad. It's as bad as the idiots who kept comparing Bush to Hitler.

Savok

08-09-2005, 08:40 PM

Don't be dense. If game devs are going to make games which involve simulated sex acts in violation of their own voluntary rating system, politicians are going to grandstand about it unless given incentive not to. Welcome to reality.
With more people like you, we'd of all died out long ago.

Blue

08-09-2005, 08:41 PM

I think any Republican who was called-up to be their representative has to be praying the Democrats choose Ms. Clinton. I mean, the guy'd be a shoe-in.

To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with her policies (outside her gaming views, of course) as I've never really cared to pay attention. She creeps me out though. I can't put my finger on it, but the woman gives me the willies and I am very much of the opinion that people get correct "vibes" off of people. Then again, I thought Kerry was Frankenstein and felt equally untrusting of him. Choosing between two evils there, I suppose.

Savok

08-10-2005, 12:26 AM

You weren't the only one who didn't like Kerry, Blue. Election began as "anyone but Bush", ended with "anyone but Kerry".

And it all depends on who the Republicans have stand. Australia has had elections like that in the past, two completely disasterous leaders to chose from where the only outcome was that Australia lost.

Crabby

08-10-2005, 12:45 AM

Holy crap. Listen, I don't like Hillary Clinton much, but you anti-Hillary zealots stick to hyperbole like mad. It's as bad as the idiots who kept comparing Bush to Hitler.

Hyperbole is IN this year.

Varsity

08-10-2005, 01:25 AM

I love the smell of American politics in the morning.

OUX

08-10-2005, 05:07 AM

/seconds Kefkataran

Kefkataran

08-10-2005, 06:32 AM

To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with her policies (outside her gaming views, of course) as I've never really cared to pay attention.

See, I'm fine with you not voting for her. If she runs, I highly doubt I'll be voting for her. But I do sort of wish that you'd make it more about the politics than about... you know... nothing or whatever. This is how I fear too many Americans vote -- based on some notion or feeling that the candidate's presence gives them rather than on what they're actually saying or not saying.

Heretic Machine

08-10-2005, 06:58 AM

I have several good reasons not to vote for her:

1. Her only qualification for being president isthat she was married to a president. This is as bad as, say, being qualified to be president because your father was one.

2. She's a gold digging bitch. She married her husband to get to where she is today, and I have no doubt in my mind that she had her eyes on the White House right from the start.

3. She's socially conservative, which is enough in and of itself. The economy doesn't mean shit if I don't have the right to do what I enjoy with my money.

Kefkataran

08-10-2005, 07:19 AM

I have several good reasons not to vote for her:

No need to convince me. I mean you weren't the author of that quote.

1. Her only qualification for being president isthat she was married to a president. This is as bad as, say, being qualified to be president because your father was one.

Agreed in theory, although taken in context, she's now been a senator, so she has political experience, albeit not half as much as some of the other people out there.

2. She's a gold digging bitch. She married her husband to get to where she is today, and I have no doubt in my mind that she had her eyes on the White House right from the start.

Eh. Perhaps. Either way, I'm not a fan of her personality.

3. She's socially conservative, which is enough in and of itself. The economy doesn't mean shit if I don't have the right to do what I enjoy with my money.

I agree somewhat. Vaguely, maybe. But yeah, those are all pretty good reasons. You have my blessings insofar as not voting for Hillary Clinton goes. :p

Savok

08-10-2005, 09:08 AM

This is how I fear too many Americans vote -- based on some notion or feeling that the candidate's presence gives them rather than on what they're actually saying or not saying.
It's called intuition, which is more important then you think since all politicians lie. Some far more then others, but all to varying degrees.

Australia didn't vote for Mark Latham on the basis that not only was he an idiot, but he seemed completely insane and full of rage. Post landslide loss, Australia was proven right, even after abusing and insulting everyone he's ever known to the extent they want nothing to do with him ever again, he's still seething and pumping as much vemon as possible into the political arena.

Kefkataran

08-10-2005, 09:36 AM

It's called intuition, which is more important then you think since all politicians lie. Some far more then others, but all to varying degrees.

Intuition's important, but I'd prefer it be based on intuition from studying the politician's stances and what they say on various issues instead of just "Yeah, well, looking at her gives me a bad feeling, so whatever." or even worse "She's a woman."

Australia didn't vote for Mark Latham on the basis that not only was he an idiot

See, that's what I'm saying. How come over half of voting America didn't get the intuition that Bush was an idiot?

Anyways, I do agree with you on the idea that intuition is an important part of choosing who to vote for. I just think it's also important that it's only a part and not the whole. I also totally agree that, yeah, all politicians lie, or at least the vast majority. Hell, all people do in some way.

(Shit, you suckered me into this one. :P)

Savok

08-10-2005, 09:53 AM

Because Bush got better grades then Kerry in school. Like I said, by the end of the election it was "anyone but Kerry".

And you'll find a lot of right wingers supporting Condi for '08, disasterous in my opinion. Not because she's black or a woman, but because I've never seen anyone get cornered by a journalist as fast as she did about the tsunami. They got her say the tsunami was great because it got to show how generous America is, what planet was she on? Say that shit behind closed doors, if at all, not to a mob of press.

Kefkataran

08-10-2005, 11:28 AM

honestly, and it takes a lot for me to say admit this, I assure you, I could end up voting Republican in '08 depending on who's thrown up by both parties. Right now, though, the most likely scenario is going to be me voting independent.

Heretic Machine

08-10-2005, 01:47 PM

Agreed in theory, although taken in context, she's now been a senator, so she has political experience, albeit not half as much as some of the other people out there.

Ya, but her only qualification for being senator was that she was married to a president :p

And you'll find a lot of right wingers supporting Condi for '08

She is absolutely the -last- person I would vote for in an election. You could put up the Grand Dragon of the KKK who's running mate is a former Nazi, and I would still vote for them before her. Everytime she speaks, she gets caught in a lie.

Kefkataran

08-10-2005, 01:53 PM

Ya, but her only qualification for being senator was that she was married to a president

True, as far as I know. No idea about her college education or anything, though. But yeah, like I said, tons of people more qualified than her.

You could put up the Grand Dragon of the KKK who's running mate is a former Nazi, and I would still vote for them

Amusing quotes taken out of context. I'm holding onto this one for when you run for president. :)

Blue

08-10-2005, 04:08 PM

See, I'm fine with you not voting for her. If she runs, I highly doubt I'll be voting for her. But I do sort of wish that you'd make it more about the politics than about... you know... nothing or whatever. This is how I fear too many Americans vote -- based on some notion or feeling that the candidate's presence gives them rather than on what they're actually saying or not saying.

If she's running, I'll look into her. Until such a time, I don't really feel like giving her any more minutes than I have to. I looked into both Bush and Kerry and made my decision accordingly. I'll do the same should she get the democratic nod. So, as of now, I haven't yet voted uninformed. I knew what Kerry said and the man still creeped me out. More than Bush, if humanly possible.

As she doesn't represent my state and isn't (fully) making a White House bid, I'm not going to pay attention to her in a research kind of way.

Kefkataran

08-10-2005, 06:21 PM

If she's running, I'll look into her. Until such a time, I don't really feel like giving her any more minutes than I have to.

Fair enough, and glad to hear it. The more informed voters we have the better.

Crabby

08-10-2005, 07:58 PM

Intuition's important, but I'd prefer it be based on intuition from studying the politician's stances and what they say on various issues instead of just "Yeah, well, looking at her gives me a bad feeling, so whatever." or even worse "She's a woman."

See, that's what I'm saying. How come over half of voting America didn't get the intuition that Bush was an idiot?

Anyways, I do agree with you on the idea that intuition is an important part of choosing who to vote for. I just think it's also important that it's only a part and not the whole. I also totally agree that, yeah, all politicians lie, or at least the vast majority. Hell, all people do in some way.

(Shit, you suckered me into this one. :P)

Over half of America doesn't talk well either. It's sympathy, but also relation.