Printable View
You may have to get use to having more of a non-super conserverative candidate(McCain is still pretty darn conservative). Due to all the states that moved up in the primary, you have more liberal big states going before the south has a chance to knock people like McCain out of the race. Those people will be more likely to gain support from California, Illinois, New York and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
There are candidates that have morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
Non-super-religious-conservative != immoral
super-religious-conservative != moral
Silly Mullet. Duckie wasn't talking about Hillary Clinton! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Flying MulletThere are candidates that have morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
Non-super-religious-conservative != immoral
super-religious-conservative != moral
And casts the tie-breaking vote in the Senate! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep
How so? She does well, we're still stuck where we were before in about four to eight years; she doesn't, same problem. Obama screws up, but at least he tried, the new and the experimental is the way to go for a nation of disinterest and utter mistrust of the government. He does well, we become this uber-nation of uber that actually might care. Kick reason to the curb; his potential to do well is far greater than Hillary's and if he screws up, he'll either screw up less, or anger people enough that people will give enough of a damn again. Zero-sum game: go for the one who loses less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokichi
VP becomes President when the President is incapacitated, not the first Lady (Man). After that, it passes on through certain Congressmen, and eventually down to the Cabinet, based on date of creation.
What, the kiss of death, this is all about the economy? We aren't in recession, the FED has already slashed interest rates, twice, and financial reports are effectively one fiscal quarter late, meaning that reports we get now are distorted and from a previous time. They do not necessarily reflect the situation at hand. Furthermore, the growth of the GDP has been over 1% for the past three quarters, so we are, by definition, not in recession. Before you throw me "but the dollar sucks," you wouldn't give a flying smurf about the well-being of the dollar if we were not using it to compare to both other countries and the purchase of foreign oil. You'd only see it in a self-contained perspective. People complain "ohh, we're in recession" and don't know what it means, yet I have yet to hear people complain about the cost of vegetables or milk.
You know that they left it open ended because they would never have imagined that people would re-elect someone for too many times; mutual distrust. Two terms was precedent set by George Washington. It wasn't until FDR that they realized that four terms was too many, so I fail to see how the ascendancy of the president has anything to do with a woman or colored person in the office. If anything, it was foreseen, and it was ignored, because the rights of the people would eventually grow over time. How does being black or female over or under-qualify you to be the president? Ohh, wait, that's right, because we totally choose people based on merit.
She has experience? The whole of roughly the same amount of time as a Senator as Obama, except she got to be there for Bill's presidency? For all the things she did in office, they were at best laughable.
... and what morals do you speak of? Are you using them in a comparative sense to religion? You can be a good person and not follow religion. Super-uber-conservatives can be equally evil and threatening to the welfare of the state as the mentally compromised terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
Then you (and your good friend Rush Limbaugh) should have supported Mitt Romney while you had the chance. If the hardcore Conservatives complain about McCain getting into office, they only have themselves to blame.
I wanted to point out that Bill Clinton had very little to do with the United States' prosperity during the late 90s. He was fortunate enough to be president during the tech boom which propelled the United States' economy into the stratosphere. The economy was already showing signs of weakening towards the end of his presidency and 9/11 was what killed an already declining economy. Presidents are mostly figureheads when it comes to economic fluctuations and have very little real power over long-lasting changes in the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokichi
With that being said, I think Bill Clinton did a great job of leaving the economy alone and letting the tech boom do it's thing. I also think that Dubya is an idiot with the extra tax returns which are supposed to stimulate the economy. Not surprising, people are paying off their debt rather than spending it on frivolous goods. He's one of the most spend-happy presidents in history and he needs to learn that economic changes happen over time, not immediately.
Well, I think that all three of the potential presidential candidates can do a better job than the current presidential administration.
Eek.
Sheep, I'm aware of that. My mistake though. I meant it as a benefit for Hilary to have Bill by her side, but the tired mind works in mysterious ways. xD
@ Tavrobel:
Don't think of me as odd, but I think I love you.
Not much else to say about that. I'd try to type long to look smart, but that obviously don't work.
/Joke.
You do have a point, Flying Mullet. I did imply Bill made something happen, but he really didn't. The cycle was just at a top point by that time, and he didn't screw it up, as you stated.
Dubya is a pretty bad president. IMO. Not Double-yew bashing or anything, but he seriously is a sucky president. Though you can't really blame him. The boom can't last forever, and eventually during his term (lol, he was re-elected), we were going to go into a recession, turning into depression. I'm surprised at all the people who backed him, who went aggro at how fast we fell into this $4 trillion+ hole gradually over time.
But haha.
*rethinks notions of presidency candidates*
Meh, I figured as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokichi
It's not nearly as bad as the mistakes the current administration has managed. So heck, maybe I'll vote for you someday! :)
Woah, voting for a politician that admits he made a mistake? I don't know who you are, but you had best not talk condescendingly about my political system like that EVAR or else you're gonna get invited to a tea party. And I only served iced tea. *evil look*Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep
I support the muffin man.
As much as I hate Bush, I have the most horrid feeling that Hilary will be a n even worse president then him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roogle
Really I would have taken any candidate running over Hilary.
I'm all about The Obama man, (And Ron Paul, to bad he didn't get the republican nomination, but I figured he wouldn't anyway.)
I keep up with political news almost every waking minute of every day.
I believe that the way this administration has been handled, no Republican deserves any right to succeed Bush. Is it partisan politics? Yeah, it is. I don't care, though. I refuse to see civil liberties infringed upon the way they have, and I have no doubts that such rights will continue to be taken away under a Republican administration.
Do I think McCain is an awful candidate? No, not really. I think he was probably the best choice among the Republicans. No, Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate.
I originally supported Edwards, because I was able to ignore his awful debate skills. When he dropped out, I threw my support behind Obama because I saw what this country needed. I still do. This country is tired. This country NEEDS social revolution. This country needs Bobby Kennedy to be president. The way that Obama has invigorated the young people to actually care about politics and the things of this world is spectacular. I don't agree with Senator Obama on every issue, but I think he would make the best president.
I'm not even sure if I would be able to vote for Clinton at this point. If she takes this election away from the Democrats, I don't know what I will do.
I'm fine with either Obama or Clinton, but my preference lies with Clinton. While I admire Obama's charisma and ability to rally the masses, most of what he says is based around rhetorics. That worries me when our country is in the state is in, because I can't quite trust that he's capable of accomplishing the amount of change he tauts. But I'll gladly vote for him over McCain, and - judging from Clinton's current position in the democratic race - I will be.
While I'd prefer any democrat to McCain, out of the two democratic candidates I'm leaning towards Obama.