I'm surprised we don't have a current thread on this now that we're down to just 3 candidates. Let's see how this goes!
I'll keep my answer secret, for now. I'll bring it in once the thread heats up, if it does.
Printable View
I'm surprised we don't have a current thread on this now that we're down to just 3 candidates. Let's see how this goes!
I'll keep my answer secret, for now. I'll bring it in once the thread heats up, if it does.
In before RON PAUL WILL END THE NEW WORLD ORDER
Eh I don't follow politics closely, nor do I really believe in our political system. Oh what little I know I'd say McCain as he seems to be the lesser of 3 evils. I mean Hilary just radiates pure evil whenever I look at her, and Obama is trying to cut the NASA budget as I've heard, which is just stupid, so I go with the candidate that seems less evil and I know the least about. :monster:
Don't forget Hillary's story of falling under sniper fire. :p
just 'not-hillary'. I'm not very particular past that.
To be honest I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I definitely want it to be a democrat, though!
I'm for Obama at this point. McCain is just a Bush + Hamster mutation and Hillary is well.... a Clinton.
They are all politicians. Which is to say retarded and corrupt.
Obama, cause McCain is evil and the first female president should be a female.
Hillary Clinton once said 'If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!'Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermachtnis
Which is clearly a place where someone like Clinton belongs, not the Oval Office. :D
None of the above.
If you want a well run country you should definately vote for Gravel or Nader, take my word for it.
I'm in the Obama camp, firmly. He has the potential to steer the country in a wonderful direction, but at the same time, if he fails to implement, we could just as easily be screwed by a royal hairpin. Either way, it's more or less a guarantee at this point that things are going to the convention for the Democrats, which will give McCain the time necessary to capture the middle and look ohh, so wholesomely good in the meantime.
Unless, somehow, Dean actually convinces one of them [the Democratic hopefuls] to give up or the media finally finishes its campaign into turning the election all about the economy (recession is the kiss of death).
I predicted Brock Obama since the election started :D
Obama for me. McCain keeps becoming more and more like Bush as he flip flops on his past positions and Hillary is saying anything to get elected. Her latest is breaking up OPEC and taking them on XD
Obama's still my choice, though I don't feel he has handled a couple of recent problems as well as he could have, at the same time I think certain things have been grossly overblown.
McCain looks increasingly unlikable to me as a candidate.
Clinton was never a consideration for me. Her main con is that she seems to want to be President because she wants the legacy of it, she wants to be the first female Pres., and that she seems willing to do damned near anything to get what she wants. Unlike the other candidates I don't believe she wants to do anything with the Presidency, she only wants to have it.
McCain = republican hamster
Hillary = alarmist video game blaming soccer mom
Obama = neither of those
Obama for the win.
Though if you believe some of the clowns over at Kotaku, Obama hates videogames with a passion. I'm not sure how he's going to overcome wanton stupidity.
From what I've read of the actual articles linked to on Kotaku (screw those dumbass commenters) is that he doesn't think kids should be playing GTA and parents shouldn't let them. TV raising kids and so on. Sounds alright to me.
Oh yes, what he actually believes is perfectly sensible and reasonable - don't let kids play things too mature for them, and don't let things like games and movies take your place as a parent. It's just that the second anyone says anything about videogames, a whole pack of gamers pounce on them like they called for a global ban and said games raped their mother.
I'm hoping (hoping) those people will be too busy with their Xbox Live addictions to actually get out and vote.
They wouldn't be able to vote anyway. They'd go to the polls and scream "VETO VETO VETOOOOOOOOOO" in their nasally voices at the ballots, Halo 3 matchmaker style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
I'm very much an Obama supporter. I think he's the only candidate that's right for America right now.
I turn 18 like 2 days after the election. How lame is that? If I could vote, here is how it would go:
I wanted Huckabee, but he didn't get the Republican nomination, so.....no one. I'd like a Republican in the White house, but I don't know enough about McCain to make a good decision. I am DEFINITELY not voting liberal. NO WAY
At least your voting Republican. :mog:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000X
Then you won't get what you want at all. Geopolitically, McCain is fairly liberal on his stances, with the sole exception being the current operations in the Gulf. Well, it would be an accurate statement if he didn't start hiding behind the Democratic Party banter; either way, his stances haven't changed much since he got the nomination, and with the necessity to capture the vote of politically leaning Independents, he'll be heading more toward center-of-Right. Furthermore, he's made a living on being a maverick of the GOP, and I don't believe that he'll ditch the role anytime soon, at least, not in a radical departure. Dare I say it, his current leanings are comparable to Bush's administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
Did that clear things up? Partisanship is so overrated.
Yeah I am aware that McCain has verty liberal tendencies. I don't know much other than that. That is the exact reason I will not be voting for anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelThen you won't get what you want at all. Geopolitically, McCain is fairly liberal on his stances, with the sole exception being the current operations in the Gulf.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
I'm sorry that I happen to like one party better than the other. I happen to be very conservative, which is why I want to vote for someone that is very conservative. And none of the nominees fit my standard of what I think a president should be. That was why I liked Huckabee. I won't vote for a Republican just because they are Republican. But I will definitely not vote for a Democrat because I do not agree with their liberal views at all.Quote:
Did that clear things up? Partisanship is so overrated.
dennis kucinich :(
duckie, I used to be the same way. Now I'm an absolute centrist. I'm voting Obama merely for the fact that I hate the other two candidates more. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by duckieYeah I am aware that McCain has verty liberal tendencies. I don't know much other than that. That is the exact reason I will not be voting for anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelThen you won't get what you want at all. Geopolitically, McCain is fairly liberal on his stances, with the sole exception being the current operations in the Gulf.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
I'm sorry that I happen to like one party better than the other. I happen to be very conservative, which is why I want to vote for someone that is very conservative. And none of the nominees fit my standard of what I think a president should be. That's why I like Huckabee. I won't vote for a Republican just because they are Republican. But I will definitely not vote for a Democrat because I do not agree with their liberal views at all.Quote:
Did that clear things up? Partisanship is so overrated.
I will remember to cry emo tears for you while I'm going to sleep in my beat-up Camaro and finding absolute refuge in my trickle-up economic, Big Government policies, right next to my candle-lit shrine of Justice Blackmun.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
Oh, please. Your the one who attacked me for being a "partisan".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavrobel
Also, what I don't understand is why so many people are voting for one person just because they don't like the others. That just doesn't make any sense to me. You should vote for a candidate because you like their views, not because they are Republican or Democrat.
God damn America because it has no love for a libertarian :(
Web of LIESQuote:
Originally Posted by duckieOh, please. Your the one who attacked me for being a "partisan".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavrobel
Also, what I don't understand is why so many people are voting for one person just because they don't like the others. That just doesn't make any sense to me. You should vote for a candidate because you like their views, not because they are Republican or Democrat.
I didn't expect you to take that post seriously, but whatever floats your boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
Sorry, MILF. Us peeps in America don't like laissez faire economies, a complete lack of government interference, and moral relativity. We tried it once, and it didn't work.
duckie, relax. I don't think Tavrobel is being serious. He tends to joke around a lot. Don't take it so personally.
Why do I even get involved in these discussions? There is usually no compromising or agreeing of any sort. It seems kind of pointless sometimes.
Your probably right. Sorry if I got a little....uh...heated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Momiji
[mulley]Edit your post if you need to add more, duckie. No need to double post. - Flying Mullet[/mulley]
Those that want to be in a position of power automatically are the least qualified to do so.
Yeah, because everyone who wanted to be a leader was less qualified than their peers. And that is to say that people who did not want to be in power were automatically more apt when thrust forth? I'll remember to tell Taft that, because he would ohh so definitely agree with you. Ohh, hi, Teddy. Hi, FDR. Hi, Churchill*. Make sure you say hello to Jackson and Grant while they are burning in hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Don't you just love sweeping overgeneralizations? I sure do!
Yeah I know he's British. He's also your mother and therefore, awesome.
Everyone knows that the only good leaders are the ones who have it thrust upon them by their peers. Like Squall.
Politics is a dirty dirty dirty game, and if you rise to the top in the kind of environment, you may be a great leader, but there's a good chance you compromised beliefs and morals to get to the top. So yeah, anyone who is currently in the bid for the presidency isn't sunshine and rainbows like they want people to think, even Obama.
I think McCain is playing the game and that what he's saying doesn't necessarily reflect what his true beliefs are. But what's the guy to do? I think if he were to honestly lay out his thoughts and where he would take this country, he would never have been chosen as the Republican nominee. Way too liberal for it. So he plays the game. He says what he thinks republicans want to hear. Thus the flip flopping. I actually think that once he got the Presidency, he'd stop a lot of the pandering to the conservatives and follow more of a middle of the road approach like he's been known to do in the past.
I'm probably gonna vote for Obama come election day. There's something about his smugness that bothers me, but overall I think he's a good candidate.
I think it's silly for people to hate on Hillary the way they are, saying she's evil and such. She's done a lot of good in this world. More than I ever have, and probably ever will. I don't think she's evil. And from all accounts, she's one of the most thoughtful and considerate people on Capital Hill. I just don't think she has the natural charisma or leadership potential as Obama. And I think some of her plans are a bit on the extreme side. Take her health care plan for example. Her health care plan and Obama's health care plan are 95% identical. But Obama's is 5% more conservative than Hillary's. And that's important, I think.
So yeah. Probably gonna be Obama.
A man who blindly follows a wise man is still a fool.
Nom, that picture is seriously epic. Almost as epic as the story of the Citrus Fruits. It's reminding me of something, but I can't figure out what.
Showing agreement is not blind following.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
I did not speak about anyone in particular(as i dont know what you are talking about).. but as they say, retorting is sign of a guilty concience.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouShowing agreement is not blind following.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
The reason I responded to your post is because it was pretty much just a hit and run insult. It didn't specify anyone at all. The only possible response I saw was to the thread title, "Which of the current presidential candidates do you support".Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's KnightI did not speak about anyone in particular(as i dont know what you are talking about).. but as they say, retorting is sign of a guilty concience.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouShowing agreement is not blind following.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
again, i havent read any of the posts in this thread.. i saw the picture though.. so i havent an idea what you are talking about, less why you should feel insulted. I thought id just spread my wisdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouThe reason I responded to your post is because it was pretty much just a hit and run insult. It didn't specify anyone at all. The only possible response I could've seen was basically to the thread title, "Which of the current presidential candidates do you support".Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's KnightI did not speak about anyone in particular(as i dont know what you are talking about).. but as they say, retorting is sign of a guilty concience.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouShowing agreement is not blind following.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
I was talking about following your goverment.. not whatever idea of graneur you have stuck in your head
that is all..
You should've specified, then, that you weren't talking about anyone at all, and that you gave a piece of advice that didn't have anything to do with the thread.
I'll dumb it down for you for things in the future..
If i was talking about you, i wouldve used either your name or a quote.
glad this misunerstanding is solved.
I don't care if you were talking about me or not. You basically said that those whom support a presidential candidate are blindly following them, and are fools. Look at your post, and look at where it is, and tell me if you can tell how it's insulting.
Here that peoples? If AK says something you think is stupid and you reply to it, it's because he's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's KnightI did not speak about anyone in particular(as i dont know what you are talking about).. but as they say, retorting is sign of a guilty concience.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouShowing agreement is not blind following.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Good to know.
Ron Paul might be standing as a Libretarian though! So as a third party candidate he can ROCK THE VOTE and be completed overshadowed by John McCain winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Manus
If I had a vote, I'd probably give it to Clinton. I'm not a fan of Obama because I'm not really convinced that he has much substance behind his inspiring persona. He strikes me as somewhat like David Cameron in that he's very good at inspiring hope in people, but I'm unsure whether or not he can actually deliver. I like the fact that he - personally - is trying to run a clean campaign even if those around him (e.g. Samantha Powers) aren't being the most tactful. I don't like how Clinton's run her campaign, but I don't mind her on the whole. Not really a supporter, but she's the best on offer. I don't think Clinton or Obama would beat McCain in all honesty.
Well, his mother was American.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelYeah, because everyone who wanted to be a leader was less qualified than their peers. And that is to say that people who did not want to be in power were automatically more apt when thrust forth? I'll remember to tell Taft that, because he would ohh so definitely agree with you. Ohh, hi, Teddy. Hi, FDR. Hi, Churchill*. Make sure you say hello to Jackson and Grant while they are burning in hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Don't you just love sweeping overgeneralizations? I sure do!
Yeah I know he's British. He's also your mother and therefore, awesome.
Also, I agree with Miriel's post. It'd be nice if people took more balanced views on the candidate and it does annoy me when people discount a certain party or candidate without giving any rational reasoning behind the assertion. While I would prefer Clinton, I do see that Obama has a lot of strengths and think he's a generally nice chap, but I'm just not wholly convinced.
ROFLMAO!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nominus Experse
Epic win! :p
Obama all the way!
And again, you misunderstand the point(but seeing your record, thats not a big suprise)..Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13Here that peoples? If AK says something you think is stupid and you reply to it, it's because he's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's KnightI did not speak about anyone in particular(as i dont know what you are talking about).. but as they say, retorting is sign of a guilty concience.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouShowing agreement is not blind following.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Good to know.
I say something general, Kentarou takes it personal, i have no idea what he is talking about, and all we are arguing about is whether or not i was talking to him.. as i am myself, i should know whether or not i am talking about someone..
but as you obviously know what i mean better then myself, enlighten us Roto about your deduction that im right if someone thinks what i say is stupid..
because what i actually said wasnt even the point.. but as usual, the point matters little to you doesnt it? As long as you get to bash me.
If someone follows another without actually knowing and agreeing what they stand for(that is what blindly means imo), then yes, they would be fools. But it was you who took that personally, i still have no idea why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentarou
I want to vote for Obama's pastor; he's hilarious.
http://www.JEREMYTIME/mondatime/kaocinnamoroll.gif
I approve of this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall banana
You accused Kentarou of being guilty of whatever it is you're bitching about because he actually responded to you. Sounds like I got it right the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's KnightAnd again, you misunderstand the point(but seeing your record, thats not a big suprise)..Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13Here that peoples? If AK says something you think is stupid and you reply to it, it's because he's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's KnightI did not speak about anyone in particular(as i dont know what you are talking about).. but as they say, retorting is sign of a guilty concience.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouShowing agreement is not blind following.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Good to know.
I say something general, Kentarou takes it personal, i have no idea what he is talking about, and all we are arguing about is whether or not i was talking to him.. as i am myself, i should know whether or not i am talking about someone..
but as you obviously know what i mean better then myself, enlighten us Roto about your deduction that im right if someone thinks what i say is stupid..
because what i actually said wasnt even the point.. but as usual, the point matters little to you doesnt it? As long as you get to bash me.
AK, I've described to you quite clearly what I found insulting. You showed no specification as to whom you were speaking to, and thus, I looked at your post as an ignorant and unwarranted statement against showing support for a presidential candidate.
Thats a given.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelI approve of this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall banana
Either him or Barillary Clibama.
What a bunch of morons you are.. I accuse no one, I talk to no one, make one general speculation..
so if you dont agree with that, or take it personal..
I dont give a :skull::skull::skull::skull:, it says more about you then me..
If you have a problem with it, go beg mullet, foa or leeza to delete it, if they are willing to do that on unfounded speculation.
Oh I'm sure they're willing to delete it. They might not appreciate you calling people "morons" though.
Holy crap, can we have one semi-serious thread outside of EoEO that doesn't turn into a pseudo-flame-fest?
I know people are purposely pushing buttons while still staying within the rules and it's getting tiring. Seriously folks, knock it off.
Anyone but Obama. Preferably McCain. Why? I want to see the population of the internet whine and cry like they did when Bush won. Their reactions if their precious little Obama lost would be priceless.
Of course, he won't, but y'know. They're all the same anyway.
*snip*
[mulley]As I said before, this part of the conversation is over. - Flying Mullet.[/mulley]
*snip*[mulley]
Oops, I clicked "snip".[/mulley]
yeahQuote:
Originally Posted by rubah
That's kind of what I think... or at least what I hope for. I mean, a guy who was a POW in 'Nam suddenly approving torture when right-wingers are trying to spin it? I have a hard trouble believing he's earnest in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
It could just be wishful thinking though. I like the idea of a race where either person who makes it into office doesn't particularly try to pander to one audience. My support is for Obama right now. I'm really hoping he clenches the nomination; Hillary's had some things happen to her publicly that make me not want to trust her.
Bosnia pretty much sealed the deal for me that she either can't remember details well what-so-ever, or she'll flat out lie to paint a pretty picture of herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
I watched Obama's speech today live, and he was most certainly better spoken there than anywhere. I think he's had a lot of time to refine it and practice it, because unlike other times he speaks in public, it was not littered with "um", "er", and repetition.
That is because this was a pre written speech and not an interview/debate where he is asked questions and has to think about what to respond with ;D His speeches through out the campaign have always sounded like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouBosnia pretty much sealed the deal for me that she either can't remember details well what-so-ever, or she'll flat out lie to paint a pretty picture of herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
I watched Obama's speech today live, and he was most certainly better spoken there than anywhere. I think he's had a lot of time to refine it and practice it, because unlike other times he speaks in public, it was not littered with "um", "er", and repetition.
Yeah, you're right. He knows how to talk at times like that, but when he's questioned, he's not too good.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnmThat is because this was a pre written speech and not an interview/debate where he is asked questions and has to think about what to respond with ;D His speeches through out the campaign have always sounded like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentarouBosnia pretty much sealed the deal for me that she either can't remember details well what-so-ever, or she'll flat out lie to paint a pretty picture of herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
I watched Obama's speech today live, and he was most certainly better spoken there than anywhere. I think he's had a lot of time to refine it and practice it, because unlike other times he speaks in public, it was not littered with "um", "er", and repetition.
I'd vote McCain.
Republicans fear Obama victory after polls shock | World news | The Observer
He might just do it. This is great news.
"O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy"
HAY! CANADIANS CAN'T VOTE!!! :hot::hot:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
Ooh, you and your communism...
Whoever wins, we lose.
That's pretty much the feeling anymore. But by the looks of it, anyone who wins can't do much worse than this administration. I think they'd have to try to do that...Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
NADER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jk. obama. dude, i saw on the news the other day a senator called osama bin laden "obama bin laden" on accident XD i was upset. so was he lol.
I skimmed through the topic, and lol'd extra hard.
McCain would be the most generic. I mean, God. While Hilary and Obama are duking it out, "YOU'RE A WOMAN" this, and "OMG, UR BLAQ, DON'T TAKE MY CHICKEN" that, McCain is going to sneak into the presidency.
Like a ninja. A white, plain, ninja that everyone has seen before.
But on the subject of Democrats, Hilary would be a better choice.
First woman president. Bill by her side. If she dies, Bill would become president again. Breaking history by breaking history.
And ah. When was the last time our economy was through prosperity? That's right. When Bill was president.
And if it's her last two terms, he MAY get to run again. But the Constitution wasn't set up for this. Our founding fathers never foresaw a woman or a colored president. <3
So, lawls. Hilary FTW.
Experience > Ideals.
No We Can't.
Uhhh. The vice president becomes president if the president dies...
In any case, at this point in time my full support goes to Barack Obama. Really, the fact that he's lead the cleanest campaign in this election says a lot. Additionally, I buy into the whole inspirational thing. Sure, he might not get a ton done, but I'd rather have someone go into office with the attitude of change, and do what they can, as opposed to promises of more of the same or a "I'll see what I can do attitude."
I'd rather have someone go into office who actually has some morals.
I really wish we had a more conservative candidate.
I still think that McCain is more like a liberal in a conservative disguise. That's why I wouldn't be voting (if I could). No conservatives.
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.
none, since i don't live in the US, i really give a damn :/ however, if i HAD to give a damn, i would choose obama. idk why but he just seems like the happiest guy i guess xD
I'm not neccessarily talking about religion. I'm just talking about having good values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavrobel
... 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
ACTUALLY I wanted Huckabee. That's who I've been supporting. But he didn't get the nomination. That is someone that I think has morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavrobel
And I was relieved when Huckabee dropped out. He doesn't have a sense of reality and wants to make the US government a Christian government, which is evil, plain and simple. The US is a country with Christians, not a Christian country. When one religion's beliefs are pushed into law, other religions are discriminated against and freedoms are removed. That's immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckie
^I thought Aids island was a brillaint idea though. And also I agree with him when he says the constitution needs rewriting. Because if it doesnt agree completely with his interpretation of God's will then it should be changed.
Aids Island? It sounds like a magical place, tell me more about it.
I enjoy Obama as a candidate because everything people say that they think is bad, is EASILY dismissable in my mind. All the stuff you've heard on the news. RW, he wants to talk with enemies without conditions, that thing his wife said, etc etc. I'm happy he wants to talk with enemies of the US, and everything I feel like the media is forcing these things to be issues, when they really don't matter. Don't worry Obama won't enslave white people... in his first term ;) lolz
Hah, I think I saw that. "Will you enslave the white race?"
"Our campaign has no intentions to do that."
I dislike every single one of them, probably Clinton the most. I was skeptical of McCain five years ago when he was everyone's favorite "maverick" and he has just proven me right. I really really don't like McCain.
I dislike Obama, too, but a bit less than the rest. He is a lot of talk but in action seems to be just as big of a panderer as the rest of them.
I'm really torn. Obama in and of himself seems better, but I'm not fond of the idea of Obama + Democrat-controlled Congress. His horde of ardent followers seems to really think he'll actually "Change" how Washington works like he's repeated over and over again (without delving too far into specifics, of course), which amuses me. However, I have learned my lesson from the Republican-controlled government for most of the past eight years. I think McCain overall may be a lesser evil.
Either way, I will be voting with a bad taste in my mouth this fall.