Possible Presidential Canidates for 2008

Okay, this might be a bit early...but I guess I can take a jump start on our next Presidential canidates.

Democrats: John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore
Republicans: Rudy Juliani, John McCain

I only listed the most likely of nominees of course. Unless something fatal happens to these 5, one of them will be the next president of the United States.

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of these 5 canidates, but the least preferred is Rudy Juliani. John McCain's more liberal views might appeal to Democrats, but obviously that hurts his chances with some of the more "ultra" conservatives. Hilary Clinton, who will probably still be very popular, is a unique choice...mainly because she'll be the first female ever to run. Al Bore, I mean Gore, would be a nice choice if he still carries some of Clinton's old policies with him...and John Kerry will probably still hold a slight advantage over any of the Democratic nominees, though I still think Hilary Clinton, in terms of popularity, will be more popular than either of them.

Rudy Juliani has some more liberal views, despite being a Republican, but I think he'll switch to a stronger conservative side to kind of seperate himself from John McCain.

Obviously, if John McCain ran with John Kerry(what's with all the Johns?)...maybe things would have been different this year. Kerry offered the vice presidency job and Secretary of State...but McCain had personal agendas. If he accepted Kerry's offer, then he would have to wait at least 8 years to run for president if Kerry was elected. If he helped Bush win(which he did), he would only wait four years.

But I think I speak for most liberals on this forum that we all wouldn't mind too much about John McCain being a Republican president.

I'd say he's a LOT better than Bush. I still wish Kerry had won, of course... :( I can't wait to see Hillary Clinton run. I've heard a lot of people say she will. I find it hard to believe she would win, as I don't see our country as accepting enough yet to have a woman president. Still, I bet she'd do a good job.

Don't forget Ralph Nader!

Yeah I wouldn't mind John McCain as president, but most other Republicans are just, no. Personally, id like to see Dennis Kucinich as president.

I'd vote against McCain most likely, unless the democrats trot out someone absolutely pathetic. Again. I'd be happy with him as president, though.

FORGET IT, PEOPLE, BUSH WILL HAVE DESTROYED THE WORLD BY 2008!!!



What? Someone had to say it :D

I doubt any of those people will run for President in 2008. Also, it's spelled candidate, and Rudy Guiliani. And McCain is not liberal and he didn't run with Kerry because he is a Republican.

Anyway, some people who I think might run...

Repulicans:
Jeb Bush (gov of Florida)
Mark Racicot (former gov of Montana)
Bill Frist (Senate majority leader)

Democrats:
Mark Warner (gov of Virginia)
Bill Richardson (gov of New Mexico)

Quote:

---

Democrats: John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore
Republicans: Rudy Juliani, John McCain

---

There are a few problems with this
-Kerry
A)Hes cashed out. Spent alot of his wifes money and sold his biggest house.
b)He didnt win this time what makes you think he'll win the next
-Hilary Clinton
A)As horrible as it sounds a female will not become president for a while.
B)Shes a clinton
+Al Gore
A)He might have a chance, He did after all beat bush in 2000.

+Juliani
A)He has a chance
?McCain
A)No idea Who he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

I doubt any of those people will run for President in 2008. Also, it's spelled candidate, and Rudy Guiliani. And McCain is not liberal and he didn't run with Kerry because he is a Republican.

---

McCain is more liberal on certain issues Republicans are not. He didn't run with Kerry, not because he was a Republican(that's part of the reason), but because he has personal agendas. If he knew he had no shot at the presidency, I'm pretty sure he would've taken up on Kerry's offer.

1) Hillary is not electable. a)Too many people hate her guts; b) too many people think she's way out there to the left, although she's more of a Lieberman type Democrat c) she's a woman; d) she's a clinton

2) Kerry: oh, please, once Republicans starts the old tune about flip-flopping....

3)Jeb Bush: do you really think Americans will want to put another Bush in the White House

4) McCaine: he may be a good candidate from Republicans.

Bill Frist will run, I'm sure.
John Edwards, i don't think he's going to have a second chance.

It would be only natural for Cheney to run, but with his heart troubles he is out.

I would like to see Colin Powell run (although he won't). And maybe, Sen. Joe Biden.

By the way, do you think Barak Obama is going to take a shot at PE-2012?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lubasha

By the way, do you think Barak Obama is going to take a shot at PE-2012?

---

He's black...and in this country that automatically disqualifies him for President. Not saying this country is racist...but let's face it, this country is going to have to be a hell of a lot more diverse to give any chance for a black man to have even 10% of the votes.

Arnold Schwarzenegger! 2008! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

I doubt any of those people will run for President in 2008.

---

Hilary Clinton 5/1
Rudolph Giuliani 15/2
Bill Richardson 10/1
John Edwards 10/1
Tom Ridge 12/1
Bill First 14/1
Evan Bayh 14/1
Colin Powell 16/1
And apparently Arnold Schwarzenegger 66/1

All the major betting agencies I've checked have Hilary Clinton somewhere between 6-1 and 4-1 favourite to win. In fact, looking through various websites, the general assumption by news agencies and betting agencies alike is that it's just a matter of when, not if, when it comes to her - rather surprising in a country which has never seen a female president.

BoB's the first person to spell Giuliani's last name correctly, but that's beside the point. :)

If Hillary runs, she'll have Bill's influence behind her, and she'll get the women vote.

And Arnold can't run; he's not a natural-born American citizen. That will not be changed, and if it does, I'm starting a revolution. Forget that "run off to Canada" crap that a bunch of people I know will do if that rule is changed. Which it shouldn't be, as the framers of the Constitution put it in there. And it's wrong to change that.

Let me see who I think would possibly run.

Republican:
Sen. John McCain: He ran in 2000 and was a good candidate with great ideas. Though, his maverick views were "too much" for the "modern conservative"

Rudy Giuliani: He may run, but he's too liberal a Republican, though that may be good to pick up Democrats to vote for him, but it may cost him a good portion of Republicans.

Sen. Bill Frist: Current Senate Majority Leader, he said he's sure to run in 2008. A former doctor, like Dean Howard, may work to his advantage in the Health Care department.

Some other possibilities:
Gov. Jeb Bush (unlikely), Sen. George Allen, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell (unlikely), Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger (unlikely), VP Dick Cheney (unlikely) and some others.

Democrat:
Sen. John Edwards: Yes, he can run again, and possibly even make the ticket because he has southern charm, which John Kerry lacks.

Sen. Hillary Clinton: As much as I hate her, she has star power because she has Clinton as a name, and would be the first female to run as President.

Gov. Howard Dean: He's energetic, can get the youth vote, and is pretty Internet-wise, as he earned hard cash through the web. Also, he's a former doctor, so he do good with the Health Care.

Other possibilities:
Sen. Joe Lieberman (unlikely), Al Gore (unlikely), Gov. Tom Vilsack, Gov. Mark Warner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Bill Richardson, and some others.

It's also possible that Jesse Ventura may run as a third party.

This may sound sexist, but I think people would vote for Hilary just for the gimmick of things - just like people did with Arnold in California. It'll be the first woman in office, so people would eat it up.

If we had Clinton and Bush running in '08, I would vote any random third party just to take votes away from the both of them.

Quote:

---

she has Clinton as a name, and would be the first female to run as President.

---

There was a female who ran for president last election. She just didn't get nominated as the democratic presidential nominee.

Actually, I mean she would be the first woman on a ticket.

I know Mosely-Braun ran last year.

Gore's out of it by now, surely. Barack Obama's too young, still. John Kerry could run again, but he'd get annihilated by any centrist republican, such as McCain or Giuliani. If the republicans want a third term in power, they'll probably have to take back the centre, otherwise the Dems will pounce on it.

I think it'll be Clinton vs. McCain.

Geraldine Ferraro was Mondale's running mate on the Democratic ticket in 1984. Winona Laduke was Nader's running mate in 2000. Both were Vice Presidential candidates, but it would have been a start.

Running FOR President. PRESIDENT.

I really hope Barak Obama doesn't run in 2008. He's far too young and needs some experience in the Senate. Now if he ran in 2012, I'd vote for him, no problem.

In 2008, though, I really hope McCain runs, especially after getting beat for the ticket by someone like Bush. McCain would do so much better than Bush could ever do.

And about Hillary Clinton. I loved Bill. I thought he was great, but Hillary puts out a bad vibe. I dunno what it is. I felt the same thing from Kerry and Bush, and I don't like it, whatever it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

Arnold Schwarzenegger! 2008! :p

---

He couldnt even if everyone in america wanted him to. You hafto be BORN here and been living here for 15(Somewhere around there) years.

dan quayle lol

[q=Shadow Nexus]FORGET IT, PEOPLE, BUSH WILL HAVE DESTROYED THE WORLD BY 2008!!!



What? Someone had to say it :D[/q]
[img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]

I'm very much in favour of Hillary Clinton. She has all her husband's strong points, but few of his weaknesses. In fact... Kerry's loss in this year's election will make it possible for her to run in 2008. That's probably the best thing about President Bush's re-election, in my opinion.

I didn't realise Rudi Giuliani was running. A fine leader; America could do far worse.

But I'd still rather see Clinton. It just depends on whether the strong traditionalist elements of the US public would be ready for a female President.

I wouldn't mind a female president. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what gender/race someone is, but Hillary just has a bad vibe.

Republicans: Rudy Juliani, John McCain
I think these are two great choices :D

Rudy Giuliani is jingoistic and generally overrated. He mutters hollow odes to American patriotism and cleaned up the New York streets with a Mussolinic skill. Plus, he has medical history of cancer and a messy divorce. Plus he says he doesn't want to run.

McCain is a good leader, a very respectable Senator, a bit fo amaverick, but he is anything but liberal. McCain matches the essence of the Republican party before the Bush big-government wing took control of the party. McCain stands for social conservatism, small government, personal responsibility, and strong leadership. These aren't necessarily bad stances, but they aren't exactly left of center.

I have to agree with the assessment around here, more or less.

Word on the street is that Jebby Bush has an inside track to 2008, if he stays low key for a while, as he's considered by many on the Right to be the "smart and savvy" Bush. Though, the question is, as many have pointed out, will America be Bushwhacked by then? My guess is yes, and that we'll see someone else gain in prominence by around 2006.

As for the Democrats, they can't go with Kerry because in my opinion, Kerry was too Moderate a Democrat. This election proved that you can't hope to steal votes from Conservatives because their core is VERY much strengthened, be it from Karl Rove, Religion, or whatever. So, the logical conclusion I draw upon is this: Democrats need to MAKE more Democrats in this country, and the best way to do this is to put as much distance as you can on issues from the Republicans. Instead of being for Civil Unions, be for Gay Marriage, which to me, is logical anyway. Be entirely for stem cell research, be for Universal healthcare, be for pro-choice, ideas that can galvinize the Left and can add more Democrats to the next election.

Hilary Clinton or Howard Dean could be good choices as both have proven firm Liberal stances, which believe it or not, IS NOT A BAD THING. The worst thing the Conservatives have done in this country is demonize the word "Liberal" and make it seem as if there is nothing good Democrats or Liberals represent, when in fact, it's almost always 50/50. Sooner or later, I have to believe this country will realize that an entirely Right/Conservative agenda cannot work, but rather you HAVE to get some Liberal programs in as well to get the country moving forward. If the Democrats can begin right now to expand their base, I think we'll see a very different outcome in 2008.

So, my prediction for 2008:

Republican: Still Up In The Air
Democrat: Hilary Clinton or Howard Dean.

Food for thought: If Clinton is the Democrats pick, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see the Republicans choose Condy Rice, who could trump the sex card with the race card. It's sad when politics becomes almost a game of "can you top this?"

Take care all.

Pfft, a woman for president? No way.

Rudolph Guilianni seems like a very good choice... he made an incredibly good impression on me. Sort of devoted like Bush, only with the necessary extra IQ points.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see the Republicans choose Condy Rice, who could trump the sex card with the race card. It's sad when politics becomes almost a game of "can you top this?"

---

Then we need Woopie Goldberg. Black, Jewish, AND a woman. If only she was gay... :D

For all those people who are so quick to dismiss Hilary Clinton, it might be worth reading up on just how popular she is.

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton is favorite to win the next U.S. presidential election in 2008 after George Bush won re-election to the White House.

The wife of former President Bill Clinton was installed at 5-to-1 odds by the betting agency Ladbrokes and 6-to-1 by bookmaker William Hill to take over from Bush after his second term.

Bush had been Ladbrokes' favorite for the whole of the 2004 election campaign. It's estimated that some 8 million pounds was spent wagering the U.S. election.

Ladbrokes has Hillary Clinton at 5-1 followed by former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani at 7-1 and Kerry running mate John Edwards at 8-1.

Despite the former first lady not running for president in 2004, a broad swath of voters refuses to give up hope that the New York senator will launch a bid for the White House. A survey last year by Quinnipiac University poll, showed an astonishing 43% of Democrats surveyed would back Hillary Clinton if she entered the 2004 race.

Gen. Wesley Clark came a distant second, with just 10% of the vote. Excluding Clinton, Clark's support jumped to 17%, a four-point edge over Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and ex-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

"Despite the hoopla over Dean and Clark, if you put Mrs. Clinton into the mix she wipes them out," says Maurice Carroll, director of the nonpartisan Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Conn. "Usually when we put her in [the poll] no one else gets into double digits."

Many Democrats saw Clinton as the best hope to unseat George Bush for some legitimate reasons. She's a celebrity with unquestionable name recognition. Next, she has built a track record of legislative successes while holding office in New York. Third, and perhaps most tellingly, she sparks broad-based enthusiasm among Democratic voters, something the current crop of candidates has failed to do.

---

Like it or not, there will be a first female president eventually and there are just as many people who will yell "gimmick" as there are who will yell "sexist" - nobody should be yelling gimmick, they should be pointing out flaws in their political nature, and nobody that I know of has managed to come up with much more than "Oh, she isn't that great..." or something similar. What's so bad about her? Cry gimmick and you're the fool, not anyone else.

I think Hillary clinton or somebody who is black man... they really know what is going on at the poor streets of LA or some other cities.

Out of the choices that were listed in the beginning of this post, I think I'd be okay with any of them EXCEPT for Kerry or Gore. Odds are neither one of them would make it anyway, but my god...Someone mentioned feeling "bad vibes" from certain candidates; I felt one from both of these guys.

I think Hillary would be interesting, to say the very least. I thought that Bill did a very good job during his term, if you rule out his personal life and hope that he doesn't apply those morals to his job. Hillary seems to be a very strong individual and she could probably do some good for us as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

FORGET IT, PEOPLE, BUSH WILL HAVE DESTROYED THE WORLD BY 2008!!!

---

Really? I liked Gore. The thing is that Gore actually HAS a sense of humor, albeit a very dry one. People don't realize that. People who aren't Futurama fans, at least ;D

I like Gore and Kerry.

I don't think Kerry should even try. He just came off a failure and going back in again so soon would bring up what everyone thought about now and would probably be quick to reject him and call him on all these changes in stance.

Gore has a chance. If he can stay the way he is now then maybe.

Here is a list posted on another forum for both sides. Not all are realistic to win the nomination but they might still try(al sharpton).

Republicans

Jeb Bush (R) - With term limits looming, Jeb Bush won't be able to run for governor of Florida in 2006. You can bet he's thinking about running for president in 2008.

Elizabeth Dole (R) - Currently the North Carolina senator, Dole ran for president in 2000 but didn't quite catch on. She's a senator now, might she have an eye on 2008?

Rudy Giuliani (R) - A moderate Republican and beloved former mayor of New York City, Guiliani might well be the next great candidate that unites America, ala Clinton and Reagan.

Charles Grassley (R) - Iowa senator

Chuck Hagel (R) - Moderate senator from Nebraska

Alan Keyes (R) - Do you really think he'll ever just go away?

John McCain (R) - The moderate senator from Arizona, has significant crossover appeal to independents and democrats.

Condoleezza Rice (R) - Rice may run for senate in California 2006, especially if the popular Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) retires. If she doesn't run for senate, Rice might make an interesting candidate for president in 2008. There is already a Draft Rice movement underway.

Mit Romney (R) - Mass. Gov. Romney reportedly has presidential aspirations.

George Pataki (R) - It's been reported in a few places that New York Gov. Pataki may have presidential ambitions.

Colin Powell (R) - With tremendous appeal to moderates, Secretary of State Powell might be convinced to run, although he has declined to run in 1996 and 2000.

Rick Santorum (R) - The ultraconservative Pennsylvania senator may run for president in 2008; however, he must first survive his 2006 re-election to the senate.

Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) - Under the current rules, Arnold would not be allowed to hold the office of President because he was not born in the United States. But no one should let a petty thing like the Constitution get in their way. A group called www.OperationArnold.com is working to get Congress to change the highest law of the land, all for Arnold.

Democrats

Evan Bayh (D) - The popular senator from Indiana.

Joe Biden (D) - Maryland's Sen. Biden was flirting with the idea in 2003, but opted out.

Rod Blagojevich (D) - Even before he took office as Illinois' chief executive, G-Rod has been said to have presidential ambitions. But he'll have a tough re-election bid in 2006 to worry about first.

Hillary Clinton (D) - Hillary is definitely on for 2008. In fact, I'm having this frightening vision that it will be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton in 2008. Aghhhhh!!!!

Howard Dean (D) - The former Vermont Gov. Dean is using his grassroots organization to stay in the political spotlight, perhaps in hopes of a 2008 run.

John Edwards (D) - If Kerry loses in '04, you can bet Sen. Edwards will be in it for 2008.

Al Gore (D) - There is always the possibility that Gore will run again. There's a Draft Gore site already up.

John Kerry (D) - Win or lose, Kerry will be talked about as a contender in 2008. But if he loses, don't bet on him running.

Blanche Lincoln (D) - Popular Ark. senator.

Barack Obama (D) - It has been said often enough by supporters and the media that Obama should run, but Obama is unlikely to run for president before his first term is over. He's young. Give him at least until 2012 or 2016 to rack up a host of big accomplishments first.

Nancy Pelosi (D) - House Minority Leader from California.

Others

Jesse Ventura (I) - The Associated Press reports that the Harvard visiting professor and former Gov. of Minnesota is considering a run for president. For Ventura, there are a couple of downsides to being president, however. 1) Ventura loves his freedom, and 2) his wife is not too keen on the idea of living in Washington D.C., the article reports.

Quote:

---

John Kerry (D) - Win or lose, Kerry will be talked about as a contender in 2008. But if he loses, don't bet on him running.

---

Quote:

---

John Edwards (D) - If Kerry loses in '04, you can bet Sen. Edwards will be in it for 2008.

---

Uhh... what planet did you come from? Kerry DID lose.

I do believe this was posted from BEFORE the election and as I said above, I got this from another forum.

Sorry, I missed that.

Well I did forget to mention that it was from before the election so lets call it a 50/50 right wrong situation.

I have to admit, I didn't pay much attention to a lot of the Clinton/Gore debates back when they were in the runnings. I just remember having a distinct dislike for him. I do remember he was for gun control, which knocked off tons of points for me. As for the rest of the possible candidates, I don't think I'm gonna be worrying too much NOW about it. I need a break after this last run X_X

Quote:

---

FORGET IT, PEOPLE, BUSH WILL HAVE DESTROYED THE WORLD BY 2008!!!

---

Those evil Republicans!!! Were all going to die!!!

Anyways, I dont think Hillary would get elected if she ever did run because shes a woman... I hope Joe Lieberman runs because hes cool. Also Arnold Shwarz. whenever they modify teh Constitution.

JOHN STEWART FOR PRESIDENT 2008

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

FORGET IT, PEOPLE, BUSH WILL HAVE DESTROYED THE WORLD BY 2008!!!

---

Trowa: :cool:

"JON STEWART FOR PRESIDENT 2008"

With Lewis Black as his running mate!

Take care all.

I wouldn't be too surprised if we have a President running as the incumbent in 2008.

I'm not so disillusioned to think that Bush is going to prop himself up as president for life.

They're much more devious than that, THEY will simply get another mouthpiece

My statement could also be true if Bush leaves office before his term is over and whoever happens to be the Vice President at that time ascends to the Presidency. (see 1972, the last time a Republican president with questionable ethical practices was reëlected during wartime while the country was strongly divided)

I don't think anyone would vote for Cheney, and I don't think the republican congress would impeach their golden boy for ANYTHING.

I don't think Bush will be impeached and I don't think Cheney will be Vice Pres much longer.

Or alive, for that matter?

I don't think Bush or Cheney are in very good health. I wonder if Bush is going to have his physical now that the election is over. I guess he still has to wait for the Electoral College.

It would be good that after a while someone archives this. That way in 4 years we'll see who made a fool of themselves or who looks like a sage.

Either that or it will be used against eest in a court of law.

I'd rather like to see Hillary run for office in 2008. In my opinion she'd make an excellent candidate. She was an admirable first lady during her stay in the white house, and has been just as worthy in her position as senator. In truth, I don't believe the opposition has a candidate of matching calibur, at least at present moment, that they could present.

However, though some facts lean in her favor (such as the proportion of women voters to men, and -oddly enough- the publicity she has recieved from her husbands scandal, though this will also work against her), the recent turnout of overwhelming votes for President Bush is a formidable tide against her, speaking to the extreme technical of things. It will take the course of events the next four years bring to get a more clear view of the chances she has. If it runs well under Republican control with little incident, I believe there will not be enough momentum to turn the tide.I hope she does run in spite of it all.

The democrats can win the election of 2008 regardless of what Bush does in the next four years if they can make more democrats instead of attempting to sway Republicans away. If the Democrats can find one voice to represent them and their base, then the playing field will again be level. The big question here is "If".

Take care all.

I agree with that. The party doesn't seem very strong at its core, as it stands.

I think Obama can be that guy but he isn't ready for 2008. 2012 he would be ready...maybe he can still be the voice and just not run for pres...vice pres :)

Let's not forget the Kim Campbell debacle.

I just heard that Jesse Ventura would attempt to run as a democrat. Is this a good thing

I like McCain and Powell, but I also believe that Dean and Mrs. Clinton would be interesting choices. Obama would do well too, but as stated he lacks experience at the moment. I think I'd be content if any one of them were on the ballot. Actually, if two of them were on the final ballot, I'd be quite happy indeed.

Knowing America and knowing the stupidness and warmongering of your presidents could not be any higher I would have to say Ronald McDonald and Arnold Schwarzenegger.One is stupid and one is a warmonger.Maybe have a dual lead.It would complete it.

It wouldnt be right if the terminator was president. i mean, you wouldnt have american citizens be president or prime minister of france would you? i know it sounds racisit, and not granting equal rights to everyone, but i dont want to see arnold schwarzeneger in the presidential seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawkey3

It wouldnt be right if the terminator was president. i mean, you wouldnt have american citizens be president or prime minister of france would you? i know it sounds racisit, and not granting equal rights to everyone, but i dont want to see arnold schwarzeneger in the presidential seat.

---

I dont understand what you are saying?Arnold Schwarzenegger is a citizen of USA, how else would he make it governor of california.

I think the law that only native-born citizens can run for President is rediculously outdated, but I, too, do NOT wish to see Schwarzenegger in the presidential seat. He's said before that he'd be emperor of the world if he could be, that ambition plus that much power is NOT something I want to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

I think the law that only native-born citizens can run for President is rediculously outdated, but I, too, do NOT wish to see Schwarzenegger in the presidential seat. He's said before that he'd be emperor of the world if he could be, that ambition plus that much power is NOT something I want to see.

---

Better Arnold Schwarzenegger than that ass of an idiot, warmonger George W Bush

I'm quite unfond of Bush, but that hasn't blinded me to other dangers.

If a man says he would be emperor of the world if he could be, and is given one of the most powerful positions in the world, I can see him abusing that power. Remember, Hitler was elected in a democratic election. Now, I am not in any way saying that Schwarzenegger will be like Hitler was (note that I'm not saying he won't be either), but I AM saying that the factors are there that could cause quite a bad situation. Also, where Nazi Germany failed, America might yet succeed. We have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and a highly effective military. Were we to launch an offensive, it would be very hard to stop us.

It's all well and good to dislike Bush for what he's done to our country, but one must remember that he isn't the only one out there who can do damage. Blind criticism of Bush whilst ignoring other threats is foolhardy to say the least. While I may have been considerered just another "anybody but Bush" person, you can be sure that I followed the candidates closely and simply deemed that John Kerry would have been a better choice than Bush, albeit not a stellar one. We need to be careful of who we vote for and not let our emotions so intrude upon us that it overrides our good sense.

You are going to launch an offensive one day anyway.Looking how your country pollutes the earth just because of their ideal.blabla you need two cars per family?You need your stomach full of all that junk food you eat everyday?I aint hinting on all the Americans but most of them.
It is almost as if you hate the world and want to get rid of it ASAP.
Maybe thats why Bush likes God so much.He is preparing for the afterlife.

Please refrain from using the word "you" when posting things like that, I find it offensive as an American to be stereotyped in such a way, just as I find it offensive that you would stereotype the people who live in my country in that way.

Is Bush a good president? I wouldn't say so, some would disagree.

Quote:

---

It is almost as if you hate the world and want to get rid of it ASAP.

---

And the evidence for this is what now? The invasion of Iraq? Or are you referring to the polution output? Nevermind, of course, that other countries such as Japan or China or Europe also put out massive quantities of pollution, by God all Americans are McDonald's-eating Gun-wielding obese morons who don't know one end of the remote from the other. So that means that they must be hell bent on destroying the world, it's not like any other country would do something like that.

Quote:

---

Maybe thats why Bush likes God so much.He is preparing for the afterlife.

---

Err... this is supposed to be insulting? One of the major tenants of any religion is to love God (or the Gods) and to be granted an eternal reward in the afterlife. This applies to many faiths across the globe, and most certainly isn't some idiosyncrasy of Bush alone. Bush is a man of faith and, for better or for worse, he believes God is a guiding principle in his life. This is neither uncommon, nor automatically dangerous. However, in the case of Bush, I do find his justification through religion to be acutely disturbing and endangering of the country's laws of separation of Church and State. Deriding him for his faith alone, however, is both foolish and intolerant.

Quote:

---

Please refrain from using the word "you" when posting things like that, I find it offensive as an American to be stereotyped in such a way, just as I find it offensive that you would stereotype the people who live in my country in that way.

---

Sorry I stated it a little bit false.You are right about the "yous".Like I said I didnt feel that way about all Americans.Some of them are very nice, friendly folk.

Quote:

---

And the evidence for this is what now? The invasion of Iraq? Or are you referring to the polution output? Nevermind, of course, that other countries such as Japan or China or Europe also put out massive quantities of pollution, by God all Americans are McDonald's-eating Gun-wielding obese morons who don't know one end of the remote from the other. So that means that they must be hell bent on destroying the world, it's not like any other country would do something like that.

---

You are right about China and Japan but Europe isnt as polluting as the USA.
Sorry but for me whenever I see an American commercial(Top Shop is even here) or often when I see an American movie it seems so stupid and pointless to me that you cant even laugh or cry about it.All the movies seem so oriented on sex and violence(especially violence) or about the stupid American Ideal(which I hate).Also it aint just the movies.Bringing war into Iraq wasnt justified.Many people think about the 9/11 but they dont think about the around 100 000 civilian casualties that Iraq and Afganistan have suffered.And it aint just the casualties.Iraq's reputation for example also has probably been broken because of the Americans.Iraqi and Afganistanis have been insulted/put in shame infront of the other Islam believers for good as they have failed to defend their country from the invaders.And when you begin to think about the reason of the war you can only think about one thing:Oil.Yes no matter what lamented reason they brought as the reason of the war, the true reason to go there is getting more oil.And what will they do with the oil?
Obvious.They will pollute the world even more.

Quote:

---

Err... this is supposed to be insulting? One of the major tenants of any religion is to love God (or the Gods) and to be granted an eternal reward in the afterlife. This applies to many faiths across the globe, and most certainly isn't some idiosyncrasy of Bush alone. Bush is a man of faith and, for better or for worse, he believes God is a guiding principle in his life. This is neither uncommon, nor automatically dangerous. However, in the case of Bush, I do find his justification through religion to be acutely disturbing and endangering of the country's laws of separation of Church and State. Deriding him for his faith alone, however, is both foolish and intolerant.

---

He seems so pointlessly hung up on god, he is bringing it into his politics, which a modern leader shouldnt do.

Quote:

---

You are right about China and Japan but Europe isnt as polluting as the USA.
Sorry but for me whenever I see an American commercial(Top Shop is even here) or often when I see an American movie it seems so stupid and pointless to me that you cant even laugh or cry about it.All the movies seem so oriented on sex and violence(especially violence) or about the stupid American Ideal(which I hate).Also it aint just the movies.Bringing war into Iraq wasnt justified.Many people think about the 9/11 but they dont think about the around 100 000 civilian casualties that Iraq and Afganistan have suffered.And it aint just the casualties.Iraq's reputation for example also has probably been broken because of the Americans.Iraqi and Afganistanis have been insulted/put in shame infront of the other Islam believers for good as they have failed to defend their country from the invaders.And when you begin to think about the reason of the war you can only think about one thing:Oil.Yes no matter what lamented reason they brought as the reason of the war, the true reason to go there is getting more oil.And what will they do with the oil?
Obvious.They will pollute the world even more.

---

I am well aware of all of the things America has done, but that does not suddenly make them responsible for all the evils in the world. Europe DOES contribute to pollution, as does any industrialized nation. Furthermore, if you think only AMERICAN movies are oriented towards violence and sex, you are quite wrong. Those movies appear in just about every modernized country, in fact in Europe or Japan it is less taboo. While visiting London, and again in Paris, for example, I found pornography sold in the open, on newsstands and the like. You would NOT find such thing in America.

Quote:

---

He seems so pointlessly hung up on god, he is bringing it into his politics, which a modern leader shouldnt do.

---

I already stated this but that is no reason to deride the man's faith, just the way he uses it in his politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

I am well aware of all of the things America has done, but that does not suddenly make them responsible for all the evils in the world. Europe DOES contribute to pollution, as does any industrialized nation. Furthermore, if you think only AMERICAN movies are oriented towards violence and sex, you are quite wrong. Those movies appear in just about every modernized country, in fact in Europe or Japan it is less taboo. While visiting London, and again in Paris, for example, I found pornography sold in the open, on newsstands and the like. You would NOT find such thing in America.

---

Not as much as America though.Also I dont think you are quite right about the movies.Most sex/violence movies I see here are all from Americans.Also what does it matter that no pornorgraphy is sold in the open in the USA when your everyday TV is full of it.The kids dont even have to look for it...

There is a difference between pornographic and suggestive material. What I saw being sold in Europe is pornographic, as in it portrayed nude people (primarily women) in a sexual manner. The suggestive material in America that tends to be open to the general public does not contain nudity. All pornography is sold in special shops where children are not allowed to purchase the material. Furthermore, America does have a degree of censorship, we have ratings attached to television shows, movies, and video games with clear-cut reasons why a certain movie, show or game has warranted said ratings.

As far as television is concerned, certain times of the day and certain television stations show different things. Have you ever watched daytime children's television in America? It's so saccharine it is quite sickening. Other programming does exist, but again it is rated, and responsibility is left up to the parents to choose what their children can and cannot watch.

With regards to the movie industry, Hollywood does make many violent and sexual movies, and they do make far more than are made in Europe. However, it is important to remember that the movie industry in America is MUCH bigger than it is in Europe, and thus America has the ability to turn out much more movies. America dominates the movie business, and thus most of the movies you see are American, just because those are what are more readily available.

If I would take 10 USA and european movies then I think there would be more sex and violence in the USA ones.Also I think this post has gone off topic and we all should stop :( .

somebody said mark warner? not Mark Warner. definitely no Mark Warner. I'm living in virginia, and at least around my area, people (liberal or conservative) can't stop whining and B****ing about how he's screwing crap up. I don't really follow the state politics though, it's a bit bland. however, iot would absolutely ROCK if the new mayor of richmond (Doug Wilder) got a shot, which he won't, unfortunately. he's about the most incendiary guy i've ever seen, but he's freaking brilliant. he's a political pit bull released on richmonds slack-@$$ city policies. everybody hates him. EVERYBODY. Except for the people the actually work in the trenches of the govt. my uncles RIchmond PD, and Wilder (before taking office no less) Ransacked upper management, and reassigned equipment and funds to proper departments, is busy refilling the spots of the slackers and chain whipping the rest of them to run at efficiency. it's magnificent. I'd get into some nice juicy specifics, but i don't want to get family in trouble ya know? Just suffice to say that he's worht a read. check out www.richmondtimesdispatch.com for some stuff, or look around. Doug Wilder, crazy psycho on the political warpath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean

He's black...and in this country that automatically disqualifies him for President. Not saying this country is racist...but let's face it, this country is going to have to be a hell of a lot more diverse to give any chance for a black man to have even 10% of the votes.

---

Yeah I agree but hey I'm black.I can say people like Al Sharptin and Jessie Jackson.People who actually try to run for a gov. office heck even for presidency it has to start from someonewhere and.Yeah i think there won't be any black or female president for a very long time.

edit- not to spam or anything but when I look at bush I see the anti christ himself.Its just scary.I can't trust this man whenever he says a speech.I mean I can tell he's lying nad that hes gonna do things on teh other end of the spectrum.I swear if bush even pulled some stunt to give us our reperation money I would rip my check up mainly because its oil money that troops even some of my family members died for.Hey Doors BTW your more ignorant than a redneck who is apart of the KKK.

Man, I read the first page of the post expecting the rest of it to run along similar lines, man was i wrong... Now that I read the whole thing....

You know what? Doors? That has got to be the most incredible pile of offensive anti-american rhetoric i've ever come across. I'm quite sure Estonia is the shining beacon of humanity comapred to the US, but really man, come on. America is a Capitalist nation. In a capitalist nation, the whole idea is to build yourself as best you can and enjoy the wealth as best you can. Now I'm sure it'd be a lovely world if all those of us that came out ahead gave all of our cash to the people that don't care enough to get ahead, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of getting ahead in the first p[lace, wouldn't it? America popped itself out of obscurity, worked it's way up the world ladder of power, and sits now as the big fat slob america you talk about. of course, because we would still be sitting high, because we are ALL useless polluting fat slobs.

What exactly are we doing wrong then? We went to Iraq, what a grave sin. You've got a guy in power dictating over his entire country and killing all those who oppose him. Sound like a real charming chap to me, i'd love living in that type of society. Revolution is bloody. That's what builds governments that allow peace and prosperity for future generations. yeah, a nicve chunk of the population hates this idea. so did loyalists, in our own revolution, which were a tidy little chunk of our own population. We are trying to help another people overthrow a ruler that a good portion of the population was dissatisfied with. God forbid, we horrible horrible egotistical bastards.

The cars, pollution, food, etc? like i said, we are CAPITALISTS. this is what you do. you get money, you enjoy money, you enjoy your life. if two cars makes someone happy, sho. lets go with that. he's only driving one at a time anyway, so how does having two create more pollution than having one? oh, his wife might drive it. except that would save pappy the trip to drive wifey around, and it would even out anyway. We can afford food, we eat food, simple as that. pollution? everyone pollutes. the second you start typing on that keyboard you aid in pollution because of the chemicals that were used to form that plastic.

You can have your opinions, i'm not trying to tell you to welcome america with open arms. But do NOT start blatantly insulting an entire country on the generalized opinions you seem so fond of.

By 2008 the democratic party system will be all but forgotten, in it's place the republic shall create a universal voting option that the whole world can be involved in but you'll inevitably be screwed over anyway. Behold dear readers, the canidates of 2008!

Harvest Moon.
http://forum.nuklearpower.com/image....ine=1106603197
"I rule you."
The communist partician, Harvest Moon has nothing to lose and everything to gain from this election. He promises to make the world a better place IE: We live like the smurfs. Mass genocide against Europe is nesscary for this plan to succeed though. Why Europe? 1: There's alot of people in Europe and communism can only work for small groups. 2: They killed rock music. (David Bowie.) 3: They killed comedy. (Mr. Bean.) Marshal law will develop and it'll bassicaly be every man for themself. Harvest Moon has only the "anyone but Bush" thought pattern to rely on.. About the only good that will come with his presidency is more enviormental regulations (Sense technology and or capitalism is banned..) resulting in a cleaner more productive planet. Also you'll get a cool t-shirt..

George W. Bush.
http://forum.nuklearpower.com/image....ine=1101399495
"I have stradegery!"
Good ol' impirealism, will you ever seice to amaze us?! Turns out Bush DID find those wmds.. there were in the same place as all our missing socks, DIMENSION-X!!! How did a primitive enemy like the Iraquis learn how to rip a hole in space-time to hide thier nuclear warheads there? Beats me, but Bush seems to think they have thier ways.. Bush'es plan to secure the nation once and for all is the destruction of the middle-east. One of those bastards killed Jesus and now it's payback time! You can expect a crusade afterward.. But healthcare and social security will flourish.

Walt Disney.
http://forum.nuklearpower.com/image....ine=1084851188
"KEEP THE MOUSE IN THE HOUSE!"
What's this?! Wasn't he dead?! WAS being the key word. In the year 2006 Walt Disney was unfrozen and rejuvanated. By 2008 his popularity grew by some thinking he was the last scion do to cheating death. Unlike the other canidates who rely either on a strong sturdy military force or black magick, Walt Disney thought ahead and made himself into a cyborg-like entity with an arm that can transform into a shotgun! Walt Disney wants to bring back national socialism. So bassicaly death to everyone and everything that aint white. He believes this was how mankind was originaly intended to be. "Look at primitive culture and theories of the future, in both scenarios the white race is supreme and there is hardly any indication of an outside culture." What Walt fails to tell you is "history of primitive culture" is really taped episodes of The Flinstones and "theories of the future" is The Jetsons on a dvd box set.. However him as Earth's president WILL cure cancer and various other diseases. "We just needed them to get rid of the darkies, now we can live forever!"

Kong the 3rd.
http://www.magixl.com/caric./starsb/donkykong.gif http://frames.free.fr/Images/lupin.jpg
The Korieans managed to keep Kong in power as when his body immideatly died they implanted his brain into a primate's and the dna was compatible with that of a human brain and they succesfuly saved kong. However things were amiss as incase this project had failed Kong was already in the works of developing a clone. Enter the first two-man party: King Kong and Lupin the 3rd. They thought that using these names to differntate the two was somehow clever and funny.. They try to appeal to the young crowd and offer nothing to the political field exsept the garantee that all humans will die so the planet can further evolve as it should. Bassicaly the only party more independant then Harvest's..

Heh, I know.. I'm morbid..

Well, I always thought that Hillary Clinton would be the perfect choice...
I mean, mainly because she's Bill's wife and I think everyone liked Bill.

But people tell me "NO WAY! Americans hate Hillary!" and I really want to know if that's true. I mean, wouldn't she have Bill Clintons support and advice if she became president? And wouldn't people LIKE that?

Since lots of you are Americans, clue me in. Why do people hate her? *If they do!*

I don't really have a problem with Hillary Clinton, so I can't really say.

Hillary Clinton gives off a REALLY bad vibe. Just look at her when she smiles. There's something behind that that scares the hell out of me.

I hope McCain gets the nomination for his party in 2008, cause unless someone like Barak Obama gets the Dem ticket, that's the only person I can see myself voting for.

That or Jon Stewart.

Everyone around here hates both Hillary and Bill. I personally, think that Hillary is the Democratic parties last chance at gaining any sort of political influence ever again. The Republicans have the christians marching blindly in line with them. If the Democrats can't pull it off in 2008, it's over. I don't know what i'll do if that happens. A republican reign is going to end up killing alot of people, and destroying America's sense of freedom as well.

Not if McCain gets the nomination. He's more centrist than most Republicans.

But seriously though. Hillary is not their last chance. Once he gets some experience, Barak Obama is going to have a LOT of support. Just about everyone I know likes him, and I live in a predominantly conservative area.

Still, I hop Hillary doesn't win. She scares the hell out of me.

Thing about Hilary is that I wouldn't put it past her to actually have a fair shot at winning. She somehow won the NY Senate Race by showing that she had real ideas and ways to fix them, and has for the most part.

"I personally, think that Hillary is the Democratic parties last chance at gaining any sort of political influence ever again. The Republicans have the christians marching blindly in line with them. If the Democrats can't pull it off in 2008, it's over. I don't know what i'll do if that happens. A republican reign is going to end up killing alot of people, and destroying America's sense of freedom as well."

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Politics is very, very cyclical. For the first 60 years of last century, Democrats essentially ruled this country in the House and Senate. Then, the power became more balanced for a while and now it's shifted more to the Right. As is probably the case, there will come a time when the Republicans will either make a wrong move with their policies and turn off a lot of voters, or the Democrats will find a strong enough candidate to shift the power back. If the USA continues to alienate the rest of the world, this shift back to the middle will occur soon, unless everyone in this country wants the US to decline.

Though I'm happy to see the elections in Iraq went well, I'm still not at all convinced that democracy will flourish there. As I heard someone say on the Daily Show last night about the Bush Administration:
"One good day does not make up for years of blunders."

I think sooner or later one of these old blunders, or perhaps a new one if they continue to use their same policies, will come back to haunt them and the country will shift back to the middle instead of being predominantely conservative.

For now, the Liberals will have to roll with the punches, but not give up the fight. Continue to get your voices out there, your opinions on issues known and I fully expect the country to balance out again before long.

Take care all.

I do hope balance is acheived soon, I've been hearing frightening things about the appointment of justices that are conservative, which bothers me greatly.

I don't understand what people's problem is with Hillary R. Clinton. So what if she is a Clinton. If people would read her biography, they may not hate her so much. They've nothing to hate about her anyways. People feel empathy for her, it was her husband who committed a personal crime, not her. (Besides, Clinton was one of the greatest presidents of all time. People claim Bush Sr.'s plans on good economy, they really need to look into the facts. :D) If you read Hillary's bio, you'd realize that she's an impressive resume, one that rivals Condoleeza Jemima Buttersworth Rice (XD). Condi would be an excellent choice for the Republican nomination for president, if Hillary is selected. It would be historic, and much of America loves Rice. (NOT THIS AMERICAN).

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton gives off a REALLY bad vibe. Just look at her when she smiles. There's something behind that that scares the hell out of me.

---

*points to a photo of Rice and Bush*

Kerry still holds a chance in 2008's election.

Gore, not a chance, after people got tired of his rantng in florida, even though he was right.

Jeb Bush, a VERY likely candidate. You know Condi would still be in power under him, and the corruption of the Bush family would have another 4 years to stew in the profits of controlling America for their personal agendas.

Rudi Giuliani, another good candidate. He did a lot for the city of New York, a lot of good, that is. As President, I think he'd restart the country on a good track, so long as the next presidents follow him.

I'm not saying I like Bush and Rice. *shudder* Just that I really don't like Hillary.

Plus McCain is one of the few Republicans I'd consider voting for, since he's more moderate. That's as close to liberal as the Republicans get by the way.

...For some reason that reminded me of Ann Coulter. God I hate her so much. "Liberals are the cause of everything that ever goes wrong. If it weren't for liberals we'd live in a perfect society" [/paraphrase] Yeah, if it wereb't for us it'd be a "perfect" world were women's only use was cooking food and spitting out babies, and everyone with any power would be rich white Christians.

Not only that, but every argument, with her involved, degenerates into childish name calling from her side. God I hate her.

Sorry about the rant. I just got angry for a sec.

Does anyone have a REAL reason to not like Hillary....

what's that i hear... a pindrop?

That's what I thought.

People don't really seem to have a substantial reason to hate Hillary. Excluding bad vibes. :p

Yeah. And I've learned to trust those vibes. I got the same feeling from Kerry and both Bushes.

I'm a little late, but oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denmark

And Arnold can't run; he's not a natural-born American citizen. That will not be changed, and if it does, I'm starting a revolution. Forget that "run off to Canada" crap that a bunch of people I know will do if that rule is changed. Which it shouldn't be, as the framers of the Constitution put it in there. And it's wrong to change that.

---

You have it completely backwards. The American Constitution is dynamic, which is the very reason that it's been in place for so long, whereas during the same time period, many countries had a habit of completely throwing out their constitution and instilling an entirely new one everytime they found a flaw in its writing, or one of the mentioned ideals became outdated.

The U.S. constitution has the ability to be amended (which is effectively a fancy word for "changed"), to counter these problems. If the ideals of the country changed, its leaders could go back and change the specific part in question. It's not wrong to change the Constitution. On the contrary, it was designed to be changed, and that ability allows it to keep up with the times, which is why it is so successful.

To be subjective for a moment, I would not vote for Arnold if he were allowed to run. It has nothing to do with the fact that he was born outside of the U.S. - he has lived here for half of his 50-some years, and he ideally should have a good grasp on what the U.S. is all about. I will vote for who I think is the best candidate to run the country, and just as race and gender are irrelevant to me, if the most suited candidate happened to be born outside the U.S., but happened to live here the majority of his/her life, I would vote for him/her.

I don't know anything about Hilary's platform, but I'll surely keep my eye on her. If she shares a good number of her views with her husband, I'll be happy. I have to admit, the fact that she's Bill's wife causes me to have a bias for her, and a positive one (believe it or not). Bill Clinton was a womanizer and a horrible husband, but I think many people let that fact cloud their thoughts before they actually attempt to evaluate how effective he was as a President. I personally think he was a good one.

Finally, I don't receive any of these "bad vibes" from anyone (except Bush).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Everyone around here hates both Hillary and Bill. I personally, think that Hillary is the Democratic parties last chance at gaining any sort of political influence ever again. The Republicans have the christians marching blindly in line with them. If the Democrats can't pull it off in 2008, it's over. I don't know what i'll do if that happens. A republican reign is going to end up killing alot of people, and destroying America's sense of freedom as well.

---

I would not count out Barrack Obama. He has a good chance. He was the keynote speaker at the DNC before he was even a senator. I think his view of America is a great one. He doesn't see things as Red or Blue and because of that view he has been the key factor in bring both democrates and republicans to the table to get laws passed here in Illinios when he was a state senator. He has a very diverse background and can appeal to everyone on a lot of issues. I think he has a great shot although it is probably too early for him to run in 2008. He would only take it if there was seriously no other choice.

He is a person I can see as being a really great president as he is a really great person. Unlike a lot of presidents and congress he didn't go into the private sector(and he easily could have with how good of a student he was) but he went to the public sector so that he could help people out. Thats the kind of person I want as president.

Quote:

---

I would not count out Barrack Obama. He has a good chance. He was the keynote speaker at the DNC before he was even a senator. I think his view of America is a great one. He doesn't see things as Red or Blue and because of that view he has been the key factor in bring both democrates and republicans to the table to get laws passed here in Illinios when he was a state senator. He has a very diverse background and can appeal to everyone on a lot of issues. I think he has a great shot although it is probably too early for him to run in 2008. He would only take it if there was seriously no other choice.

He is a person I can see as being a really great president as he is a really great person. Unlike a lot of presidents and congress he didn't go into the private sector(and he easily could have with how good of a student he was) but he went to the public sector so that he could help people out. Thats the kind of person I want as president.

---

Hear hear!

The thought of him and McCain running in the presidential elections, actually having two GOOD choices, that would be so wonderful I don't have words for it.

You know.... Bush really isn't as stupid as people claim him to be. Just because he isn't an eloquent speaker (which doesn't seem to matter in our case) doesn't mean he's unintelligent. He graduated as one of the top in his class in college. His IQ is quite high. I'm not for Bush, but lets keep the slander to a minimum here, and to factual basis.