Who do you like personally so far. It doesn't matter where you are from, just vote. No Gah.
Printable View
Who do you like personally so far. It doesn't matter where you are from, just vote. No Gah.
https://img146.imageshack.us/img146/...artdeesra6.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I love Paul too, tough choice. I went with a candidate who doesn't sound like an old prospector, lost in a gold mine for weeks.
That's a great and accurate picture.
Woohoo! First non-American to vote! Everyone's going to eye Edwards with suspicion now. Its a conspiracy!
Seriously, I think he could really improve the living quality of American citizens. At that point, you guys can focus on everyone else--but this time 'good intentions' won't save your president.
Doesn't Paul want to abolish the tax-collecting agency (name eludes me). How does the government get taxes, then?
It's the IRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
He can't do that as President. He doesn't have the legislative power.
What he can do, is bring balance to the government.
Oh, okay. That's good. Still if I hadn't voted for Edwards, I would've voted for Kucinich. *Dodges heads of lettuce and tomatoes* *Dodges watermelons* *Dodges a cell phone* *Gets hit in the head with a shoe* *Dodges a PC*
I voted Kucinich :shrug:
Watch out for flying objects, Ichigo. *Dives away from fast moving, incoming car*
No idea what his policies are, but I remember something about him having a hot wife. ~;)
:pulling hair out smilie: @ Ichigo
I support Fred's ideas, but his campaign lacks drive. Paul is off on foreign policy and some economic policies. Romney is experienced, but seems like the say-anything guy. Guliani I don't trust with that power.
CR
No reason not to support him, I say. He hasn't exactly been inspirational, but I agree with more of his positions that any other candidate- so he's still my guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Now I agree. :beam:Quote:
Paul is off on foreign policy andsomemost economic policies. Romney is experienced, but seems like the say-anything guy. Guliani I don't trust with that power.
The only thing I like about Paul is that he's a non-establishment candidate. We need more like that in politics. That aside, I have no doubt that he'd be a complete disaster as president.
No lefties on the list, so I couldn't care less about what happens in your backwards little capitalist reich...
I see no need to choose the lesser of two evils, and as I'm thankfully not an american, I won't have to! :smash:
Clinton (D) or Giuliani (R). https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon14.gif
Obama, and McCain is my second choice. Edwards, Paul, and Giuliani I could live with.
I love Romney. Every time I listen to his speeches in Iowa, I feel like he is just an older version of me (with less of an intemperate or reactionary side...)
Politics is for politicians. I like that he knows how to speak to his constituents. PLUS, any Republican who can win the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts is a bridge building juggernaut.
I have been in his corner since the begging of his campaign.
I would've said Clinton but she has the european "video games are to blame for all evil" - syndrome which I do not want to support, it's enough that german games are often censored.
Since I don't know a lot about the policies of the others except that Ron Paul wants the Gold Standard back, I'd have to say Mike Huckabee since he's Chuck Norris approved. :2thumbsup:
Maybe I should do some research. :sweatdrop:
http://www.c-span.org/rss/video.asp?MediaID=33618
here you go, I watched this last night with my girlfriend who at first hated him. Now she wants to vote for him. I think he is a great "off the top of his head" candidate.
I am now in favor of Gay marriage. There is no other way for me to marry Mitt.
I voted Ron Paul, because he always wins internet polls anyway. :shrug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
That's true. People love the dude. Too bad he doesn't look like Bush. He would have a pretty successful campaign as a cuddly stuffed animal.
Giuliani, followed by McCain. At face value Clinton I guess I could live with most of Clinton's policies, but I'm deeply suspicious of her. The rest of the Democrats, with the possible exception of Richardson, are just to leftist for my taste. The rest of the Republicans all seem to conservative for me (with the exception of Ron Paul, who's a looney)
You would condemn us to an executive run by a New Yorker Louis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Mon couer est creve. :shame:
:devilish:
Paul has one ringing strength -- his desire to return to a federal government that is more strictly Constitutional.
This is NOT to assert that our present government is not, only that it now functions along the following lines: If it isn't prohibited by the Constitution then it must be okay for the Federal Government to do.
Paul, correctly, is asserting that the metric should be: If it isn't specificially ascribed TO the federal government, then it should be the province of the several states to decide upon OR the Constitution should be properly ammended to allow for federal control of X, Y, or Z.
However, his quasi-isolationist foreign policy schema is impractical for a nation with global business interests and given the last half-century of involvement we have had. Some re-orientation adopting some of his themes may well be profitable as a new course, but the entirety is too limiting.
Economically, he has some good themes (taxation) and some less practical ones (re-adopting a metals standard). I'd even accept that the latter might also have some long-term value, but I do not believe the World-wide depression it would engender for the next 5-15 years would help us with our neighbors -- to say the least.
I am also leery of many of the Paulists out there. They may be internet savvy and interested in real change, but too many of them are whack-job conspiracy monkies and a couple are out-and-out loons. Too much of Paul's support is about "Iraq is wrong" and "I wanna get baked legally" and not enough is about the correct and Constitutional interplay of rights and responsibilities.
Pity, too -- his calling card is a nice theme.
As it is, I'm agreeing with Xiahou. I find Thompson the most congruent, but he's less compelling than I'd like him to be.
Thanks for the link, the guy is great. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I was a bit suspicious at first from the way that other guy introduced him, but his speech and the way he answered the questions were very convincing IMO. There were some key things he said to get my sympathy and I couldn't see much wrong about the policies he advertised. Maybe he's a bit too self-confident about doing all this, but one cannot expect more than that he tries his best(goes for all candidates of course). Between that bunch of politicians and looneys I found his speech really refreshing and he made an honest impression on me. Doesn't mean he couldn't have fooled me but I'd certainly give him my vote and thus a chance. :2thumbsup:
Nicely put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I almost want to say that maybe it's a good thing that Thompson isn't out trying to set the world on fire. I think we could use a more understated president with solid conservative credentials- would it be so bad if we had a president who said he was going to do less than the others? Unfortunately, politics is all about what you are going to give to the voters, so that kind of platform wouldn't likely have much success. :shrug:Quote:
As it is, I'm agreeing with Xiahou. I find Thompson the most congruent, but he's less compelling than I'd like him to be.
edit:You know, this did more to make me think favorably about Romney than most anything else I've heard. The article is, imo, completely insulting to primary voters(we're apparently too stupid to be interested in serious policy discussion), but it does a good job of showing how well-informed and quick-thinking Romney is. However, I still get too much of the "I'm just saying what I need to say." vibe from Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
My personal nightmare. Nixon in a pantsuit versus a small man in search of a balcony. Yikes. I'd take almost anyone on the list over those two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I see the technical side to Romney. He does like the details, but he is by no means bookish. Charisma like crazy.
I think that people, particularly the voting public, are smart enough to try grasping concepts in policy. We don't need allegory all the time like school children - some fairytale example. We want raw data and transparency so that we can become more informed.
Romney seems to know the balance. He doesn't seem robotic to me. As much as I like the personality of GWB, I wish that he was a bit more high brow in his speeches, regardless of whether the playing dumb is an act.
Romney is balanced, bright and charismatic. I believe him to a well intentioned person and a consummate politician, not always mutually exclusive. I've been listening to him directly, rather than only through the media lens to hear what he's saying and how he's saying it. I like what I hear so far.
I hope that I get the chance to vote for him - I'm not a registered Republican, so I can't vote in the primaries.
me too. I stay up at night because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Better get used to it! https://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1053/cul2wv1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
A little fairy whispered in my ear that Clinton vs. Giuliani will be your choice indeed. Ah, never a night of restless sleep again 'till 2012.
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repo...rnal-18392.gif
Republicans will lose this election if they field Giuliani. I fear that they will lose regardless of who they put up there, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Huckabee will fall apart against Clinton. He's already getting so much abuse for his policies as governor. I like his personality and social policies, but I have a feeling that the Iowa vote will be a fluke in his campaign, especially when they start getting down to brass tacks. I need to learn more about his record, I considered his candidacy a joke until a month ago.
Edwards is a fake joke. I don't trust Thompson at all. He seems like a southern mafioso type. Plus, he looks like a frog
I would love to see Obama v Romney. I would be pissed to see Obama win, but he is a bright guy too -but one who I disagree almost entirely with.
I could live with that. In fact, that campaign would make me downright mellow.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I picked Tancredo so that he could fulfill the Mayan prophecy regarding 2012. :hide:
Seriously though, none of them look too appealing. What a shame.
Ah, ok. I was really, really hoping that wasn't a serious vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
I'd like to see Obama vs Huckabee, because it would be the least muddy election in history. And Obama would win easily.
Giuliani is a corrupt lying scumbag. Romney is merely a lying scumbag.
Here's some hillary quotes for you louis:
On asked whether homosexuality was immoral: "that's up to the voters to decide".
When obama said she was overplaying here experience level, she replied: "This is not a time for republican scare tactics. It's also not a time for TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASES"
Ehh. I voted Obama here. Mostly because he offends me the least of the candidates. Hilary I despise, Edwards is mostly a joke(as a politician) to me. Kusinich didn't exactly work miracles in Ohio, to say the least. And frankly, I'm not really that conservative. Romney, however, gets a special place in my heart. Right above Tancredo for "most hated person". And just below GWB. I like some of Paul's policies, but frankly, a lot of his followers just scare me. A lot of them that I've met are out and out bigots.
Yeah, what with the latest polls showing Obama doing marginally better than Hil, her mask is slipping.
But Sunday, in a dramatic shift, she made it clear that her goal is to challenge Obama not just on policy but also on one of his strongest selling points: his reputation for honesty.
"There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," Clinton told reporters here. She said voters in Iowa will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk."
Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."
I can't even puzzle out what she means by that, except that it sounds kinda, I don't know, fightey.
Guiliani. I believe we need a strong administrator with experience running a large government over a social conservative.
I'm more interested in his track record - which appears to be a strong turn-around in NYC - than his personal love life or his opinions on abortion, which he would have little leverage over in office anyway.
Obama just because I'm in the cool crowd, but not cool enough to vote Ron Paul. That and to piss the racists off, on both sides of the, err, spectrum.
Did I mention I will not be able to vote this 2008? I'll have the high horse all to myself the next five years or so as whatever idiot in the White House screwed America over, again. :2thumbsup:
Imagine! An "I told you so (why did you idiots vote for that scum anyway?)" that can be justified without looking like an arse!
I somehow personally prefer Huckabee, even if I do not agree to all of his policies. He just seems to be a man of integrity, which is definately a rare thing among politicians and he has managed to sway me over atleast.
Here's some hillary quotes for you louis:
On asked whether homosexuality was immoral: "that's up to the voters to decide".
I agree with that. Morality is none of the governments business. Governments should be a-moral and simply ensure the right of each to live according to their own morality. (Yes, yes, I know that she is simply copping out)
When obama said she was overplaying here experience level, she replied: "This is not a time for republican scare tactics. It's also not a time for TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASES"
(Lemur) Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."
That's my girl! Take 'em gloves off when needed!
:2thumbsup:
I agree! If it must be a Republican, then Giuliani. He's got a good track record, is on the whole pretty moderate, and has the social, liberal outlook and walk of life of an open-mided city dweller.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ
And he was impressive during 9/11. That is important, regardless of what people say. A president needs confidence, composure and leadership too.
Compare Giuliani with that eternally stupid image of Bush on 9/11 in that school, children book in hand, looking around dazed and confused. One is a president, the other a bumbling fool.
I don't mean that in a partisan, anti-Bush way. This simply wouldn't have happend to Bill Clinton, and nor would it have happened to Ronald Reagan. (When Reagan was shot in '83(?), while he was dragged off, he said to a microphone: 'I bet that guy doesn't vote Republican...'. Classic. He couldn't possibly have gotten it from a speech writer)
Huckabee is probably the most 'ethically challenged' (corrupt) guy on the list, maybe even beating Guliani.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck
It's almost a pity the dems are ignoring Bill Richardson; the most experienced and perhaps one of the most moderate democrat candidates.
Obama is going to have real issues with experience issues going up against basically any Republican frontrunner.
Hillary is so very polarizing, not to mention 'Nixon in a pantsuit' as Lemur so aptly put it. Geez, the thought of the corrupt, greedy, power loving Clintons back in the white house? Why do you wish that horror upon us, Louis?
CR
Heh, so me and CR DO agree on something. Too bad he's got ABSOLUTELY no chance of winning. I'd love to see him as VP to Obama though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
You'll be sorry to hear she later came out and said that homosexuality was not immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The point of the second quote is that she is casting legitimate criticism as a scare tactic, and then using a scare tactic herself...
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/...imeratemm0.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I like Obama for Dem.
Huckabee for Republican.
Ron Paul is a little, off?
Also, a previous poster asked about the new taxes and all.
Fair Tax
Essentially most taxes are dropped in favor of a % increase in the sales tax (7 percent from what I read). This should balance out the price, and remove the IRS.
I like Huckabee, he isn't as slimy as Romney or Giuliani. Not as hard-core as McCain. Not as unknown as Tancredo or Hunter, and not as crazy as Ron Paul.
I'm worried that people are liking the Huckabee persona too much. His "genuiness" seems contrived. Not in the slimy way that Edwards does it, but in an amazingly sly way.
He seems straight forward, but I have a bad feeling. I like his social policies alot, but still...
This sort of thing makes me happy.
Yeah. The only reason they were polling so high is name recognition. Most people in the country haven't taken a real close look at the candidates yet.
If Paul doesn't get the nomination (which I doubt he will) I'm hoping Fred does.
If neither one of those two get it, I'm either voting democrat or independent.
I disagree with labeling Hil' as "Nixon in a pantsuit."
Catchy phrasing though....:laugh4:
However morally moribund in his political electioneering and "punishing" of the opposition -- and he was -- Nixon brought a LOT to the table in terms of political savvy, experience in foreign policy, and the "rep" to sit down with the CCCP and PRC without signalling weakness.
Hil' and the Clinton team have the political savvy -- anyone who doubts that is foolish -- but I don't think that either she or the ex-pres has the kind of gravitas Nixon brought to the game. Of course, Hilary isn't loathed by the media the way Nixon was either, which is of some value in modern politics to say the least.
The comparison does work on the love of power/politics as crushing the opposition level -- both do share that characteristic. I wonder how the Hilary of 1972 would feel about the Hilary of 2007? Life is full of such rich irony....
Well Seamus Ms Clinton dosent have a 3rd party candidate thats going to get 13% of the vote (George Wallace) or the elephant in the room being assisinated (Mr Kennedy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Nixon shouldnt have won in 68 he narrowly won. Hillary should she get the nomination wont have near the same conditions. Sure nixon had plenty of expirence but I would argue his victory in 68 was a circumstance of the political climate not because of his expirence. Hilary is the later circumstance IMHO.
Now to you republicans. Before you sits an independent who has voted mostly republican in the past (exceptions 96,04) sell me a president will you ?
Right now I'm partial to Ron Paul (my wife is sold on him, he says a lot of things I want to hear but I know he cant get them done). Also on the flip side watching the Dems Biden is the only one I really believe. Why cant he get any traction?
Like a general on campaign, the art of politics is exceedingly situational -- and therefore not a science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Yes, Nixon benefited from the vote for Wallace. However, Nixon is the fellow who "invented" the "Southern Strategy" that helped create the conditions for Wallace's third party bid. Nixon played up Johnson's record with civil rights and other issues relevant to the socially conservative South (and I say played because on econ/social issues Nixon was somewhat of a liberal in the classic "country club" GOP style) so as to wedge the conservative "Dixiecrats" away from supporting the Dems. That they went as much or more to Wallace as to Nixon didn't bother him -- as long as they were off Humpfrey's roster of supporters.
It may well have been different with RFK as the Dem nominee -- the grief over John Kennedy was still palpable -- but then again it may not have. Nixon's strategy was well crafted for the times and would have hurt the chances of any relatively liberal Dem trying to take the presidency.
Winning a close vote by playing off your opponents against one another is classic politics and not a sign of political inability. Bill Clinton accomplished it twice with resounding effect and to his great political credit. Even Rove/Bush win some points on this scale for "stealing" FL in 2k. They certainly rubbed their hands with glee -- and took prompt advantage -- wherever Nader was siphoning off liberal votes in a close state.
Paul gets my vote. He's a nut, but he's honest, he's not power-hungry, and stands for the Constitution. The state's rights Southerner in me loves that. If he didn't try to do anything too crazy too soon, I think he would be able to get Congress working again, he wouldn't be as polarizing as some of the other candidates. Of course, he has no chance. :rolleyes:
Giuliani would be a disaster, which is a shame because I actually don't mind his social agenda. I just foresee corruption and cronyism in droves, along with more power centralized in the executive.
McCain, I could stomach. Thompson wouldn't be too bad either, but he's a little more socially conservative than I would like. Either of these might be able to work with Congress. Romney just seems to eager to tell people what they want to hear, either he's just unaware of Google or he will be too easily swayed by polls when in office.
Hillary, :fainting: . She's smart, very politically savvy, but still too power-hungry. She could probably do well in foreign affairs, especially with Bill schmoozing for her. But the GOP looks to lose even more seats in Congress in the next election, and I don't want her with Democratic backing from the Capitol (this pretty much goes for all the Dem candidates ~D ). Enhanced presidential power aimed at the vast right wing conspiracy. While it would be funny to see the GOP reap what they have sown, it would be take decades to recover from the damage.
Obama, not enough experience. Seems like a nice enough guy, but I don't really agree with his policies and see above about Congress.
discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.
When Paul was a young man, back in 1823, constitutional minimalism, no income tax, isolationism and a metal money standard were probably the next big things, but isn't it 2007 now? :inquisitive:
I shall blissfully ignore those Hillary quotes that went over my head and move directly on to Giuliani...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
That is a shocking graph. Giuliani is presented here as the zero-tolerance hero. A policy that got impressive results in NY. It is often quoted as a great example. I must read up about it a bit more. :inquisitive:
I am not delcaring Nixon void of political savvy. in 68 given his expirence he was probably the most qualified to become president but I cant be as complimentary in my praise as you for the 68 campaign. While he may have invented the southern strategy to hurt humphrey, humphrey wasnt the 1st choice of the dems anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Johnson got scared in NH by McCarthy and then Kennedy jumped in. My contention is Humphrey was thrust into the position by 2 circumstances beyond his control and at best was an adequate candidate.
Hilary on the other hand has been gearing for this bid for some time. The NY senator's seat was phase I and since then she has had a text book run of political decisions. Nixon was a savy guy who knew politics but he reaped benefits of others short comings to get the nod. Hilary will win (or loose) the nomination all by herself.
I picked McCain because out of all candidates he stands out as a man of integrity, something that is sorely missing in the current White House administration.
[QUOTE=Louis VI the Fat]discovery1, drone, Ice, Lord Winter, Odin, Vladimir
Why Ron Paul? When I first heard about him I thought he was a complete joke. Literally. I thought he was this election's prankster, one of those mock politicians who get some protest votes and are in it for the riot and fifteen minutes of fame.
[QUOTE]
Couple of things about Paul that dont get a lot of press that I like:
1. American Freedom Adgenda He is the only republican to sign it.
2. Commitment to american independence No other candidate has made this decleration.
3. He will end the war in Iraq withdrawing troops ASAP
4. His position on the environment while a stretch is certainly a means to a better end.
5. Fairly consistant. This guy has been outside of the box for sometime. We need more diversity in our political system here in the states, Ron Paul gives us that.
That's just crazy. It won't end the war, if anything, it will plunge Iraq into civil war and chaos. Hardly a good scenario.Quote:
3. He will end the war in Iraq withdrawing troops ASAP
Its a wonderful scenario, it was a mistake to go there in the first place. Staying there is making the situation worse and worse. The military is for fighting wars, not policing countries who have been force feed a political ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I do not see what is so wonderful about a civil war that can potentially kill millions of people. Starting the Iraq campaign was most definitely a mistake of a tremendous magnitude, but pulling our troops out will not return Iraq to its ante-bellum status. I wish it could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Another plus of staying in Iraq is to maintain pressure on the nearby Iran. I just want Ahmadinejad to always remember that there are 120000 of our guys just across the river, ready to grind the Revolutionary Guard into dust, if necessary.
Finally, I tink it is our obligation to straighten out the mess that we created in Iraq.
It may be 2007, but does that mean the basic principles that the Constitution was based upon no longer apply? I say they are required now more than ever. We all like to say that we love this country, that America is the greatest place in the world, full of freedom and hope. But at the current rate we will be just like any other country run by special interests and corrupt politicians. Frankly, I think the country is too big for a strong federal government, decisions made at that level may not be to the benefit of different regions. More control at the state level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Sure, some of his ideas are nuts, but he won't be able to undo everything if he gets elected. Scaling back the fed's power will be a good start.
Plus, he has run before (as a Libertarian), and he has served in the military. He did not vote for the Iraq invasion, he wanted a real declaration of war vote (which he would have voted against as well, but at least the forms would have been obeyed). What's not to like?
thats one way to look at it, or it could potentially allow Iraqi's to govern themselves void of our presence. The later is a win win for the U.S. the alternative is status quo, you have a 160 billion every quarter for supplemental pentagon spending?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Perhaps it wont, but it will force them to chose there own path. I am an advocate of free will, and wars of conquest if needed. Not exporting ideology, thats what Mr Bush claims the terrorists want to do. The hypocrit he is, he ended up taking the same approach, I've had enough.Quote:
Starting the Iraq campaign was most definitely a mistake of a tremendous magnitude, but pulling our troops out will not return Iraq to its ante-bellum status. I wish it could.
wasnt it Chirac that said if Iran uses nukes they will be wiped off the map in 20 minutes? Also the U.S. has spent billions on a military doctrine called force projection. The carrier groups in hormuz are capable of plenty of damage, we dont need another invasion 2 is plenty.Quote:
Another plus of staying in Iraq is to maintain pressure on the nearby Iran. I just want Ahmadinejad to always remember that there are 120000 of our guys just across the river, ready to grind the Revolutionary Guard into dust, if necessary.
Fair enough, but my point is I think its in our best intrest to move along and get out. Iraq is smelling more and more like a new cold war way station circa south korea.Quote:
Finally, I tink it is our obligation to straighten out the mess that we created in Iraq.
The problem is that if we leave now, Iraq stands a good chance of turning into a Shiite Theocracy. That is a win-win scenario for Iran, but hardly for usQuote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Fair enough.Quote:
Perhaps it wont, but it will force them to chose there own path. I am an advocate of free will, and wars of conquest if needed. Not exporting ideology, thats what Mr Bush claims the terrorists want to do. The hypocrit he is, he ended up taking the same approach, I've had enough.
I would not count on Europeans to be swift and decisive. I am not singling out the French here by any means. Europe in general has grown soft, decadent and weak. If anyone will stop Iran it will be us. The reason to keep boots nearby is merely to avoid the conflict from becoming a nuclear one. Convention war == bad, but Nuclear war == 1000 times worse.Quote:
wasnt it Chirac that said if Iran uses nukes they will be wiped off the map in 20 minutes? Also the U.S. has spent billions on a military doctrine called force projection. The carrier groups in hormuz are capable of plenty of damage, we dont need another invasion 2 is plenty.
I will go ahead and disagree with you on this one: I see our presence there now (barring the fact that we shouldn't have been there in the first place) as a long term investment into our security.Quote:
Fair enough, but my point is I think its in our best intrest to move along and get out. Iraq is smelling more and more like a new cold war way station circa south korea.
Possibly yes, given the Sunni opposition to Iran influence by way of Saudi and Jordan Im not completely sold that Iraq will become an exclusive Shiite theocracy. Its a fair point though...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I dont count on Europe for anything militarily. By citing Chirac my point was simply to illustrate that Iran would be destroyed if it used nukes. Israel, the U.S. dosent matter the source. I dont want any more war to be honest, but keeping a mistake going and going dosent help anyone. At some point there has to be a draw down I'll take sooner then later.Quote:
I would not count on Europeans to be swift and decisive. I am not singling out the French here by any means. Europe in general has grown soft, decadent and weak. If anyone will stop Iran it will be us. The reason to keep boots nearby is merely to avoid the conflict from becoming a nuclear one. Convention war == bad, but Nuclear war == 1000 times worse.
Then we will have to agree to disagree then.Quote:
I will go ahead and disagree with you on this one: I see our presence there now (barring the fact that we shouldn't have been there in the first place) as a long term investment into our security.
:medievalcheers:
Perhaps I could advise that the Iraq discussion could go to a new thread - Iran already has a topical thread going - and allow those who wish to discuss the nominations to develop this one.
I know policy on Iraq is important, and I'm not saying don't discuss the candidates' views, but further debate on the rights, wrongs or repercussions of the invasion/occupation probably diverts this thread a tad too far.
:bow:
Back to that whole primary thing:
Leftist Democrats have a new angle on why everyone should hate Obama: he's too bipartisan.
We do not need Obama to heal the rift between good and evil, or to bind up the nation's wounds with Bush's venom still in her bloodstream. Obama's balms of civility and bipartisanship may lull Americans into complacency, but they seem ill-equipped to end the outrages and injustices of the current administration's policies and restore America to moral solvency. Obama has given us no indication that he will exercise the bold, far-reaching, and, yes, partisan leadership that will be necessary to undo the travesties of the past seven years.
Uh, yeah, what we really need is more hyper-partisan politics. Sounds great to me. Whee.
Looks like everybody's looking for ways to dent the two new frontrunners. Anonymous flyers are being spread about Huckabee.
A mysterious group calling itself Iowans for Some Semblance of Christian Decency has begun waging a campaign against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, insinuating that not only is the Republican presidential candidate not a true conservative, he's not a real Christian.
In fliers put under the doors of reporters at the Marriott in Des Moines, where Huckabee was staying Monday night, the organization, whose members are unknown, lays out its interpretation of how the former Baptist minister's views run contrary to the Bible.
Huckabee's support of educational opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants is portrayed, for instance, as "justification for violating the 8th commandment (stealing from U.S. citizens)." A lighthearted video clip where he pretends to talk to the Lord is portrayed as "sacrilegious mocking of God for political gain."
Being more on the liberal side, I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Huckabee by any stretch, I have to admit at least that the guy is more or less clean, and this mudflinging that he receives from the ultracons is truly sickening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I don't think we can be positive it's "ultracons". This morning on the radio, I heard one of our local libs going on about how Huckabee isn't a real Christian. Maybe they're scared of him. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I doubt it. He is the Republican equivalent of Kucinich: direct, straightforward, and completely unelectable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
rvg, Kucinich can't even break out of single digits in polling, whereas Huckabee is now leading in Iowa, despite spending a fraction of the money the other top candidates have. I think Huckabee is for real, contendorship-wise.
Also, I suspect Xiahou is just having a bit of fun suggesting that Dems are actively attempting to sabotage Huckabee's new status. Who has more reason to get dirty right now, the other guys in the Republican primary, or the Dems who are wrestling with their own can of worms? Of course anything's possible. I could with equal validity suggest that the aliens from the Crab Nebula are distributing slanderous flyers.
It will be interesting to see if Huckabee can handle the Swiftboating. I think he can, personally.
Here's a really paranoid thought—Rove made his name in the dirty tricks business by distributing attack leaflets against his own candidate. They were deliberately written to be so offensive that voters would react against them. It worked. Could the Huckster be that tricky? I doubt it.
-edit-
I see we're encouraged to discuss our choices in a little bit of depth. Here's my thinking: I'm not going to support someone who has no realistic chance of winning, so no Richardson or Hunter or such for the purposes of this exercise. Anybody I name must have at least double-digit support, or good chances of gaining it. (A strong upward trend in polling would qualify.)
#1 McCain. I think he would be an outstanding choice for the next four years. I disagree with many of his views, but I think the man is mature, thoughtful, and has appeal beyond his party. Independents can kindle to him, and to a limited extent so can Democrats. Having a uniting figure would be very good for America at this juncture. Also, on the most important issues I think he's dead right. He would end all traces of torture, close Guantanamo, re-affirm the Geneva Conventions, etc. And since the Democrats are likely to expand their hold on the legislative branches, it would be good to have a non-crazy Republican to counterbalance the government. I think the first six years of the Bush administration demonstrated clearly why letting one party get a lock on government is bad.
#2 Obama. Another person who would probably function as a uniting figure. Strong appeal to independents, demonstrated ability to get along and work constructively with people who disagree with him. As for the experience canard, all I can say is that good judgment trumps experience nine times out of ten. Dick Cheney has loads of experience, so does Donald Rumsfeld; and yet both men have been wrong on just about every major point of policy. My major reservation is about handing one party both the legislative and administrative branches. With luck, Obama would be a moderating influence on the more extreme depredations of the Democrats. Note that he has been willing to say some very unpopular things to Democratic audiences, which bodes well.
#3 Ron Paul. Long shot, I know, but he's trending upward fast. A return to Constitutional governance? Yes please! As for some of his nuttier economic ideas, never fear, he'd have a Democratic Congress to hold him in check. Again, it's nice to have two parties (at least) splitting up the active governance.
#4 Mitt Romney. Sure he's a fake, but he's a competent fake. Good record of management in MA, good record of working with Democratic legislators. Might turn out to be a uniting figure, which is kinda what I want after the nasty divisiveness of the Bush admin.
This is kinda hilarious. Clinton campaign staffers feel Obama is an uppity negro.
When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes."
Ahh yes. Personally, I would love to see him in the White House.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Louis, Odin and drone pretty much explained why I like Ron Paul.
-Decentralized Power
-Smaller Government
-Honest
-etc
He isn't as crazy as he seems. Like I've also been saying, just because he advocates certain things doesn't mean he will be able to accomplish them.
A vast number of people, me included, are tired of the **** show that is our government.
You're making me crazy aroused just by saying that. Hmmm. I might have to switch Ron Paul to my #1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Yikes! He will most certainly try and as president he might actually succeed in implementing those crazy things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
There's a chance you'll be casting your vote away though. And when [insert tired metaphor about "situation when decision must be made" here] a protest vote is worth less than a victory vote, no matter how anyone spin it any other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Ron Paul's victory is far-fetched. I hate to say it, but when [insert same tired metaphor here], the "disgruntled" voter who cheers Mr. Paul's name right now will end up choosing the safe bet for the same reason I said above; and if you're not of the bandwagon, saying as you are with a principled mind that Change Has To Start Somewhere, then you better be prepared to see your second- or third-best choice lost because you threw your vote out on Nader in 2000. That is the sad story of any two-party system anywhere, stability and (unfortunately not too effective) defense against extremism comes at a precious cost.
As as a side note, I'm quite sick and tired of the overwhelming obsession on the election from all news fronts to be honest. The more this continues on dragging, the less it remains a political election and the more it becomes the new Reality Show, this time with Much Greater Stakes (and therefore Drama)! Vote with your cellphones today! :no:
It's like this Christmas thing. I don't need goddamn Christmas music on every goddamn store on goddamn December 1. It's sickening, and it makes me want to wage war on Christmas, nuclear winter style. If I'm more pretentious and cynical I'd say this American instant now-now-now culture is rather detrimental to our basic thought processes...
You are forgetting the best part of the primary/caucus segment of the election. You don't throw your vote away, there are no protest votes. You get to, in a way, influence your party's national platform. And if by some miracle Paul wins the nomination, odds are it still won't be a throwaway vote, if he's facing Hillary on the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
It's all a pipe dream, but Divinus Arma used to always harp on changing the party from the inside, and this is the best way to go about that. Especially if you live in a state with open primaries. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by My apologies to Arlo
Now I'm starting to sound like a standard Paul nut.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=32IO7tX9Co0&feature=relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
"We can't be like Democrats"...
Umm, yeah...:sweatdrop:
EDIT: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A5FGtR0bHkI
Yeah, we can really rely on what Romney tells us he believes.
EDIT2: "Republicans should act like Republicans."
Mitt, please, shut up.
Sadly, your right. I really would like to see Kucinich in office, much more so than Edwards, but he's too good to be a politician. And besides, the public isn't ready for a FLILF.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I would like to see a major magaizine conduct a poll of who a person would vote for if "electability" was removed from the equation. I bet that Ron Paul would win hands down. Who would Paul choose as his VP? If him and McCain teamed up I think they would be unstoppable. Could someone tell me Paul's stance on Gay marriage and same sex partnerships in general?
I believe he is fairly conservative socially, I know he is against abortion (being a OB/GYN), being a libertarian type he probably cares less about gay marriage. I don't see any mention of it in his issues lists, he probably either doesn't care, or doesn't think it's the federal governments job to legislate.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs