[AWR]

I'm not sure he's a facist, but is definitely not "liberal". Maybe by FoxNews' standards. I remember him jumping up and down for Bush's re-election. I thought to myself "is he that out of it?"

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by billybobsky Too liberal? He is a facist. He is perfect.

Do you know what a fascist really is? Throwing the term around seems all too common today.

Rudy is "liberal" because of his support for gay and abortion rights, which many see as a major obstacle in republican primaries.

Originally Posted by AWR I'm not sure he's a facist, but is definitely not "liberal". Maybe by FoxNews' standards. I remember him jumping up and down for Bush's re-election. I thought to myself "is he that out of it?"

Granted, the other choice was John Kerry. I would jump up and down for anyone besides him as well.

[Windswept]

I've heard several cable-news 'group' discussions lately in which various people expressed positive opinions about Romney, because of his apparent excellent business prowess.

There are many aspects about the way this nation runs that are pretty darned screwed up. No good business leader would stand for such 'system' incompetence for a second. (I mean, look at the Katrina fiasco as a first example. )

I'm NOT referring to his extending the preferential treatment that Big Business and other such special interests have received during the years of Republican dominance, but to his possibly increasing the efficiency of the operation of the large (bureaucratic) systems that compose our federal government.

I don't know how great Romney would be wrt running a war; but certain 'business' efficiencies would undoubtedly be helpful even in a military endeavor such as that.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by billybobsky Too liberal? He is a facist. He is perfect.

A "fascist"? In what regard? That's a very loosely-defined term.

[thegelding]

eh, not sure what kind of president kerry would have been...i do think history will show bush jr to be, if not the worst, one of the worst presidents of all time...

at least with this pool of so-so potential repub canidates we as a nation have a good chance of electing either a woman or a black man or maybe even an hispanic for the first time ever...that will be historic and also great for a country that use to think of itself as a melting pot...

g

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by thegelding at least with this pool of so-so potential repub canidates we as a nation have a good chance of electing either a woman or a black man or maybe even an hispanic for the first time ever...that will be historic and also great for a country that use to think of itself as a melting pot... g

Guilianni is quite far from a so-so candidate. He is certainly a stronger candidate than Bush was at this point in his first run.

It'll be interesting for sure, but if Bush could win last time, I find it virtually impossible for Guillianni to lose this time around. It seems inevitable. And I think Obama and Hillary are not as invincible as most supporters are believing they are, certainly in the case of Hillary.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by thegelding eh, not sure what kind of president kerry would have been...i do think history will show bush jr to be, if not the worst, one of the worst presidents of all time... at least with this pool of so-so potential repub canidates we as a nation have a good chance of electing either a woman or a black man or maybe even an hispanic for the first time ever...that will be historic and also great for a country that use to think of itself as a melting pot... g

Precisely the opposite. The Dems are guaranteed the White House if they DON'T put Hillary or Barack Obama on the ballot. Redneck America isn't going to vote for a woman, let alone the wife of Bill Clinton. And they're even less likely to vote for a guy with brown skin whose middle name is Hussein.

Every red state would stay red, while most of the toss-ups would turn red.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Eugene Precisely the opposite. The Dems are guaranteed the White House if they DON'T put Hillary or Barack Obama on the ballot. Redneck America isn't going to vote for a woman, let alone the wife of Bill Clinton. And they're even less likely to vote for a guy with brown skin whose middle name is Hussein. Every red state would stay red, while most of the toss-ups would turn red.

I'll be quite upset if either of those two people end up in the white house, but I'll get depressed if they stay out of it for those reasons.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by joveblue Beer. Seriously, it would probably be a better candidate for the Republicans than anyone else...

Why? Bush is doing a fine job. He is simply taking the brute of the criticism for manning up to do what is necessary in a very tough situation that is going to cost american lives. I heard an interview with Clinton from his presidency talking about how he is positive Sadam had WMDs, and that if we as Americans did not go in and remove Sadam from power, you can be rest assured that the evil dictator will use them, probably even on americans.

Everyone loves to give Clinton props and take credit away from Bush, but you cannot deny the fact that Clinton and US intelligence would have responded the exact same way if their presidency was from 2000-2004.

Bush may be very unpopular with the people, but if you've ever taken a chance to look at the average person, they are an idiot. They don't know their arm from their asshole, and they sure as hell are self-indulgent and don't understand that as a global super-power, it is our responsibility to keep the world in order and make it a better, safer place for everyone. The iraqies called out for us to give them democracy!! Sometimes, you've got to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. We, the lazy americans, don't like that.

Originally Posted by fcgriz I basically hate both parties, too. We need a serious third party in this country, but like you said: That's another thread (I may start one tomorrow, but I'm too damn tired to do it now).

Liberitarian.




In edition, I think Joe Liebermann would be a good candidate if he knew more about business and managing money. He seems to be a guy with his head on straight.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 Why? Bush is doing a fine job. He is simply taking the brute of the criticism for manning up to do what is necessary in a very tough situation that is going to cost american lives. I heard an interview with Clinton from his presidency talking about how he is positive Sadam had WMDs, and that if we as Americans did not go in and remove Sadam from power, you can be rest assured that the evil dictator will use them, probably even on americans.

So you're fine with invading any country based on vague intelligence that they might in the future pose a threat?

If so, who doesn't qualify?

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Guilianni is quite far from a so-so candidate. He is certainly a stronger candidate than Bush was at this point in his first run. It'll be interesting for sure, but if Bush could win last time, I find it virtually impossible for Guillianni to lose this time around. It seems inevitable. And I think Obama and Hillary are not as invincible as most supporters are believing they are, certainly in the case of Hillary.

NEITHER of those two hsa a chance. Obama and Hilary, that is.

Originally Posted by chucker So you're fine with invading any country based on vague intelligence that they might in the future pose a threat? If so, who doesn't qualify?

I'm fine with spreading democracy and making the world a safer, better place while liberating people in dire need, yes. But thats an entirely different thread.

Resume discussion of candidates!!

[chucker]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 I'm fine with spreading democracy and making the world a safer, better place while liberating people in dire need, yes. But thats an entirely different thread.

So, in your opinion, why did the Iraq War fail to make Iraq safer, better and liberated, and pretty much achieved quite the opposite?

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by Eugene And they're even less likely to vote for a guy with brown skin whose middle name is Hussein.

Sorry, that just struck me as funny.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by chucker So, in your opinion, why did the Iraq War fail to make Iraq safer, better and liberated, and pretty much achieved quite the opposite?

The Iraq people wanted and deserved democracy so we gave them that. Millions upon millions of people are not be slaughtered in Iraq anymore. That alone, is more than enough of reason to go there. How did they achieve the opposite? Iraq had very solid voting turnout, and people were so overjoyed they were in tears.

While you can easily sit on the outside and say that "they shouldn't have done that, blah blah blah", but no one was crying out to you for help, and no one was torturing you and executing your family and friends for shits and giggles. Going in no one thought this was be a short conquest. Hell, I expected minimum of twenty years. But, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure every person is given their unalienable rights if they ask for help.

You can say just the opposite is being achieved from the outside, but if you ask any american soldier what they think is going on and if they're making process and doing the right thing, I think each and every single one will respond with a resounding hell yeah.

I trust those with first hand knowledge over the common idiot/media any day of the week.

[AWR]

Let's try to stay on topic in Ms. Windswept's thread, ya here.

... *Scratches head* Wonder where the kool-aid's gone? Damn. Tensdanny38, you drank it all?

[Partial]

Anyway, I think its going to be Rudy, or a party yet to be named. There is still quite a bit of time yet and if I recall correctly it was significantly later in the game in the last election when I thought Dean had the Democrat nomination all wrapped up. A lot can change very fast in this world!!! Oh, and the Bears still suck! The bears still suck! They really really really really really really suck, yes the bears, still, suck!!

[World Leader Pretend]

Originally Posted by AWR ... *Scratches head* Wonder where the kool-aid's gone? Damn. Tensdanny38, you drank it all?

OMG, I have the best story to tell about these guys, it is a bit long.

Remember me telling you about my spy teacher awhile back? He told us this story last week that is related to the infamous kool-aid incident. Apparently my teacher (we'll call him Steve) taught a Russian language and usage class for translators. These translators had close to a million dollars worth of gov. training invested in them, so they were important. Anyway, Steve had two females in his class that had decided that they didn't want to be translators anymore, so they intentionally flunked Steve's tests. After meeting with them and telling the girls that they needed to stop screwing around, they still flunked the tests. Finally, after another meeting was called, the two girls walked into Steve's office and said in unison that there was no place they would hate worse than his class. Steve was a little shocked (since he is an excellent teacher) so he put them up on the "reassignment committee" to choose a different option in the army. The way the system worked was that the person gets to choose a few desired options, and the instructor of the previous class gets to choose another. In the army this is heavily need based so good positions rarely get filled. Steve walked down to the central office and looked up the jobs in the army that needed the most people. At the top of the list was "morgue assistant". Steve put this position down on his form and sent it off. The two girls were put in this job quickly, pumping dead bodies full of embalming fluids. Yuck!

He said that a few years later Steve and his wife were watching the news after the famous kool-aid incident, and US personal were sent to clean up the mess and dead bodies. While watching it he saw one of the girls that quit his class in the background, puking as she dragged dead bodies into a pile. "There is no place we would hate worse than your class" Steve remembered, laughing.

Pretty f-ed up eh?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Windswept I read an article yesterday saying Giuliani was six (or seven?) points ahead of McCain.

Giuliani = fresh face. McCain = tried and failed.

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 Anyway, I think its going to be Rudy, or a party yet to be named. There is still quite a bit of time yet and if I recall correctly it was significantly later in the game in the last election when I thought Dean had the Democrat nomination all wrapped up. A lot can change very fast in this world!!! Oh, and the Bears still suck! The bears still suck! They really really really really really really suck, yes the bears, still, suck!!

Dean's fate was sealed long before his infamous "YEARGH!" I remember arguing with SPJ, a rabid Dean supporter, that his early momentum would doom him...and that Kerry was most electable among the Democrats...

[drewprops]

I do agree that "independent" Lieberman has become increasingly interesting as a candidate or a partner-candidate (as in Vice Presidential candidate), though it seems that candidates always select obscure, unexpected people to run as VP. Republicans have embraced him because of his position on Iraq, but he's not necessarily an elephant at heart.... the polarity of politics is pushing us into a realignment of our parties.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Eugene Dean's fate was sealed long before his infamous "YEARGH!" I remember arguing with SPJ, a rabid Dean supporter, that his early momentum would doom him...and that Kerry was most electable among the Democrats...

Word, I agree. That's what i'm saying. The front runners right now are not necessarily going to be the front runners when the dust settles

[psmith2.0]

It honestly kinda irks me that, this far out, we're (as a culture, in general) talking about it, candidates are campaigning, the media is giving so much weight and coverage to it, etc.



I can't help but think that all 1,211 people who've thrown their hat into the ring so far are going to be short-changing their real job and duties, as they spend the next 18-24 solid kissing babies, spewing platitude/cliché-laden speeches all over the place and sucking up to various groups.

You were elected Senator (or Governor) of some nice states...make sure you remember that, jackballs, and don't lose sight of what it is you were elected/hired to do.

I hate this crap, I really do. And at this level, they're all the same. Just varying degrees of two-faced, lying idiocy. Sorry, but it's true. You don't get this high in the game without having mastered that.

In any case, it's my opinion that most - if not all - of the people being jean-creamed over today (Senator Clinton, McCain, Rudy, The Highest Holy Chosen One and Bringer of Light from Illinois, etc.) will overplay their hand and make unelectable asses of themselves in some way...and there's a good chance the front runners for BOTH parties will be people we're not even aware of yet, or even talking about.

God willing.

[Windswept]

And Biden didn't even last a full 24 hours (iirc) before inserting his foot firmly into his mouth.

Absolutely amazing.

[psmith2.0]

Exactly! But he's a proven idiot, so that's no shock.

But any of the others are just as capable of any real - or trumped-up - gaffes in the next 18-24 months. That's why I can't get into it. Do you know how much can change (and all that can happen) in that time?



Premature electafication.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Exactly! But he's a proven idiot, so that's no shock. But any of the others are just as capable of any real - or trumped-up - gaffes in the next 18-24 months. That's why I can't get into it. Do you know how much can change (and all that can happen) in that time? Premature electafication.

The problem, Paul, is that the primaries aren't really that far off. For most candidates, it's *all* decided at that point, so they can't afford to lollygag around now - especially those with low name-recognition.

It's pretty exciting that this election is so wide open. You know, I've often wondered what government leaders/rulers/dictators-for-life in some countries think when they watch the American electoral process (you know, 'those countries' where election results are fixed, doctored, pre-arranged, or otherwise decided in advance - as in, when only 'one' candidate is running ). They must marvel at the concept of elections being held where no one really knows what's going to happen.

I'm not saying the American electoral process is a 'good' one the way it is now. (With the problems caused by special interests and campaign financing, the American political system basically sucks.) But at least we don't really know who's going to win elections; and when their term is up, these people actually leave office. (I think I read that Hugo Chavez and Putin are both trying to figure out ways to retain power once their terms end. )

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Windswept The problem, Paul, is that the primaries aren't really that far off. For most candidates, it's *all* decided at that point, so they can't afford to lollygag around now - especially those with low name-recognition.

I understand. But you're kinda highlighting one of the things about all this that irks me: maybe I'm less impressed or swayed by "name recognition" anyway...I "recognize" all the names of the clowns - both sides - running. And, frankly, I wouldn't walk across the street to hit them with a stick.



It's a popularity bout. It's "name" and who has the money to spend. Somewhere down the list, a good ways down, is "qualifications", "achievement", "ideas", "character", etc.

There are a lot of people running - again, both sides - who are coming up short in those areas. Just a lot of the same "pick a side, right or left, and tout the old chestnuts.

[Windswept]

Didn't Romney take a state with a huge deficit, and turn that into a surplus within like two years?

And isn't he now working to get universal healthcare in his state, though he's a Republican?

I think both those efforts are pretty darned impressive.

The fact that he's a Mormon doesn't seem to have affected his work as a governor at all.

I wonder why people aren't talking about him very much?

[faust]

Romney has no chance, he is the flip-flopper of the 2008 race.

When first running for office in MA he was pro-choice, now he wants no abortion under any conditions.

When he first ran in MA he courted gay voters saying they deserved real representation and a friend in the mayor's seat, now he wants them burned at the stake.

The religious right will not vote for this guy for the reasons above and because they consider the Mormon religion to be a cult.

African Americans probably will be turned off to Mitt due to Mormon belief that black people were bad people who sinned so god punished them by making them black. I believe this only came out of their bibles or whatever thay use at the start of the 80s.


Mitt is toast.

Originally Posted by Windswept Didn't Romney take a state with a huge deficit, and turn that into a surplus within like two years? And isn't he now working to get universal healthcare in his state, though he's a Republican? I think both those efforts are pretty darned impressive. The fact that he's a Mormon doesn't seem to have affected his work as a governor at all. I wonder why people aren't talking about him very much?

Easy to do when the economy is doing well.

On the other had Rudy left MB here in the city a total mess. Nothing budget-wise was improved when the money was flowing in during the dot come days.
I know Rudy and NYC had 9/11 to deal with but before that the city was still in bad financial shape.


Too bad MB won't run for national office, I think he's doing a hell of a job here in NY.

[AWR]

Windswept,

I think a lot of people (I know a lot of people) (who) are awe struck at how messed up the US system is. They see long lines, voters disenfranchisment, intimidation, lies, broken machines, hanging chads, silly issues and on and on. I don't think the system works very well at all. Some countries have better elections; some worse. But the US is no Model in this respect, imo.

What we get is two years of sound bites. No content. Money rules.

I agree with Paul that the people running for office now should actually be doing their jobs instead of spending most of their time raising money.

A whole lot has to change before I respect the process.

[Frank777]

So what does everyone think of Mr. Giuliani's strategy?

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by AWR Windswept, I think a lot of people (I know a lot of people) (who) are awe struck at how messed up the US system is. They see long lines, voters disenfranchisment, intimidation, lies, broken machines, hanging chads, silly issues and on and on. I don't think the system works very well at all.

I agree completely, alas. Ohio and Florida, especially, just can't seem to get it right; and since they are pivotal states, they function as the weakest links in the chain that all of us are in.

I think both states, but particularly Ohio, have incompetent/unprepared election officials; and Florida seems to have incompetent, illiterate voters who couldn't figure out how to punch their way out of a wet paper bag. *sigh*

Some countries have better elections; some worse. But the US is no Model in this respect, imo. What we get is two years of sound bites. No content. Money rules. I agree with Paul that the people running for office now should actually be doing their jobs instead of spending most of their time raising money. A whole lot has to change before I respect the process.

True. If you recall, I 'did' mention that I think our system sucks.

The 'onlookers' I was referring to would 'not' have been those in advanced western democracies. But, yes, 'awe-struck' is a word that would apply to many on this side of the pond as well.

Having said all that, recent voting went exceptionally efficiently in my state, and probably in lots of other states as well.

My original point was really that if I were a 'voter' in, say, Pakistan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia (for example), I still think I would be pretty impressed that "the vote of the people" actually decides who will be the leader of the United States - with each citizen, rich and poor alike, having an equal say in the voting booth.