skiracerj1 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 So who of the possible democrats nominees do see yourself getting behind, Hilary, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Liberman, or someone else. Alot of their potential candidates seem like risky choices to me, especially Hillary. Also what are thoughts on two of the strongest democrats possibility being non-traditional candidates (hilary a woman, Obama an african-american). I personnally couldnt care less, but is the majority of america ready for such a candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanguineSolitude Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 mark warner from virginia. he got reelected twice in a predominantly republican state and was quite popular. he would be a good choice because hes charismatic, not controversial like obama of hillary, and somewhat southern so he might be able to draw some crossover votes. i think after bush the dems need to be careful to not get too confident and grabbing an unelectable candidate. I mean id love it if we could get obama in office, but i would rather have even a moderate dem than any republican. i think there are alot of people who arent ready for a woman or afro american president, mainly because there are alot of stupid people. I dont think hillary would be a great candidate... and i think she might be too controversial since many people dont like her association with Bill. even though Bill was an amazingly good president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakemonster Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I dunno.... the low rumble of Hitlery the Beast has been sustained for a while. Concernes me greatly........ if she gets elected, might as well start designing a new flag. What symbols would would work for something inbetween a maple leaf and a hammer and sickle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiracerj1 Posted November 29, 2006 Author Share Posted November 29, 2006 QUOTE (SanguineSolitude)mark warner from virginia. he got reelected twice in a predominantly republican state and was quite popular. he would be a good choice because hes charismatic, not controversial like obama of hillary, and somewhat southern so he might be able to draw some crossover votes. i think after bush the dems need to be careful to not get too confident and grabbing an unelectable candidate. I mean id love it if we could get obama in office, but i would rather have even a moderate dem than any republican. i think there are alot of people who arent ready for a woman or afro american president, mainly because there are alot of stupid people. I dont think hillary would be a great candidate... and i think she might be too controversial since many people dont like her association with Bill. even though Bill was an amazingly good president. I agree, the Dems seem to be gettin somewhat overconfident and getting behind questionable candidates in tems of being electable. Haven't heard much of Mark Warner before, but I'll be sure to read some stuff on him, he seems pretty ideal from waht you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I have never understood why the dems are expected to put up some sort of superhero person yet the repubs get away with a bumbling idiot like Bush? I like Wes Clark, John Edwards, Obama. I don't care at all for Hillary. Mark Warner has no name recognition but neither did Bill Clinton 2 years before he was elected. Republicans should be held to a higher standard than GW. He was what they held up as the best they had. That alone should put them in the doghouse for a generation. He even got snubbed by the Iraqi PM today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanguineSolitude Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 oh yeah i forgot... warner wont run in 2008. he wants to spend more time wiht his family... that fucker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I'm very neutral on Hillary. All the negativity attached to her makes her an awful candidate. I don't think there's any way she could possibly win, and I'm not anticipating her receiving the nomination. I'll take Obama k thnx. With the nomination, and without a sex scandal, I think he'll sail right it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Lieberman left the democratic party...didn't you hear? They took away the nomination for Massachussetts, and he ran as an independent and stomped the democrat's candidate heavily. I haven't seen a candidate I'm jumping up and down for. Howard Dean would be good, Edwards is OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcsinc Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 He didn't really leave the party - he just had to run as an indy because the democrats basically said 'fuck you' to him. And yes, he won easily - but he's from Connecticut, not Massachusetts. He'll be voting with the dems, though, and if he ran for president there's a pretty big chance that it would be on the democratic ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiracerj1 Posted November 30, 2006 Author Share Posted November 30, 2006 QUOTE (Sonthert)Lieberman left the democratic party...didn't you hear? They took away the nomination for Massachussetts, and he ran as an independent and stomped the democrat's candidate heavily. I haven't seen a candidate I'm jumping up and down for. Howard Dean would be good, Edwards is OK. Yes I did here this, but also from what I've heard he never actually left the Dems, just ran as a independant because Conn. wouldn;t allow two democratic candidates on the ballot. My understanding from what I've read is that now that he has one the election he and the democrats have "kissed and made up" and he is going to go back to the dems, granted this was a couple weeks ago right after the election, so i dont know if that ever actually happened, just what i read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny_lech Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Being in Washington, I know some insiders in both of the parties. I've heard consistiently that Hillary is not expected to be it for a variety of reasons, but mainly: 1) She's pissed off some important Democrats 2) Ultimately she's too polarizing. Most Americans already have an opinion about her. That's not good for winning an election. And Scalliwag, John Edwards is considered a POS by the people that elected him. He is *not* popular with the Democratic party of North Carolina. His very poor Congressional attendance record, especially while NC was languishing in recession, was not well recieved. What exactly is it you like about him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 QUOTE (jonny_lech)And Scalliwag, John Edwards is considered a POS by the people that elected him. He is *not* popular with the Democratic party of North Carolina. His very poor Congressional attendance record, especially while NC was languishing in recession, was not well recieved. What exactly is it you like about him? http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.ed...ds.profile.html I would like to see some links supporting those statements Jonny. His poor attendance record as far as votes is pretty understandable, republicans had (well at least only until January 2007!!!) control of both houses. So being there to cast meaningless votes is not a prerequisite to me. But what you said reminded me of how far Cheney to as far as blatantly lying to try and make out he had never met then Senator Edwards until the night of the debate. As a matter of fact one of the reasons I like him most is his contrast to GW and Cheney. Edwards has fought for the little guys and GW and Dick have only fought for the Enrons of the world. That is the reason I ask for links other than just your comments Jonny to support your remarks. Hell my link even have links to support in many cases. There is a sharp contrast between what I view is predominent with republican politicians. Republicans have done their best to make it harder for companies to be held responsible for defective products. People critisize Edwards for being a trial lawyer and make out that he has done so many bad things to all of the "good corporations". Well as a parent of three daughters, if one of them would have been disemboweled by a product that the company that made it knew was defective, the only trial would have been mine. I would have taken a leave of absence and visited the owner of the company and he would no longer be amongst the living today. To me the people responsible in that case should all be in prison and the jury would have given them prison terms given the choice. We sure can't count on republicans for that ever happening though. While republicans feel the company was done wrong paying an outrageously high award given by a JURY, I think the original offer to pay $100,000 was just as ridiculous. You ever think maybe the way corporations will try and weasel out of shit may piss a jury off bad enough to make them put it to them? But I digress. Edwards is a great guy. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...4_10/004860.php http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krautle87 Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 QUOTE (Sonthert)Lieberman left the democratic party...didn't you hear? They took away the nomination for Massachussetts, and he ran as an independent and stomped the democrat's candidate heavily. Conneticut, and he's supposedly going to rejoin the dems. Of course there's no way in hell they'd ever nominate him. It's too bad they have to kick out any dissenting voices from their party. Lieberman is a good man and sticks to his principles, while I strongly disagree with most of his domestic policies, I would seriously consider voting for him if he was running against McCain. QUOTE Howard Dean would be good :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 QUOTE (Krautle87)QUOTE (Sonthert)Lieberman left the democratic party...didn't you hear? They took away the nomination for Massachussetts, and he ran as an independent and stomped the democrat's candidate heavily. Conneticut, and he's supposedly going to rejoin the dems. Of course there's no way in hell they'd ever nominate him. It's too bad they have to kick out any dissenting voices from their party. Lieberman is a good man and sticks to his principles, while I strongly disagree with most of his domestic policies, I would seriously consider voting for him if he was running against McCain. QUOTE Howard Dean would be good:shock: Damn, that is some pretty selective reasoning there. Kicked him out of the party? Conneticutt had a democratic primary and Lieberman lost the primary. The party respected the election. Alan Keyes was a candidate for the GOP primary and was arrested trying to get into a debate. And you bring up John McCain, the same John McCain the Bush McCain tarred and feathered in 2000? Some of the shit they said about him even saying he had a baby from a black woman? For a republican to say it is a shame that democrats are not tolerant enough is one of the funniest things I think I have ever read. The "Go it alone", "you're either with us or against us"party? The republicans "tolerated" Lincoln Chaffee because it was convenient, there was no way that Rhode Island was going to elect a rightwinger. I was really glad he lost. He needed a good reality check just like Lieberman did. Lieberman won the general election with the help of republican voters that knew the rightwinger in that election did not stand a chance. A lot of jerkoffs that buddied up to Bush when his popularity was artificially inflated because people had not yet figured out they were duped had to pay the price this last election. I always said if the republicans were given enoug rope they would hang themselves and they sure as hell did. Blowjobs are not looking like that big a deal nowadays thanks to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny_lech Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 QUOTE (Scalliwag) I would like to see some links supporting those statements Jonny. Well, I say part of this as having been a North Carolinian during Mr. Edwards entire tenure. (Hell, we share undergraduate alma mater.) I would say fact number one ought to be that North Carolina voted considerably for Bush in 2004. And don't say 'Red State' as state-wide offices have leaned heavily towards Dems. in NC. As far as dissatisfaction goes, go look at the 2000 recession numbers. North Carolina was one of the harder hit states. When things suck, you blame your elected officials. Here's one from the Governor's site (He's a D!) that has someone badmouthing Edwards. http://www.mikeeasley.org/pages/pgs_impact...leprotected.htm I'm from the county that guy is from. It's not an uncommon sentiment. This here is a random ass link that mentions Edwards skirting of reelection. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/mugger120402.asp Here's one copied from the Washington Post: http://www.nfib.com/object/3635735.html I could go on and on, but I challenge you to find evidence that John Edwards was popular in North Carolina. QUOTE His poor attendance record as far as votes is pretty understandable, republicans had (well at least only until January 2007!!!) control of both houses. So being there to cast meaningless votes is not a prerequisite to me. Like that 50/50 Senate split in 2000? Yea, that's *real* hardcore control. Especially with superhardcore Republicans like Arlen Specter, who NEVER crosses party lines on abortion. Partial birth ban? Why should Edwards even show up? Oh wait, he didn't. "My vote won't count" is about the most horrible, irresponsible excuse ever. That's like saying there are never party crossing votes. That's like saying "I'm going to sit by while these other people pass things I hate", instead of giving them hell every inch of the way, having the BALLS to stand for what you believe in, even when you're on the losing side. That's like saying that despite what's going on that he can't be in comittee, questioning everything that's going on. That's like saying he can't delay bad bad things. That's like saying that things like nominations can't be stopped by the minority party. That's like saying "I can't be bothered to use the weapon of a minority senator, the fillibuster, despite it's power to completely make a difference". I'm sorry, but there is NO excuse for attendance as poor as John Edwards. It's a disgrace that a man would take so lightly the responsibilty charged to him by his fellow citizens, and there is absolutely no way you can spin it otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 Wait, that argument about NC not being red does not hold water, at least national seats anyways. How long was Jesse Helms Senator? You can't get more off the scale of rightwing than that can you Jonny? Edwards replaced Lauch Faircloth-R. who had served one term, so at worst Edwards would have tied him if he would have ran for re-election right? So what Kerry lost his home state, technically so did GW, let's not forget he was born in Conneticutt not Texan I am trying to find links on Edwards attendance other that rightwingers claiming how poor it was. I especially would like to see where him ever not voting swung the outcome. To me this sounds more like crap from your swiftboat friends Right now we have two draftdodgers in office and republicans still attack veterans? They have no credibility. You guys are actually proud of people like Karl Rove who we know would never let anything like the truth or any sense of decency get in the way of doing something evil. Rove is the main republican I want to see tarred and feathered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skiracerj1 Posted December 3, 2006 Author Share Posted December 3, 2006 scalli I couldnt agree more with you on the karl rove thing, I actually dont think GW isnt all that bad, but I feel rove and cheney have got him as a his puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 There is a book called "Bad Boy" about the life of Lee Atwater. To understand Rove it helps to know his mentor. He was a master of hypocrisy. He pushed the "family values" ideals all the meanwhile screwing everything he could find in D.C. There needs to be a movie made on his life. As long as conservatives have people like Karl Rove and Atwater running their campaigns they don't deserve to even run their own household. When Atwater died of a brain tumor I thought about all the good people that have met that fate and thought, well at least it was not a good person this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny_lech Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 QUOTE (Scalliwag)Wait, that argument about NC not being red does not hold water, at least national seats anyways. How long was Jesse Helms Senator? You can't get more off the scale of rightwing than that can you Jonny? This is the sort of contradiction that boggles me. You're saying NC is definitely red nationally, and yet we're talking about a blue NC national candidate. They elected him in one national election and yet they rejected him in the next one. I'm not arguing that it's *not* nationally red at the moment, because it is. But the leader of the Black Caucus is from there and it's not like they *hate* Democrats because Democrats hold alot of statewide offices. QUOTE So what Kerry lost his home stateWhat? Mass. most definitely voted for Kerry. By like 70%. QUOTE I am trying to find links on Edwards attendance other that rightwingers claiming how poor it was. His attendance was actually good...up until he decided to run for President. At which point he decided that doing that was more important than representing the people who elected him. It's a scummy thing to do, IMO. QUOTE I especially would like to see where him ever not voting swung the outcome. To me this sounds more like crap from your swiftboat friends They're not *my* friends. I hate character assassination. QUOTE You guys are actually proud of people like Karl Rove who we know would never let anything like the truth or any sense of decency get in the way of doing something evil. Rove is the main republican I want to see tarred and feathered. You guys? You seem to be under the mistaken impression I'm a Republican. Just because I hate some Democrats doesn't make me one. That's the thing I really hate about politics in this country at the moment. It's this us vs them mentality. That you're either in one camp or another. That somehow one group's shit don't stink. Well, you know what? They both stink pretty bad. I don't like it when guys spouting moral purity go around banging everything but if you think that the liberals aren't hypocrits in their own ways, then you'd be in denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Obama is the only truly inspiring man in politics right now. He is a moral person, who respects the freedoms of others. He is just about the only politician who has any credibility on Iraq. He is truly an amazing person, who I could truly support. He is my generations Bobby Kenedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehookah Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 The US is to deep to be pulled out by anyone. Trust me.. NOBODY wants the job. If they did, the Demos would have picked a better candidate than Kerry last run.. They picked him 'cause they knew he'd lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 QUOTE (stevehookah)The US is to deep to be pulled out by anyone. Trust me.. NOBODY wants the job. If they did, the Demos would have picked a better candidate than Kerry last run.. They picked him 'cause they knew he'd lose. Uhhh, yeah, thats good reasoning. Kerry would have been a good president, he just had no clue how to run a national campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 QUOTE (jonny_lech)QUOTE (Scalliwag)Wait, that argument about NC not being red does not hold water, at least national seats anyways. How long was Jesse Helms Senator? You can't get more off the scale of rightwing than that can you Jonny? This is the sort of contradiction that boggles me. You're saying NC is definitely red nationally, and yet we're talking about a blue NC national candidate. They elected him in one national election and yet they rejected him in the next one. I'm not arguing that it's *not* nationally red at the moment, because it is. But the leader of the Black Caucus is from there and it's not like they *hate* Democrats because Democrats hold alot of statewide offices. No contradiction at all. How long was Jesse Helms in office? He was one of the most extreme conservatives ever from any state QUOTE So what Kerry lost his home stateWhat? Mass. most definitely voted for Kerry. By like 70%. Oops, I meant they did not carry Edwards state QUOTE I am trying to find links on Edwards attendance other that rightwingers claiming how poor it was. His attendance was actually good...up until he decided to run for President. At which point he decided that doing that was more important than representing the people who elected him. It's a scummy thing to do, IMO. the same thing cold be said about almost any politician holding office and running for higher office. It is a neccesary evil QUOTE I especially would like to see where him ever not voting swung the outcome. To me this sounds more like crap from your swiftboat friends They're not *my* friends. I hate character assassination. excuse me for accusing yo of being a republican. It just sounded as though you may have been looking forward to Rove torpedoing McCain again from what I thought I read on the other thread QUOTE You guys are actually proud of people like Karl Rove who we know would never let anything like the truth or any sense of decency get in the way of doing something evil. Rove is the main republican I want to see tarred and feathered. You guys? You seem to be under the mistaken impression I'm a Republican. Just because I hate some Democrats doesn't make me one. That's the thing I really hate about politics in this country at the moment. It's this us vs them mentality. That you're either in one camp or another. That somehow one group's shit don't stink. Well, you know what? They both stink pretty bad. I don't like it when guys spouting moral purity go around banging everything but if you think that the liberals aren't hypocrits in their own ways, then you'd be in denial. I know how yo feel. I am a moderate that just thinks republican politicians are evil. But I think the extreme liberals of the democratic party are just wrongheaded. People like Tom DeLay, Jesse Helms, Dick Cheney, Dan Burton, wreak of evil. Dan Burton even held an investigation of Bill Clinton's Christmas card list and now repubs are crying about how the dems may try and have baseless investigations on them? Henry Waxman needs to break it off in their sorry asses and I think he just might. I can hardly wait to see what his investigations turn up. The beautiful thing is that repubs changed the rules so that the chairman can issue subpoenas without a commitee vote. This is a very good report. Before any repubs get pissed and want to bitch about this, name some republicans that publicly said that Dan Burton was abusing his power? That should keep you busy on that homework. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...62974-1,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hookahpirate Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 I like a few candidates but i would rather none of the ones i like to win. The reason being that I feel the next president Dem or Rep has a tough fight ahead of them in bridgeing the political divide that has become so prelivant within American politics. I personally believe that divided government is the best thing for the US because it causes the centrist of both ideologies to work together to get good legislation passed for all of the US not just the fringes of the the spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehookah Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I saw a South Park at election time.. Made me laugh. They had a 'school election'.. One was a douche, and one was a turd. A kid said "What if I do not want to vote for a douche OR a turd?" I ROLLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now