|
Post by juancarlos on Jun 14, 2007 4:00:16 GMT -5
^ Internment camps - or fear of might motivate a few to leave. Take up all the low paying jobs that the illegals are willing to work, refuse medical care, refuse educatoin for their children, refuse free government aid, etc. They'll leave all on their own, there's no need for internment camps. Now who can tell whether or not I'm being serious or joking. Oh, I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. Nonetheless, do you think any Presidential candidate would have the political will to enforce those measures? Denying education to American citizen children? Yes of course that will stand when challenged in the Court system as unconstitutional. With regard to internment camps, which Presidential candidate will be willing to alienate the Latino electorate, the fastest growing in many swing states like Florida?
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jun 14, 2007 8:34:32 GMT -5
Jesus Christ! Even on EAN Ron Paul gets shafted! Only Rudy McRomney can continue the proud Reagan tradition of the three-legged stool: a solid economy created by buying SUVs on the national Mastercard, talking a lot, and retarded voters. Great catch GI. If you made me vote for an (R) or a (D), I'd go with Ron Paul. He is a great choice. But he can't beat the damn machine, just like the 3rd party candidates.
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 14, 2007 8:57:58 GMT -5
Which is why he was left out of the poll. Which is why I initially left out the 3rd parties, since malcontent voters would use symbolic protest votes here, throwing off all my highly calculated quasi-science, but I buckled just for the hell of it and included them.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he makes too much sense, which is also Newt's problem: they rightfully rip their party for doing stupid things, which is something the GOP will punish them for b/c apparently Republicans want to be Democrats now and never criticize their own party--essentially putting Party ahead of People and Policy as well as the standard priority Party assumes over Productivity.
|
|
|
Post by Vestirse on Jun 14, 2007 20:51:10 GMT -5
On the candidates who stand a chance in this race (lots of great little guys that I don't think will make it) 1. Gore 2. Obama It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for Giuliani. He looked reasonable until I saw some of his speeches. I can't vote for someone who runs on the 'Vote for Me [or at least a Republican] or Die' platform. Thanks for the choice. Next. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/politics/politico/main2726116.shtml
|
|
|
Post by lo1337a on Jun 15, 2007 3:48:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wibex on Jun 15, 2007 8:34:26 GMT -5
Perhaps slightly OT: Barack Obabma's books are quite interesting. I really enjoyed reading them.
|
|
|
Post by lo1337a on Jun 15, 2007 20:39:27 GMT -5
I like Obama, if only because it's been so long since I've heard a politician who was not only a competant speaker, but a passionate one. I don't think he has a chance except in name recognition, but it's nice to dream.
|
|
|
Post by jewbird on Jun 16, 2007 20:36:28 GMT -5
Obama has more mainstream appeal than Hillary, who comes across as something of a psychopath sometimes when it comes to her support for escalating the war. It seems as though the more mainstream candidates pander to the base of the military-industrial complex which institutes whatever candidates and policies it wants, all in the name of "national security."
|
|
|
Post by lo1337a on Jun 17, 2007 1:28:32 GMT -5
^Is Gore even running? I was under the impression he wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by chinesejewfool on Jun 17, 2007 1:43:54 GMT -5
^Is Gore even running? I was under the impression he wasn't. Speculation is that he puts his name in last minute which give detractors no time to smear him and he wins DNC easily
|
|
|
Post by lo1337a on Jun 17, 2007 1:59:30 GMT -5
^ Meh, I don't think he has to. He has a much better career writing books and making the rounds on the educational circuit. He stands to do more good there.
|
|
|
Post by chinesejewfool on Jun 17, 2007 3:03:51 GMT -5
The man is becomming a demagogue. Why not run for president while ur at an all time high?
The guy done no actual research on global warming and has no PHD in it. He just collects data and says "I'm Al Gore and I have this info to tell you". That can get you only so far.
|
|
|
Post by dapper on Jun 18, 2007 10:32:40 GMT -5
Gore might enter, but....why? What could he gain? Even if he got the Dem nom (big stretch), he'd lose the election again, and he couldn't handle that. After he lost in 2000 he tried to usurp the Presidency, failed; grew a beard and taught about how evil Fox News was at Columbia for a semester, failed; disappeared for a while; reappeared and very fat; and he's had an actual success by peddling the politically charged and selective psuedoscience of environmental doom b/c of mankind. Gore knows he's too damn awkward to win and he knows that his enrichment via his insincere environmentalism and ensuing popularity today would only be shortened by entering the field opposed to staying in the fray, free from serious blows by the Left and Right.
Also maybe somewhat comparable is the Fred Thompson fringe play on the Republican side. I guess he's going to actually get in over the 4th of July, but as of now it's hard to tell if his popularity will be supported by his substance once he finally has to display whatever it is he's got. As of now, it's hard to tell if either Gore or Thompson could ever rise above their fad status.
In terms of the overall disappointment people have over the quality of candidates in both parties, I think the one guy who would be the most satisfactory to both sides and moderates would be Colin Powell, who was last seen giving advice to Barack Obama. Powell represents the diminishing existence of capable politicians who have respectable military backgrounds. I think when all is said and done, the 16 years of Clinton and Bush will level out to underuse & overuse of the military, or misuse. 16 years of bad leadership. 16 years of underreacting then overreacting to threats and events. I'm not saying Powell is the sure fix for this, but he seems in my mind, that if we're going to sit around and get excited about guys like Gore and Thompson, to be the darkhorse I'd put my money on to bring reasonable change to Washington. I don't think any measurable, material change comes from Rudy, McCain, Hillary, Edwards, or Gore, for sure. I don't know about Obama, but I also suspect he's a fad, but for now he doesn't get put on my list of Washingtonites. And of the Republicans who don't make the list of bureaucrats are Thompson and Romney.
So in short, the list of possible current candidates who would bring a much desired change to Washington (given that Bush has Carterlike ratings in the high twenties, and Congress has ratings even lower than his, in the high teens) would be maybe Obama and Romney, and Thompson if he enters. If I were either Republican I would seriously go after Powell to be my VP, even though he's reportedly not interested in running for public office.
|
|
|
Post by jewbird on Jun 18, 2007 15:58:08 GMT -5
I think you're giving Al Gore a bad rap and you're wrong to dismiss him, although I'll grant he might decide to not run. I haven't even seen his movie but look at how important an issue climate change has become since An Inconvenient Truth came out. That's some pretty powerful politics right there. There's nothing more presidential than being able to appeal to the public for political support and getting it.
Yes, he had some support from Hollywood, the favorite whipping-boy of the right. But I am interested to see what would happen if Hollywood did get more influence over politics. The cynic insists that they're simply trying to draw attention to themselves to enhance their careers, but on the other hand, being already rich and famous and having a public forum, why wouldn't they take the opportunity to try and make a difference?
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Jun 18, 2007 18:09:03 GMT -5
I'm an Independent - meaning I'm a swing-voter - although I do lean somewhat on the Dem side. Anyway, my choices, in order, are 1) Barak 2) Hilary 3) Rudy I want Barak, just because I wanna see a black (or half-black, in his case) or any other non-Anglo finally become the U.S. prez. Now, if anyone object that the most qualified candidate should be elected, regardless of gender and race, then my reply is... BULL F**KING SH!T !! Is that why dumbazz King George W of Fools was elected twice to lead the country into a big mess?! Those who voted for him ain't got no case to make against Barak Obama for his so-called lack of experience. Lotta good GW's experiences did for the country and the world. Besides, the U.S. with all the checks and balances, plus a big bureacracy, is one country that can afford to elect a president without worrying about his experience - unless he abuses his power, like....., yup, you know who. So, it's high-azz time that America elected someone other than just another overrated anglo white male as its prez. Even France just elected an Italian descendent as its prime minster, even though it has a reputation (bum rap?) for being th most snobbish and choosy bigots in Europe - if not in the world. So, it's Obama for me. Hilary, because she's a woman (or is she? ), she's got more political experience, and, also, she's been in the White House and know what it's like inside - thanks to her hubby, of course. Rudy, because, to me, he's the least Republican of all the Rep candidates - which kinda like saying he's the least evil among the Rep cands.
|
|