NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think would make the best president in 2008?

*lol votes split evenly...first person for both R and D gets one vote, second gets two

*at the time of this posting

EDIT-Rudolph all the way.

Guiliani, no doubt.

Hillary Clinton. According to a one-dimensional political quiz, my views are like hers.

Officially. I mean, the whole Clinton family has a great relationship with Belinda Stronach, former CEO of Magna Parts International. Besides, I bet if Stronach was American, she'd be a Republican :lol:

Perot or Nader?

Al Goreda? That guy threw away his career when he signed up for move on.org... all that yelling and screaming he does... he's soo far past even the craziest candidates in the past.

I wouldn't vote for any of them, i would vote for Nader! MUAHAHAHA!

I wouldn't vote for any of those 4 choices. My vote in 2008 will hopefully go to Jay Rockefeller. Its been rumored that he's interested in running and hopefully he'll finally make the attempt.

Hopefully, I'll be voting for the re-election of John Kerry.

Hopefully, I'll be voting for the re-election of John Kerry.

Damn...didn't think about that. I retract my initial statement and agree with this one!

Hopefully, I'll be voting for the re-election of John Kerry.LOL Hopefully, you're kidding :)

I sdtill don't know why anyone would vote for that guy other than "he's not "Bush."" If a decent candidate were presented, other than Bush, Kerry would be smoked. John kerry does not exist... all he is is AntiBush

dude, all of those candidates suck. if those were my choices i would leave the country rather than be a member of such a ludicrous and embarassing population of voters.

I'll be voting for Kerry on re-election, although I wish Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer would run.

how can you all think that Guiliani sucks? he helped to pull his city through the worst attack in american history.

Hillary Clinton, Clinton's appear to be very good at fixing the Bushes' messes. And besides, it's time for a female president!

dude, all of those candidates suck. if those were my choices i would leave the country rather than be a member of such a ludicrous and embarassing population of voters.

Giuliani suck?...the man is an accomplished politician who was an excellent mayor of NYC...and he can only get better..

how can you all think that Guiliani sucks? he helped to pull his city through the worst attack in american history.LOL You do realize that democrats don't care about any of that stuff, right? All they know is economy and gay rights.

I'd vote for old Al.

how can you all think that Guiliani sucks? he helped to pull his city through the worst attack in american history.LOL You do realize that democrats don't care about any of that stuff, right? All they know is economy and gay rights.

ya, thats the other thing. how can someone be strictly limiting themselves to voting for one party, even though the candidate for th other party would do so much better than their candidate?

Giuliani suck?...the man is an accomplished politician who was an excellent mayor of NYC...and he can only get better..I'll give him this much--he's pro-choice and for a Republican, that's an improvement, but he's also got a seriously skewed idea of the First Amendment as far as freedom of speech and expression is concerned. I could never vote for him, but I guess that's no surprise.

how can you all think that Guiliani sucks? he helped to pull his city through the worst attack in american history.LOL You do realize that democrats don't care about any of that stuff, right? All they know is economy and gay rights.

and Republicans only care about getting rich and making everybody pray to the Christian god. :roll:

get passed these lame bipartisan insults, people. it's boring.

how can you all think that Guiliani sucks? he helped to pull his city through the worst attack in american history.LOL You do realize that democrats don't care about any of that stuff, right? All they know is economy and gay rights.Yeah--Republicans care soooooooo much. That's why, even though they've been in charge of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, funding for first responders has been cut--and I don't meean cut in the sense of limiting the rate if increase--I mean cut in actual dollars. That's the reason that NYC has gotten only a fraction of the money they were promised by the Republican leadership to help rebuild after the 9-11 attacks.

Don't try to pass off your crap around here, Raysia. It doesn't work.

how can you all think that Guiliani sucks? he helped to pull his city through the worst attack in american history.LOL You do realize that democrats don't care about any of that stuff, right? All they know is economy and gay rights.

and Republicans only care about getting rich and making everybody pray to the Christian god. :roll:

get passed these lame bipartisan insults, people. it's boring.

You have something bout being successful?..oh that's right..I should be humble, poor, have no incentive to do better or I should work just for the prestige alone...because that is so much more important the feeding yourself...sorry...but you asked for that...and I am a centrist Independent and I find nothing wrong with being successful and rich...and as I'm a Pagan...I never felt when I was a Republican at being forced to worship Christ?

Salishe--the point Bottle was making was that stereotypes are dumb, whether they're about Democrats or Republicans. And she's right.

Of course not all Republicans are concerned only about getting rich and/or making everyone pray to the Christian God (although there are many who are exactly like that). And not all Democrats are, as Raysia put it, about the economy and gay rights (although why that would be a bad thing is beyond me).

Salishe--the point Bottle was making was that stereotypes are dumb, whether they're about Democrats or Republicans. And she's right.

Of course not all Republicans are concerned only about getting rich and/or making everyone pray to the Christian God (although there are many who are exactly like that). And not all Democrats are, as Raysia put it, about the economy and gay rights (although why that would be a bad thing is beyond me).lol

Hopefully someone else besides then will run. Someone Democrat.

I hope that tese are not the only people who will be running in 2004.

I would like to see Fmr. Clinton VP vs. Clinton Wife in a debate to witness what shit they would talk to each other regarding stuff that went on between 1992 and 2000.

Out of those? Rudy. This will be my first vote for president actually. I'll be 20 in 2008. I will probably vote for either the republican ( i think jeb bush could run also) or of course a libertarian. Hilary is evil!!!!!!!!

Hopefully, I'll be voting for the re-election of John Kerry.
Hopefully, I will be voting for Bush's 3rd term, because according to all you liberals he will have already rigged all the elections, burned the constitution, and invaded every country by 2008.

I'll be voting for Kerry on re-election, although I wish Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer would run.
No Jew or woman will ever be elected president. Bill Clinton was the closest this country will ever get to having a woman President.

That was a pretty ignorant comment on the part of New Aubernland. Since women outnumber men in the U.S., I don't see why we haven't had a woman president over the past few elections!

That was a pretty ignorant comment on the part of New Aubernland. Since women outnumber men in the U.S., I don't see why we haven't had a woman president over the past few elections!Why? Because women don't vote for women just because of their sex. They vote on issues, and women disagree on issues just like men do.

But New Auburnland is incorrect, I think, on two counts. If John Kerry is elected, he'll be a (part) Jewish president. And a woman will be elected eventually, my bet is within the next 20 years.

It'd have to be Rudy. He's a strong, effective leader that can connect with America. And remember his policies of reforming New York into one of the world's best cities again? He'll apply that to a national scale, and when he's finished, he'll make America even more beautiful than when Jackie O tried.
And as a conservative comparing two conservatives, I must say that he'll be a better president than Bush.

Mitt Romney (R) Massachusets, our gov. here is going to run.

Weird! I was thinking of putting Mitt down, but I listed to many options, so I had to cut it down. Mitt Romney, son of Michigan Governor George Romney, who ran for president (lost the party nomination miserably to Barry Goldwater). Anyway, how did Massachusetts end up with a Republican Governor?

But New Auburnland is incorrect, I think, on two counts. WHEN John Kerry is elected, he'll be a (part) Jewish president. And a woman will be elected eventually, my bet is within the next 20 years.

Have hope, my friend! Of the choices above, I'd have to go with Al, who apparently has grown a pair since 2000 (see MoveOn for evidence!). Of course, the best-case scenario would be to vote for Kerry's re-election. Cause if Bush is re-elected...well, I'll let a bumper sticker sum it up for me (as so many others seem to do with their political views) "Vote Bush in 04...or no more elections!"

And Raysia, I challenge you about your "lol" response to Incertonia! But not in debate, my friend, oh no! We shall duel with those pool noodle thingies! (I would challenge you to a cardboard tube fight on Forum 7, but the mods, in their supposedly infinite wisdom, have eradicated my opportunity to do so...)

EDIT: I am Mentholyptus. I am an idiot. I apparently can't realize when I'm logged in incorrectly. My challenge to Raysia still stands.

Weird! I was thinking of putting Mitt down, but I listed to many options, so I had to cut it down. Mitt Romney, son of Michigan Governor George Romney, who ran for president (lost the party nomination miserably to Barry Goldwater). Anyway, how did Massachusetts end up with a Republican Governor?
I think it was because they hated the last one so much. She was a Democrat, and she had baby twins. She was never around to be a governor, but always taking care of her children. Don't get me wrong, it means she was a good mother. However, most moms know that, during infancy, it's impossible to be a mother and work.

Guliani. Besides, we've never had an Italian president

Guliani. Besides, we've never had an Italian president
Yes, we guidos have never had this much power. Guliani becoming president would be a great day for all Italian-Americans, including myself.

Rick Santorum :)

On the list, Guliani.

Hopefully, I'll be voting for the re-election of John Kerry.LOL Hopefully, you're kidding :)

I sdtill don't know why anyone would vote for that guy other than "he's not "Bush."" If a decent candidate were presented, other than Bush, Kerry would be smoked. John kerry does not exist... all he is is AntiBush
I bet Kerry will clean up a lot better than the Bushkabob?

Rick Santorum :)

On the list, Guliani.Good lord. Why would you want to vote for the guy who compared same-sex marriage to man on dog sex? Why vote for the man whose name has been turned term describing, well...this. (http://spreadingsantorum.com) Warning--it's kind of nasty. :lol:

Jesus, the US is freakin screwed. Are those really my only choices? I f-ing abstain.

Rick Santorum :)

On the list, Guliani.Good lord. Why would you want to vote for the guy who compared same-sex marriage to man on dog sex? Why vote for the man whose name has been turned term describing, well...this. (http://spreadingsantorum.com) Warning--it's kind of nasty. :lol:

Might as well vote for the candidate who's words don't get taken out of context and smeared by the media. He was simply saying that by the arguement some pro-sodomy people were making, that would mean that the things he listed (like bigamy, polygamy, ect.) should be legal as well.

Except that his argument was, well, santorum. The legalizing of same-sex marriage is not related to the illegality of bestiality, necrophilia or pedophilia, and is only slightly linked to the question of polygamy and polyandry. Nothing Santorum said was taken out of context--I heard it, I watched it, I read the transcripts. Santorum is an anti-gay bigot and is a blight on Pennsylvania.

go hillary!

i'm all for a woman president. and a woman president who doesn't believe in abortion is ridiculous, so goodbye condi.

Are you sure we're talking about the same thing?

The quote that Santorum was often smeared with on the Media was one after the Supreme Court ruled the sodomy laws such as those in Texas unconstitutional.

One arguement people made was "Its in the privacy of our bedrooms, so we should do whatever we want!" Santorum said that, if that was true, then a whole list of other things would have to be legalized, too.

Here are the Santorum quotes.
“[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.” –Rick Santorum on gay sex, AP interview

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” –Rick Santorum, AP interview

As to his first quote, the only really accurate part is that you have the right to adultery, although I would question the use of the word "right." The state can demonstrate a reason outside conventional religious morality to regulate marriage to two consenting people, although I personally don't think that's the case. The state certainly has reason to regulate incestuous relationships, and that wasn't changed by Lawrence v Texas.

As to the second quote, just because marriage has never included homosexuality in the past--a contention that is disputed by some scholars of the early Catholic Church--doesn't mean that the definition of marriage has been static throughout history. It has taken many different forms in society throughout the world. But most importantly, to compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality is hateful and bigoted and most importantly, inaccurate.

The second quote, which you seem to have the most gripes with, seems rather ambiguous to me.

What exactly is he saying? It seems to me like it can be interpreted more than one way. He says "That's not to pick on homosexuality" and then, in the next sentence, perhaps he goes on to say things that homosexuality isn't? It seems to me like, interpreted one way, he could easily be saying that homosexuality isn't like man on child or man on dog. Taking the direct grammatical approach, the sentence in question is, without pronouns, "Homosexuality is not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Of course the rest of the quote throws things off a bit, which makes it a quote interpretable in many ways.

Just a note:
Guiliani might dead from his cancer by 2008.

The second quote, which you seem to have the most gripes with, seems rather ambiguous to me.

What exactly is he saying? It seems to me like it can be interpreted more than one way. He says "That's not to pick on homosexuality" and then, in the next sentence, perhaps he goes on to say things that homosexuality isn't? It seems to me like, interpreted one way, he could easily be saying that homosexuality isn't like man on child or man on dog. Taking the direct grammatical approach, the sentence in question is, without pronouns, "Homosexuality is not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Of course the rest of the quote throws things off a bit, which makes it a quote interpretable in many ways.I agree that the initial part of the post is hazy, but I think the second clarifies to an extent exactly what he's talking about. He says, "It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” There's no doubt in my mind that the it/that being talked about is traditional marriage, simply because he talks about a dramatic impact on the quality. Working backward, then, it's a reasonable interpretation that Santorum was comparing the effect of legalized homosexuality on marriage to the sort of effect that legalized pedophilia or bestiality would have on it.

But I'll concede that it's unclear. The problem is that Santorum is so anti-gay that he's willing to use bestiality and pedophilia as a basis for comparison, and that's both hateful and inaccurate.

If someone hasn't posted this already ....
I've come across a source or two saying it's feasible that Dubya will butter up brother Jeb for the Repub party come 2008, definitely if he "wins" the next "election".
Anyone out there coroborate this?

That's been the plan for years. The scary thing is that Jeb's actually smart--his problem is that his children have been even more misbehaved than George's have. His daughter has been in and out of rehab and jail in Florida--doesn't play too well with the personal responsibility crowd in the Republican party. Plus he's a majorly polarizing figure in Florida because of the 2000 election. Add in that if Bush manages to pull this out, by 2008, there will have been a Bush as president for 12 of the last 20 years. there's a real possibility of Bush fatigue even among the Republican ranks.

guiliani for 2008!

guiliani for 2008!

there's a real possibility of Bush fatigue even among the Republican ranks.

Actually, there already is a bit of Bush fatigue.

HW was far less conservative than Reagan, which is why he picked Quayle as his running mate. Lame jokes aside, Quayle was a highly successful politician, and a staunch right-wing conservative; he was added to balance out the aparent "liberalness" of HW. That's part of why Perot was able to pull so many votes from HW, the Republican core was a little pissed at HW, especially over that tax thing.

At first, W seemed more like Reagan than his father, however conservatives are not a big fan of a lot of his policies. Core Republicans do not like the Perscription Drug Plan (actually... does anyone like that piece of crap?), did not like the steel tarrifs, do not like the Farm Bill (aside from mid-west Republicans), and several other policies. Most core Republicans believe that the best government is the least intrusive and smallest one. We certainly do not have a small government now.

I don't think we'll see Jeb in '08. I'm really not sure who the GOP would put forward, actually. Cheney would have no chance in Hell of even winning a primary, let alone a general election, even if he was running as "incombant". I don't think they'll forward Guiliani, nor Rice.

Of course, it would be interesting to see the responce to Rice running...

Even RFK waited on the wings of the Democratic party while Johnson got elected for one term.

Jeb would be an interesting candidate. He's got the Bush factor, which would probably in about 4 years (Assuming he waits unti 2012, as a 2008 Bush run would be unlikely) would be pretty polarizing, just like a Hillary Clinton candidacy. He is, however, married to a Hispanic, extremely fluent in Spanish, and a Catholic (convert).

Jeb would be an interesting candidate. He's got the Bush factor, which would probably in about 4 years (Assuming he waits unti 2012, as a 2008 Bush run would be unlikely) would be pretty polarizing, just like a Hillary Clinton candidacy. He is, however, married to a Hispanic, extremely fluent in Spanish, and a Catholic (convert).

Really? Hm. I never thought that Jeb was much of a polarising factor. I mean, I know the Right hates Hillary, and the Left hates GW, but is there that much rancor for others of the Bush family?

Right or wrong, Jeb is disliked by many on the left because of his involvement in the Florida 2000 fiasco. I have issues with him for that, but really, my problem with Jeb is that he's an open PNACer. I mean, I don't like W, but I think Jeb's more dangerous because he's smarter than his brother and just as ruthless.

Hm... On this list, our lovely NYC Mayor, he has the most popularity and positive name recognition.

Quit kidding yourselves, btw, Kerry will not win. He's not a man, he's a waffle. King of the waffles, really.

Jeb would be interesting, it'd be like losing a brown bear and finding a polar bear. *shivvers in excitement* ooo...

Hm... On this list, our lovely NYC Mayor, he has the most popularity and positive name recognition.

Quit kidding yourselves, btw, Kerry will not win. He's not a man, he's a waffle. King of the waffles, really.

Jeb would be interesting, it'd be like losing a brown bear and finding a polar bear. *shivvers in excitement* ooo...Sorry to disappoint you, but the current President has changed his mind on policy far more in the last 4 years than Mr. Kerry. In fact, just about every one of his policy decisions has undergone some sort of readjustment.

But more importantly, why is a willingness to examine other options a weakness? I'd much rather have a leader who looks at a situation, realizes his initial reaction was the wrong one and makes changes to fix it than have someone who stubbornly sticks to something that isn't working (tax cuts for the rich, anyone?) for the principle of the thing.

Edit--I should note that most of Bush's major flip-flops came as a result of overwhelming public pressure--the creation of the Homeland Security Department, the 9-11 Commission, and so on.

Hm... On this list, our lovely NYC Mayor, he has the most popularity and positive name recognition.

Quit kidding yourselves, btw, Kerry will not win. He's not a man, he's a waffle. King of the waffles, really.

Jeb would be interesting, it'd be like losing a brown bear and finding a polar bear. *shivvers in excitement* ooo...Sorry to disappoint you, but the current President has changed his mind on policy far more in the last 4 years than Mr. Kerry. In fact, just about every one of his policy decisions has undergone some sort of readjustment.

But more importantly, why is a willingness to examine other options a weakness? I'd much rather have a leader who looks at a situation, realizes his initial reaction was the wrong one and makes changes to fix it than have someone who stubbornly sticks to something that isn't working (tax cuts for the rich, anyone?) for the principle of the thing.

Edit--I should note that most of Bush's major flip-flops came as a result of overwhelming public pressure--the creation of the Homeland Security Department, the 9-11 Commission, and so on.
Did I talk about him changing his mind? No. I called him a slightly sweet, fluffy, seared breakfast food that needs liberal ammounts of butter and syrup to be truly edible.

Hopefully, I'll be voting for the re-election of John Kerry.

Heh, yeah that's true.

Out of those choices prolly either Gore or Hillary. Guilliani doesn't seem so bad, but I dunno.