NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? If this is what they call putting up a fight than my 3 year old cousin could do a better job!!

The past 4 years the Democratic Party hasn't done anything that in my eyes resembles anything of a real opposition. Some half-hearted attempts, sure, but nothing of what one would expect. And looking at how Kerry is doing, or more precisely, at what he's not doing, I'm left again with the impression that there is no real interest in winning the elections from the Democratic Party's side. Or maybe they are just stupid? Or just weak? Maybe both.

both

Yep, I think you are right, I bet they are just posing, acting out as if people have a choice. Then the old commies were more honest in russian people voting for a one party leader system.

So what do we do about it? Change the system?

So what do we do about it? Change the system?
There's nothing wrong with the system, it's the fact that neither party is putting forward anyone worth voting for. We need to start voting for some third parties to make an expanded candidate list a viable option.

I think the Dems are throwing it on purpose so Hillary Clinton can run in 2008. Her senate term in NY will be up then. Otherwise she would have to challenge an incumbent and that's not a smart move. Why do you think Bill Clinton keeps throwing his way into the headlines? Distractions.

Don't worry... ol' Skull and Bones will win the election no matter how many votes either major cantidate gets.

What do you think? If this is what they call putting up a fight than my 3 year old cousin could do a better job!!


Patience, grasshopper. The first debate is Thursday. Americans have no attention span and if Kerry were to throw all his cards on the table in August/September, he'd have nothing left to fight with in late October, when people will really start to pay attention.

There is a plan and it's a damn fine one. Bush is running dry fast and unless he comes up with an amazing October surprise, he will be cowed and sent home to mama.

Oh ... and this ...

Dems are throwing it on purpose so Hillary Clinton can run in 2008

is unsubstantiated crap.

is unsubstantiated crap.

What... you think she would announce it??? That would be an even worse move. When the Republicans win this election and she runs in 2008, you'll see.

What... you think she would announce it??? That would be an even worse move. When the Republicans win this election and she runs in 2008, you'll see.


Of course she'd announce it! She has said repeatedly, over and over and over again, that she has no desire to run for the Presidency. It would be unbelievably stupid of her to run for President. If she became President, she'd have 1/4th the power that she holds in the Senate.

No, she'll stay a Senator for as long as she possibly can.

In 1997, Republican pundits started screaming up and down that Hillary would run for President in 2000 or at least be Gore's running mate. They were wrong on all counts. They will be again.

Of course she'd announce it! She has said repeatedly, over and over and over again, that she has no desire to run for the Presidency. It would be unbelievably stupid of her to run for President. If she became President, she'd have 1/4th the power that she holds in the Senate.

No, she'll stay a Senator for as long as she possibly can.

In 1997, Republican pundits started screaming up and down that Hillary would run for President in 2000 or at least be Gore's running mate. They were wrong on all counts. They will be again.

What the hell do i care about what Republicans say about Democrats? The people want her to run... and who doesn't want to be president... especially the first woman president? She's still a politician and knows when to lie. How else do you explain Bill's media coverage? Why did he release the book when it would take the most attention away from Kerry?

[Keruvalia #7]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1248B
What do you think? If this is what they call putting up a fight than my 3 year old cousin could do a better job!!


Patience, grasshopper. The first debate is Thursday. Americans have no attention span and if Kerry were to throw all his cards on the table in August/September, he'd have nothing left to fight with in late October, when people will really start to pay attention.

There is a plan and it's a damn fine one. Bush is running dry fast and unless he comes up with an amazing October surprise, he will be cowed and sent home to mama.

Oh ... and this ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegonia
Dems are throwing it on purpose so Hillary Clinton can run in 2008

is unsubstantiated crap.

A true believer. Ahhhhhhhhh... I love true believers.

There will be a "lovely gift" to the Republicans in October,.. though probably not of their making.

..and the game continues..

What the hell do i care about what Republicans say about Democrats? The people want her to run... and who doesn't want to be president... especially the first woman president? She's still a politician and knows when to lie. How else do you explain Bill's media coverage? Why did he release the book when it would take the most attention away from Kerry?

Bill hasn't been in the media that much. He released his book and he spent a few days in the hospital. Very little coverage. Bush sr. got some coverage when he sky dived (dove?) on his 80th birthday. Famous people get media attention. It happens. It isn't planned.

The media coverage he does get is because he was a President and is now an Elder Statesman. You don't seriously believe he timed his heart problems to coincide, do you? He released his book very early in the campaign on purpose, so that it *wouldn't* distract from the Kerry campaign. Every President is expected to publish their memoirs.

More proof of the American lack of attention span - Clinton's book is pretty much forgotten about.

You don't seriously believe he timed his heart problems to coincide, do you?

No, of course not. It's all just a theory, anyway. Hillary would never publicly admit she was attempting to undermine the Democratic effort this year if that was true. It probably isn't... but hey, why not? I haven't seen any better theories in here... maybe it's just a crappy thread-starter.

I think the Dems are throwing it on purpose so Hillary Clinton can run in 2008. Her senate term in NY will be up then. Otherwise she would have to challenge an incumbent and that's not a smart move. Why do you think Bill Clinton keeps throwing his way into the headlines? Distractions.
The Democrats wouldn't run Hillary for president. There's no way she would win, unless a whole lot more people got angry at Bush and the Republican party in the next 4 years. They'd run a more viable candidate.

What the hell do i care about what Republicans say about Democrats? The people want her to run...


What people are those? The morons? I'd like some proof of those people, and then to know who and where they are. Sounds like a crap-load of emotional argument. A woman will never be president, and I'm not just saying that because I might be a chauvinist, I'm not, I'm just practical.

No, of course not. It's all just a theory, anyway. Hillary would never publicly admit she was attempting to undermine the Democratic effort this year if that was true. It probably isn't... but hey, why not? I haven't seen any better theories in here... maybe it's just a crappy thread-starter.


But that's just it ... it's a conspiracy theory ... 99% of those are completely false. It does seem that the Dems may be throwing the election, but they're not. It's just been too early to really dig in and fight.

Hillary is a party loyalist ... she won't try to undermine the effort any more than McCain would the Republicans.

What the hell do i care about what Republicans say about Democrats? The people want her to run...


What people are those? The morons? I'd like some proof of those people, and then to know who and where they are. Sounds like a crap-load of emotional argument. A woman will never be president, and I'm not just saying that because I might be a chauvinist, I'm not, I'm just practical.

I would love a better definition of "the people," particularly since this one seems to exclude me. As to whether a woman can be President, I think that's a distinct possibility within the next 10 to 20 years. As a matter of fact, my "dream ticket" would be Rudolph Guiliani and Condoleeza Rice, once Condoleeza has become a bit more politically seasoned. ( bracing for the flames which will inevitably follow this! )

I would love a better definition of "the people," particularly since this one seems to exclude me. As to whether a woman can be President, I think that's a distinct possibility within the next 10 to 20 years. As a matter of fact, my "dream ticket" would be Rudolph Guiliani and Condoleeza Rice, once Condoleeza has become a bit more politically seasoned. ( bracing for the flames which will inevitably follow this! )

We really need a new smiley: a pair of quivering buttocks expelling a gout of flame.

A woman will never be president, and I'm not just saying that because I might be a chauvinist, I'm not, I'm just practical.
Why not? The president of my country is a woman.

Why not? The president of my country is a woman.
Why not indeed. Same here.

Why not indeed. Same here.
I wish that the Angela Merkel (chair woman of the conservative CDU/CSU) becomes chancellor in 2006.
We are going to see whether the German society has developed far enough to accept that in 2006 or not.
Conservatives are often more "progressive" than the political left, hehe.
Just think about Maggie Thatcher or Indira Ghandi.

I wish that the Angela Merkel (chair woman of the conservative CDU/CSU) becomes chancellor in 2006.
We are going to see whether the German society has developed far enough to accept that in 2006 or not.
Conservatives are often more "progressive" than the political left, hehe.
Just think about Maggie Thatcher or Indira Ghandi.
Yeah. And I have to say that we wouldn't probably have a female president if we didn't take away some duties presidents used to have. Formerly it was a semi-presidential system, much like France. In here USA would be presidential and all others parliamentary systems with PM as a head of state (all other remotely democratic systems I mean). The minute we took power away from the president, a woman become close second in presidential elections. In the following elections we chose a woman. Go figure...

What the hell do i care about what Republicans say about Democrats? The people want her to run...


What people are those? The morons? I'd like some proof of those people, and then to know who and where they are. Sounds like a crap-load of emotional argument. A woman will never be president, and I'm not just saying that because I might be a chauvinist, I'm not, I'm just practical.

A large enough group of people to get her a party nomination is all... you don't have to be one of them. What, do you want names? Your argument seems to be the "crap-load of emotion".

It's not much different than the people that wanted to see Colin Powell run on the Republican ticket.

#1. the possibility of women being leaders in other countries has no basis for arguing that a woman could be president in the US.
#2. Hillary is a moron.
#3. I would love to see Guliani and Condi, but that ticket still has Rice as the VP, not President.

#1. the possibility of women being leaders in other countries has no basis for arguing that a woman could be president in the US.

So true but I do believe that a woman would make a good president for the US too.

#2. Hillary is a moron.

That she is but look for her to run in 2008 if Kerry loses.

#3. I would love to see Guliani and Condi, but that ticket still has Rice as the VP, not President.

VP is still a very important post and no woman has yet been a VP. I bet we'll have a woman VP before we have a woman President. Gotta start somewhere.