http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4eDflJVCdo
What are the chances of this fellow winning? He seems to be a bit less retarded than some of the other ones. (Therefore I'll assume the chances are zero.)
I don't know any of his other policies, I just thought this was a cool clip.
Republican Presidential Candidate Debate
-
Xatrei
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2104
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 4:28 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Boringham, AL
Absolutely zero. He's a fringe candidate who has run previously as a Libertarian. No one takes him seriously, but then again, most voters aren't taking any of the Republican candidates particularly seriously atm.
"When I was a kid, my father told me, 'Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it.'" - Russel Ziskey
-
Xatrei
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2104
- Joined: July 22, 2002, 4:28 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Boringham, AL
Way too soon to tell. I hope not, but I'd take her over any candidate that the republicans are likely to nominate. Anything can happen, and there's plenty of time left for any of the front runners on either side to slip up and get passed by.
"When I was a kid, my father told me, 'Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it.'" - Russel Ziskey
I read an article in the Economist recently stating that Barack Obama really doesn't stand a realistic chance of winning the Democratic nomination because he is seen as a great orator but not considered serious on account of his inability to create legitimate policy's on social, economic and health reforms (gobbledegook to me).
Therefore that really only leaves Clinton and Edwards, and I cannot imagine that dude Edwards winning, he just looks like too much of a nonce to be taken seriously.
If the Republicans have no one of value (which they apparantly don't except this fella who's going to be completely ignored) that really only leaves one option.
Theoritically of course.
Therefore that really only leaves Clinton and Edwards, and I cannot imagine that dude Edwards winning, he just looks like too much of a nonce to be taken seriously.
If the Republicans have no one of value (which they apparantly don't except this fella who's going to be completely ignored) that really only leaves one option.
Theoritically of course.
I know that it's way, way too early to know anything for sure, but I honestly think the candidate with the best shot to be the next president is Obama.
The criticisms you hear of him are accurate-- his proposals are not concrete, and he doesn't have the record to give a good glimpse of how he would choose to govern. However, he's not only a brilliant orator but a very intelligent and genuine man with a formidable holistic view of things, even if he hasn't filled in details yet. Despite how much press Clinton generates, and how much money she raises, I simply can't see her winning an election where people would have to actually vote for her. Edwards is a bleeding heart sort who I don't think can connect with the blue dog / left libertarian faction that is providing the Democratic party with a surge right now. I like Bill Richardson, but it doesn't seem like he has the cachet to mount a serious run-- although you probably could have said that about John Kerry in May 03. I think Richardson can win the presidency if he can win the nomination.
On the Republican side, I don't think Giuliani can hold up, partially because I don't think he's a man built well for a long grind, partially because I think elements on the conservative side will grow more and more turned off by his handling of criminal justice issues while mayor of New York and by some of his unrestrained big government tendencies, while others will be dissuaded by his leniency on abortion, marital issues, and prancing around in a dress on Saturday Night Live. He's also a perfect target for swiftboating. There are already significant numbers of NYC police and firemen who have been openly critical of him and that will likely continue if he stays strong, this would likely be exploited to rob him of his mythos. McCain is a longshot, due to the fact that he's really strongly conservative but lacks serious support from the religiously dominated wing of the party, his age, and the fact that his views on Iraq likely won't be serving him well unless the political situation shifts. Romney I honestly haven't taken seriously the whole time, maybe because he's a Mormon. Maybe that's a mistake, I just figured a Mormon couldn't win (although I guess if I think a black man can win, that's not really fair). Fred Thompson could get in there, but I'm sure there's a lot of warts yet to find on him. I feel like Obama has already demonstrated an ability to stand up to pressure and remain a serious candidate that Thompson can't prove until he jumps into the race. Newt... no, not going to happen.
I think an Obama presidency could range anywhere from a Jimmy Carter (good hearted guy with nice ideas who was not a competent president) to a Ronald Reagan (big vision dreamer who proved able to implement his philosophy and affect serious change). I do hope we get a chance to see where he falls.
The criticisms you hear of him are accurate-- his proposals are not concrete, and he doesn't have the record to give a good glimpse of how he would choose to govern. However, he's not only a brilliant orator but a very intelligent and genuine man with a formidable holistic view of things, even if he hasn't filled in details yet. Despite how much press Clinton generates, and how much money she raises, I simply can't see her winning an election where people would have to actually vote for her. Edwards is a bleeding heart sort who I don't think can connect with the blue dog / left libertarian faction that is providing the Democratic party with a surge right now. I like Bill Richardson, but it doesn't seem like he has the cachet to mount a serious run-- although you probably could have said that about John Kerry in May 03. I think Richardson can win the presidency if he can win the nomination.
On the Republican side, I don't think Giuliani can hold up, partially because I don't think he's a man built well for a long grind, partially because I think elements on the conservative side will grow more and more turned off by his handling of criminal justice issues while mayor of New York and by some of his unrestrained big government tendencies, while others will be dissuaded by his leniency on abortion, marital issues, and prancing around in a dress on Saturday Night Live. He's also a perfect target for swiftboating. There are already significant numbers of NYC police and firemen who have been openly critical of him and that will likely continue if he stays strong, this would likely be exploited to rob him of his mythos. McCain is a longshot, due to the fact that he's really strongly conservative but lacks serious support from the religiously dominated wing of the party, his age, and the fact that his views on Iraq likely won't be serving him well unless the political situation shifts. Romney I honestly haven't taken seriously the whole time, maybe because he's a Mormon. Maybe that's a mistake, I just figured a Mormon couldn't win (although I guess if I think a black man can win, that's not really fair). Fred Thompson could get in there, but I'm sure there's a lot of warts yet to find on him. I feel like Obama has already demonstrated an ability to stand up to pressure and remain a serious candidate that Thompson can't prove until he jumps into the race. Newt... no, not going to happen.
I think an Obama presidency could range anywhere from a Jimmy Carter (good hearted guy with nice ideas who was not a competent president) to a Ronald Reagan (big vision dreamer who proved able to implement his philosophy and affect serious change). I do hope we get a chance to see where he falls.
I would not disregard Ron Paul that out of hand. The GOP is going to need a 'new' face in the next election and will not nominate a has-been like McCain or any one of the old guard career toadies that have been infesting republican white houses since the nixon administration.
Ron Paul is a very good speaker and very strong on a lot of core conservative views, and he's willing to admit that the government fucked up going to Iraq and has the voting record to back up his statements about how it was a bad idea. And if you don't think Iraq will be the number one issue next election as well (and probably the one after that) then you are stupid.
I disagree that nation building is bad foreign policy though. modern day germany and japan is evidence of this. The only problem is that an overwhelming majority of the population of the nation you're building need to desire it. you need to pick your battles, but non-intervention is just going to at best encourage dictatorships, and at worse start another holocaust.
hillary will be hard to beat on the democrat's side. she's a shrew, and not really very bright, but she has basically unlimited money and bill will go to bat for her and rile up his old base, and will probably do the same again for the swing voters in the presidential election. all hillary has to do is listen to him. if America will vote for an obvious lazy retard like Bush twice (even after the disaster of his first administration) they will vote for anyone.
Ron Paul is a very good speaker and very strong on a lot of core conservative views, and he's willing to admit that the government fucked up going to Iraq and has the voting record to back up his statements about how it was a bad idea. And if you don't think Iraq will be the number one issue next election as well (and probably the one after that) then you are stupid.
I disagree that nation building is bad foreign policy though. modern day germany and japan is evidence of this. The only problem is that an overwhelming majority of the population of the nation you're building need to desire it. you need to pick your battles, but non-intervention is just going to at best encourage dictatorships, and at worse start another holocaust.
hillary will be hard to beat on the democrat's side. she's a shrew, and not really very bright, but she has basically unlimited money and bill will go to bat for her and rile up his old base, and will probably do the same again for the swing voters in the presidential election. all hillary has to do is listen to him. if America will vote for an obvious lazy retard like Bush twice (even after the disaster of his first administration) they will vote for anyone.
If the GOP doesn't nominate McCain, it will because he has too centrist of a record, not because he was a has been.
My first two choices are:
John McCain (R)
Bill Richardson (D)
I am thoroughly not excited about anyone else.
edit: fixed
My first two choices are:
John McCain (R)
Bill Richardson (D)
I am thoroughly not excited about anyone else.
edit: fixed
Last edited by Avestan on May 7, 2007, 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John McCain, wasn't he the one that threw that english terrorist off that building? Yippee-kay-yay motherfucker!Avestan wrote:If the GOP doesn't nominate McCain, it will because he has too centrist of a record, but because he was a has been.
My first two choices are:
John McCain (R)
Bill Richardson (D)
I am thoroughly not excited about anyone else.
Hell, I bet you could parlay that name misrecognition into votes in the US.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
More sensible talk from Paul about Foreign Policy and Guiliani's fucking idiotic attitude. Guiliani is the last person I want to see win the election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF3NtEWj6ws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF3NtEWj6ws
-
masteen
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8197
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Florida
- Contact:
Far too many skeletons in Rudy's closet for him to resist a good GOP Roving.
I wish McCain would have won the nod in 2000, because he was the best choice back then. He's made too many compromises since, and not always for the right reasons.
Ron Paul had some good points, and he seems to have a little bit of that old cattle auctioneer in him. Should serve him well in the modern media where being able to constantly talk loud enough to drown out the asshole interviewing you is a necessary skill.
I wish McCain would have won the nod in 2000, because he was the best choice back then. He's made too many compromises since, and not always for the right reasons.
Ron Paul had some good points, and he seems to have a little bit of that old cattle auctioneer in him. Should serve him well in the modern media where being able to constantly talk loud enough to drown out the asshole interviewing you is a necessary skill.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
I still can't believe Giualiani replied in that matter. Surely he must have heard of Ron Paul's agruments before, who hasn't? And the best part is Giualiani's face which shows the best facial expression of shock that I've ever seen. Giualiani and others need to realize that saying our foreign policy has been bad doesn't mean we are blaming america. Regardless, it's a shame he's the front runner.
The most important debate anyways should be on energy policy, which is a far far far greater and immediate threat than terrorism, although if our energy policy is correct terrorism would be a reduced threat.
The most important debate anyways should be on energy policy, which is a far far far greater and immediate threat than terrorism, although if our energy policy is correct terrorism would be a reduced threat.
I'm going to live forever or die trying
-
Keverian FireCry
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2919
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:41 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Seattle, WA
Guiliani should be ashamed about how many times he pulled out the 9/11 card. I can't believe anyone would support him after watching him repeatedly turn a tragic event into a self-serving political tool every time he's in front of a camera.
Ron Paul is the man. Here's another speech on this issue, without assholes like Giuliani trying to make him look anti-American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4
Ron Paul is the man. Here's another speech on this issue, without assholes like Giuliani trying to make him look anti-American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQQ05XtAQ4