Printable View
I have a real fear that the upcoming presidential election will be between these two monumental douche bags. IMO, one would be hard pressed to find a set of candidates that so clearly exemplify machine politics and the disingenuous pandering that has become the coin of the realm. Oh well, maybe Bloomberg will run as an independent.
-Quinn
The only republican candidate that could beat Clinton is Dr. Paul. This is true because if she runs against anybody else, she will run as the antiwar candidate. Well, we all know this isn't true because she's not. She couldn't take this stance against Paul, because Paul is the TRUE antiwar candidate... (79% of Americans are against the war and she knows this)
Everybody will be like "Hillary will end war, vote for her",yada yada. She's a lying scumbag and will play this false antiwar savior. She's a warhawk and this is why she was funded the greatest by defense contractors and weapon makers out of any candidate, they all know what happens behind the black curtain..
Ron Paul couldn't beat Clinton. As is being proved by the primaries right now, while Dr. Paul is excellent at raising money, he's garbage at getting out the vote. The fact of the matter is that if Dr. Paul magically was the republican candidate for president the republicans won't vote for him. While 79% of americans are against the war 79% of republicans are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
yeah a romney vs clinton presidential race would suck...big money douche bags,all part of the big money oligarchy getiing us 20 or more yrs of bush,clintonbushclinton...romney i feel is the worst of all candidates..i was hoping the dems is michigan would have some sense and get out and vote in the repug primary to help huckabee win..further addin to the demise of the gay ol pederast party machine......
When hasn't our election been between two monumental douche bags, in recent history. Nobody runs as an independant, except Ross Perot ... at least he could fix your car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn
I really hope Bloomberg runs. He doesn't need to raise any money, nor pander to anyone. He's a realist who's popular with his constituents even after raising property taxes, (because Rudy left it in a fiscal mess). He works well with both parties, but doesn't favor either one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn
And he has repeatedly stated that he plans on being Mayor of NYC until January1, 2009 so he'll be needing something to occupy his time. :wink:
Don't count Obama out. Clinton is a BIG waste of time. Obama still has a VERY strong chance and the Clinton's know that - hence the ridiculous personal attacks.
The republicans don't have a strong front runner. This is the most divided I have EVER seen the Republican party.
Oh... Yeah, not many people remember '64, or the Nixon fiasco. '64 was the turning point that brought the party into the ideological lockstep that we see today, & led to the election of Ronald Regan in '80. Nixon was a bump in that road but his downfall actually solidified the right turn by the party. As big a crook as he was, & he was, Nixon was the last pragmatic republican President. Bush 41 tried to be, but he was too busy slinging bombs around the world to pay much attention to who was taking control of the party. He strayed from the supply side doctrine & lost full party support. Bush 43 has stuck to the mantra, but the incompetence that comes with ideology before sense finally caught up. That's why they're out of power in the Congress & getting ready to lose the Presidency.Quote:
This is the most divided I have EVER seen the Republican party.
Hillary's hawkishness bothers me, but I don't think she's nearly as rabid as John McCain. If she does become President, & that's looking more & more likely, it'll be fun to watch the republicans come unglued. Nobody sends them into a tizzy the way she does.
If Hillary got the dem nod instead of Obama, I personally would have no problems with voting for her instead of any possible GOP candidate. The GOP's stance on issues such as stem cell research and so-called "creative design" are enough to stop me from voting for a GOP candidate. I'm not going to speculate on Bloomberg, or whether I might vote for him, until he actually gets into the race.
Or is it "intelligent design?" Whatever, it's BS either way...