Possible Presidential Election.... [Archive]

1300 Class

05-04-2006, 02:43 AM

HappyFatChick

05-04-2006, 06:38 PM

I don't think any of the three you mentioned could win. The Bush/Clinton ticket will happen when hell freezes over. Although it was a very interesting idea.

Democrat chats are all suggesting Gore again.
The Republicans have no clear favorite at this point.
It's way too soon to tell.

It is fun to see the Democrats getting all excited again thinking they have a chance to take the White House. They get excited over every perceived "screw up" by the Republicans.

They keep forgetting they lost 5/7 of the last elections. Americans are too smart for the hate campaigns. 2008 will be no different. Just like I said in 2000.

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk

05-04-2006, 06:45 PM

Chippy for pres.

Democrats should put up Richardson (he will get a VP nod tho I think)
Rep will try Pataki or Romney

1300 Class

05-04-2006, 07:18 PM

What would be wrong with Dr Rice becoming President?

I read in the paper that there is even the possibility that Cheney will make a run for President. Though that doesn't sound to good...

HappyFatChick

05-04-2006, 07:29 PM

Rice would be a great president. I just don't know if America will elect a woman yet.
I seriously doubt Cheney could win.
I don't think the Republicans will nominate someone unless they are sure he can win.

JudgeDredd425

05-04-2006, 09:23 PM

The next presidential election is in 2008, but people are already getting into position. If things pan out the way they are heading this could be a possibility:
Democratic Nomination:
Hillary Clinton

GOP Nomination
Condi or McCain.

In your opinion, in a Hillary vs Condi slugfest, who could come out on top and be the first woman president?

On a side, note, a credible third party:
George Bush Senior on the Presidential Ticket
Bill Clinton as his VP. Could be hailed as a cabinet of national unity etc. lol.

If the winner happens to be among any of the aforementioned then the whole country will lose because not a one is worth a damn. Also most, if not all named on here, have broken the law and are threats to constitutionally limited government.

ScreamingChicken

05-04-2006, 09:31 PM

The next presidential election is in 2008, but people are already getting into position. If things pan out the way they are heading this could be a possibility:
Democratic Nomination:
Hillary Clinton

GOP Nomination
Condi or McCain.

In your opinion, in a Hillary vs Condi slugfest, who could come out on top and be the first woman president?

On a side, note, a credible third party:
George Bush Senior on the Presidential Ticket
Bill Clinton as his VP. Could be hailed as a cabinet of national unity etc. lol.
Hillary has flipped flopped on immigration to the point where I don't think even she knows where she stands. Just a little consistency, please?

Condi is very intelligent but she is too close to the Iraq mess and she just doesn't seem to have the gravitas to pull it off.

Now if Colin Powell was interested in the job, oh yes. I like. And if he ran as an independent, even better.

1300 Class

05-05-2006, 12:17 AM

If the winner happens to be among any of the aforementioned then the whole country will lose because not a one is worth a damn. Also most, if not all named on here, have broken the law and are threats to constitutionally limited government.
Just who are your suggestions then?

Now if Colin Powell was interested in the job, oh yes. I like. And if he ran as an independent, even better.
Then everyone will remember what he said in the UN, and the whole mess with that...

EasyCheese

05-05-2006, 12:20 AM

I would vote Pat robertson as pres... so long as I got to be John Wilks Booth circa 2008:D

JudgeDredd425

05-05-2006, 12:22 AM

Just who are your suggestions then?

Then everyone will remember what he said in the UN, and the whole mess with that...

Right now I don't have any as I'm unaware of any front runner, or runner at all currently that has enough integrity to do the job right. In all honesty, I will most likely vote for whoever the Libertarian party nominates as I have for the last several Presidential elections

herin

05-05-2006, 12:23 AM

Condi gets my vote. Or McCain with Condi as the vp.

ScreamingChicken

05-05-2006, 12:24 AM

If there was ever a decent chance for an independent, then 2008 is it. Democrats only seem to say "No to Bush"; I couldn't tell you where they stand on much these days. It's a fragmented party. And the Republicans are showing wear after 12 years of hell raising and 6 years of rubber stamping. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't vocal divisions in the GOP by 2008. And the lack of an incumbent will make it real interesting.

MissToodles

05-05-2006, 07:24 AM

Ugh, neither. Clinton is a total centrist who tries to be everything, to everyone. I just don't really care much for her. The only thing I admire her for is trying to intiate a nationwide health care plan.

FitChick

05-05-2006, 07:43 AM

I'd like to see Lynn Swann for Pres on the Rep side, but he's running for PA Gov...the nation's loss.

http://www.swannforgovernor.com/

Webmaster

05-05-2006, 08:01 AM

The American two party system is bad news. All it does is divide the nation and make every single project a partisan struggle. In that sense I much prefer the Swiss government that also has a house and senate, but no presidency. There are six or seven major parties, all over the spectrum. Thus, anyone will find a party that represents his or her ideas, and there is none of the "us versus them" mentality we have here. Instead of the presidency, the Swiss have a Federal Counsel which consists of representatives of the parties and has a rotating nominal presidency. Together they work out solutions. The Swiss people also have much more say over almost every political decision. They do that via the referendum process where they can bring important issues to a vote directly.

As for our own next election here, I almost don't care as I've become rather disillusioned and disenfranchised over the entire tiresome process with all the posturing and divisiveness. Truth be told, it is very clearly time for the United States to have a woman president. I mean, are we going to be the last civilized nation in the world to do so??? And as much as I don't personally like Hill, she's smart, calm-cool-collected, and rarely loses it. All she's lacking is a warm personality and charisma. I'd pick Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis) from "Commander in Chief" over Hill anyday but sadly that's not an option. And neither is Gore who's simply just a boring windbag. On the Republican side, I see no one either. Any potential love affair with McCain would quickly evaporate and so a dark horse candidate will probably emerge.

dan

05-05-2006, 08:30 AM

Condi will win..Hillary is over-rated although She is prettier.Condi can think on her feet.She can answer questions without "dancing' around it.Hillary is my Senator.She has done very little for the people of NY..Maybe 1 or 2 things that I can think of..Too busy raising money all over the country. Hillary has no Charisma..She will never be the Prez.Must women I know do not like her..I do not think Condi will run though. If she doesn't I do believe Rudi G. or McCain will get the nod.. I hope Rudty Gets it..He is one FEARLESS man.

dan

05-05-2006, 08:34 AM

I must add I like Hillarys big thighs, and large bum!!

ScreamingChicken

05-05-2006, 08:37 AM

HappyFatChick

05-05-2006, 08:44 AM

Conrad: I liked what you said and I found your info about Swiss government fascinating.

As far as Hillary goes: I'd love to see the libs run her. It would be SO much fun watching her: duck and dodge her past scandals, move to the middle ("I've always been a God person" LOL!!!), trying to keep Bill in line (good luck with that one), and get some payback from the fair and balanced media.
But even the libs know she can't win. She is too disliked.

Rudy won't get the nom because he is too liberal for the base conservatives.
Romney won't either because of his religion.
McCain can't win. Too many on both sides don't trust him.
Swann is great but not enough experience. He vs. Obama in 2016? Could be interesting...

And I'm no Pat Robertson cheerleader, but I found the Booth comment obnoxious.

Seth Warren

05-05-2006, 03:49 PM

I'd like to see Lynn Swann for Pres on the Rep side, but he's running for PA Gov...the nation's loss.

http://www.swannforgovernor.com/

Pennsylvania's loss, if he wins. Here's hoping the Eagles fans get pissed off with him seeing as how his campaign has been nothing but, "I was a Steeler! Go Steelers! Vote for me!"

Rendell is ahead in the polls, but both candidates are matched budget-wise. We'll just have to wait and see whether scandals remembered or political experience will win out.

Lynn Swann: go ahead, PA - fumble your future.

grey1969

05-05-2006, 07:37 PM

HappyFatChick

05-05-2006, 08:00 PM

I like Romney. A lot. The problem is I don't think Americans will elect a Mormon to the presidency. I think he has to be a "Christian". (No matter how backslidden they are Mr. Clinton...)

And you're right about his looks. He wins in that department. McCain's looks, personality, and confusion will keep him out of the White House.

Chimpi

05-05-2006, 08:03 PM

If she doesn't I do believe Rudi G. or McCain will get the nod.. I hope Rudty Gets it..He is one FEARLESS man.

The day Rudy Giuliani becomes president = The day the Earth stood still.

But that's just me. :) No offense, at all.
I'll vote for Hillary Clinton, if she runs. Methinks Hillary is certainly a fearless women. :) Fearlessness isn't always a bad thing. George Bush = Fearless. To me, that's a bad fearlessness. To me.

ClashCityRocker

05-05-2006, 10:35 PM

The day Rudy Giuliani becomes president = The day the Earth stood still.

But that's just me. :) No offense, at all.
I'll vote for Hillary Clinton, if she runs. Methinks Hillary is certainly a fearless women. :) Fearlessness isn't always a bad thing. George Bush = Fearless. To me, that's a bad fearlessness. To me.

to us...i remember a few years back talking to some homeless guys in NYC talking about how terrible a job they thought giuliani was doing...it almost sounded like he was out to get them. and these guys were smart, easy to talk to and opinionated people. so, yeah, giuliani, aside from being an irritating name to type, would NOT recieve this guy's vote.

1300 Class

05-06-2006, 12:15 AM

I doubt he would be registered to vote any way.

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk

05-06-2006, 07:22 AM

The American two party system is bad news. All it does is divide the nation and make every single project a partisan struggle. In that sense I much prefer the Swiss government that also has a house and senate, but no presidency. There are six or seven major parties, all over the spectrum. Thus, anyone will find a party that represents his or her ideas, and there is none of the "us versus them" mentality we have here. Instead of the presidency, the Swiss have a Federal Counsel which consists of representatives of the parties and has a rotating nominal presidency. Together they work out solutions. The Swiss people also have much more say over almost every political decision. They do that via the referendum process where they can bring important issues to a vote directly.

I agree with your first assessment, however a three party system in America would be disaster, and here's why I believe it. Say you have 45% GOP, 45% Dem and 10% Libertarian (just choosing a random group). For either the GOP or Dems to get their stuff passed with 50+% (assuming no filibusters) they will court to the Libertarians and basically THAT party becomes the ruling party because the other two can't do anything without them.

Now that wouldn't be so bad if it were the Libertarians as if I were forced to choose a party it would be theirs or one with similar dogma minus Lyndon LaRouche type nuts. But imagine a Pat Buchanan type party or the Greens or some exteremist one knowing that for anything the GOP or Dems want to pass, they need them. It would be political blackmail.

If we got it to 6 or 7 parties well that would be grand...although that would create election problems as the system is written today (look up the US Presidential election of 1824 where Andrew Jackson had the most Electoral and Popular Votes and lost the election). However it would be nice if we got back to the way Washington wanted it: no parties.

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk

05-06-2006, 07:30 AM

add on note: speaking of the 1824 election, back then most of the successors to the Presidency when the party in power stayed in power was not the Vice President, but the Secretary of State:

NO PARTY
George Washington

FEDERALIST
John Adams, his V.P.

DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN
Thomas Jefferson, Washington's SoS, Adams' VP
James Madison, Jefferson's SoS
James Monroe, Madison's SoS
John Quincy Adams, Monroe's SoS

DEMOCRATIC
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren, Jackson's SoS then VP

Jane

05-06-2006, 07:32 AM

Chippy!!!!

Can't I at LEAST get a WHEEEEE!!!!! at the end of your post?

Wayne_Zitkus

05-06-2006, 10:42 AM

The day Rudy Giuliani becomes president = The day the Earth stood still.

But that's just me. :) No offense, at all.
I'll vote for Hillary Clinton, if she runs. Methinks Hillary is certainly a fearless women. :) Fearlessness isn't always a bad thing. George Bush = Fearless. To me, that's a bad fearlessness. To me.
I find it fascinating.

Up until September 10, 2001, Rudy Giuliani was almost universally considered scum - based on the lousy job he did running the city and the way he paraded his mistress around in public (even in front of his kids).

After he merely did his job on 9/11 (like so many other did that day - police, firefighters, practically everyone involved except Bush), he was instantly elevated to sainthood.

dan

05-06-2006, 01:46 PM

I find it fascinating.

Up until September 10, 2001, Rudy Giuliani was almost universally considered scum - based on the lousy job he did running the city and the way he paraded his mistress around in public (even in front of his kids).

After he merely did his job on 9/11 (like so many other did that day - police, firefighters, practically everyone involved except Bush), he was instantly elevated to sainthood.The Rev Al Sharpton demonized him daily.. AL has done nothing but stir the race pot in this city,now he is all over the place causing more racial tensions. Being somewhat part of this great city I saw tremendous change the time he was Mayor. ........Cleaned up the Mob,Judges,teachers,drug dealers,custodians and other things I can't think of at this moment..To say he did a "lousy job" is not fair..Name me 3 things Hillary has done for the State of New York..??I'm really trying hard not to be Nasty ..

NancyGirl74

05-06-2006, 01:57 PM

If there is a woman who might run we can't rule out Christy Todd Whitman. I have no opinion on this even those she was my states governor. Just thought I'd point her out.

I don't hate Hill. I think powerful woman still tend to scare people. That being said I don't know if I would vote for her. Any woman who allows her husband to publicly cheat on her doesn't really seem all that strong to me after all.

LarryTheShiveringChipmunk

05-06-2006, 03:26 PM

Chippy!!!!

Can't I at LEAST get a WHEEEEE!!!!! at the end of your post?
CHippy don't whee when being serious ya know!

missaf

05-06-2006, 03:49 PM

Mitt Romney is actually a good candidate that is over looked. While I think he probably would have a long road ahead of him, I think he'd do a fine job as the chief of the country.

Seth Warren

05-08-2006, 01:32 PM

I agree with your first assessment, however a three party system in America would be disaster, and here's why I believe it. Say you have 45% GOP, 45% Dem and 10% Libertarian (just choosing a random group). For either the GOP or Dems to get their stuff passed with 50+% (assuming no filibusters) they will court to the Libertarians and basically THAT party becomes the ruling party because the other two can't do anything without them.

Now that wouldn't be so bad if it were the Libertarians as if I were forced to choose a party it would be theirs or one with similar dogma minus Lyndon LaRouche type nuts. But imagine a Pat Buchanan type party or the Greens or some exteremist one knowing that for anything the GOP or Dems want to pass, they need them. It would be political blackmail.

If we got it to 6 or 7 parties well that would be grand...although that would create election problems as the system is written today (look up the US Presidential election of 1824 where Andrew Jackson had the most Electoral and Popular Votes and lost the election). However it would be nice if we got back to the way Washington wanted it: no parties.

That's if you kept the existing system of elections where a simple majority is the rule. This is why I support instant run-off voting; it creates a system where the voter can choose how much they want a candidate rather than just choosing which candidate they want. I such a system would eventually paint a much more accurate picture of the United States, politically.

Durin

05-08-2006, 07:38 PM

The 2008 race is so interesting because anything could happen. There really are no Front Runners yet.

The Ones in name only are McCain-R and Hillary-D.

As a Republican I could never support McCain because of his Finance Reform law that he sposored. That Law is so Bad that I can't even consider voting for McCain ever.

Example: If we as Dimensions posters wanted to pool our money to put on some Anti-Huckabee (Rabid Fat Basher) commercials on before an election. We couldn't witin 90?days of the election because of Campain Reform Law.

So a lot of Republicans don't trust McCain.

Personally I would love to see Guliani get the nomination. I think it would be great if the moderate wing of the party would be able to flex it's muscles.

Also It's fun as a Republican because a lot of us have Bush Fatigue. I think Bush has done a few things right but a lot of things wrong. He signs every bill that comes across his desk, including the aforementioned Campaign Reform Bill. He shows no guts on slowing Government spending. When your friends are starting to have trouble liking you, your in political trouble.

Zandoz

05-09-2006, 08:34 AM

Campaign/election reform: Outlaw all political contributions other than those made by private CITIZENS (ie legal voters)....we are supposed to have government OF THE PEOPLE. Then limit those contributions to a maximum percentage of the median income, to eliminate undue influence. Followed by complete elimination of all institutionalized support for political parties...for example the elimination of all publicly funded party primaries...one primary for each office, the top two run in the election, regardless of their party. Eliminate the electoral college...it's time passed over a hundred years ago. Finally...multiday elections (eliminates weather and too busy excuses) with no voting results released anywhere until after the last polling place has closed....using standardized voting equipment, that part of the voter registration process is demonstration of the ability to use said equipment.

In the meantime we need a mass presidential write in campaign for Noneda Bove.

HappyFatChick

05-09-2006, 08:54 AM

Did you see where Rupert Murdoch was hosting a fudraiser for Hillary's re-election campaign? Talk about strange bedfellows....

Tina

05-09-2006, 09:20 AM

I don't hate Hill. I think powerful woman still tend to scare people. That being said I don't know if I would vote for her. Any woman who allows her husband to publicly cheat on her doesn't really seem all that strong to me after all.

Nancy, do you think Hillary "allowed" it? How would she be able to stop it, if that's what he wanted to do?

MissToodles

05-09-2006, 09:31 AM

Did you see where Rupert Murdoch was hosting a fudraiser for Hillary's re-election campaign? Talk about strange bedfellows....

Religious jews love her, a traditionally conservative block of voters. I know murdoch isn't jewish (although some may think he is!) but it shows how she tries to be everything to everyone.

Miss Vickie

05-09-2006, 12:57 PM

I'd definitely voted for Hillary if she'd run. I think she's very smart, and obviously if she ran she'd have access to her husband's knowledge and experience, which would be helpful. (I'd rather have Bill Clinton as president again but since it's against the law...) I also like Wes Clark and thought he didn't get a fair shake because he's not as much of a politican as Kerry, nor as loud and crazy acting as Dean. But he has some excellent ideas, and is a military guy who doesn't think we should over-use military force. Lieberman makes me ill. Gore? Eh. The rest of them are, sadly, acting like a bunch of pussies, other than Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein but I'm not sure they have the political backing that Hillary has.

If McCain ran, I'd seriously consider him as a possibility and cross party lines to vote for him (depending on who he was running against). I think the fact that he can work bi-partisanly (is that a word?) is excellent and I don't see him as a traitor or flip flopper, but rather someone who is open to ideas from either party, which I see as a positive thing. The last thing we need is more partisanship.

But truthfully? I think I'd rather have this guy:

http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/8036JonStewart.jpg

Seth Warren

05-09-2006, 01:35 PM

I like Hillary, but she really needs to back off of the entertainment industry and get her head out of her ass regarding Iraq.

And yes, when I lived in New York, I did vote for her - one of the reason being that the other guy thought the state ended about two miles north of Albany while Hillary went so far as to visit Massena, a village near the Canadian border, twenty miles north of where I used to live. After she was elected, she actually visited my campus, but I had to miss it because I was booked to DJ a wedding.

Anyway, having moved to Pennsylvania, I do feel put out that I've had to trade Hillary for Rick "by-product of anal sex" Santorum. That dead fetus-fondling piece of garbage should have been ousted from office years ago!

HappyFatChick

05-09-2006, 05:01 PM

I like Rick Santorum and I find that post so offensive I cannot even begin to express it! I know about the left's attempt to stenchify his name. I think it's disgusting.:mad:

HappyFatChick

05-09-2006, 06:30 PM

I had to go take a time out or I would have unloaded such a haul of venom at that last post, I would have been banned for life.

Why the vile reference to Santorum? I know what some on the left are trying to do to his name. Anyone can google it and find out. It's repulsive!

Comments like that represent the behavior of a huge number of far-lefties. Remember the Whoopi Goldberg crotch-grab while referring to my president's name? I do.

Americans are watching and listening to what both sides say.
My bet is that they will again elect a Republican.

rainyday

05-09-2006, 06:40 PM

Loudspeaker:

"Could we get a liberal self-policer over here on aisle three please. Clean up on aisle three."

(While I'm here, HFC, since they'll cream me if I don't mention it, "Comments like that represent the behavior of a huge number of far-lefties" might be just an eensy bit of a generalization.)

ScreamingChicken

05-09-2006, 06:42 PM

With the latest approval rating for Bush as 31% and Congress at 23%(CBS/ NY Times Poll), nothing is a gimme at this point.

Seth Warren

05-10-2006, 02:08 PM

I had to go take a time out or I would have unloaded such a haul of venom at that last post, I would have been banned for life.

I aim to please.

Why the vile reference to Santorum? I know what some on the left are trying to do to his name. Anyone can google it and find out. It's repulsive!

Because Santorum (I refer to the man) is vile. The left doesn't need to do a damn thing to his name, as he does it to himself, from his comments on homosexuality to his rubber-stamping of everything Bush does to his cybor school scandal to his lack of living in the district he represents...and yes, the fetus-fondling jab is true as well! His wife miscarried and the two of them desecrated the body. To me, desecration of a corpse is much more disgusting than a slang term.

Comments like that represent the behavior of a huge number of far-lefties. Remember the Whoopi Goldberg crotch-grab while referring to my president's name? I do.

I find that insulting to vaginas around the world. And if he's your president, would you please take him back? I sure as hell don't want him...

Americans are watching and listening to what both sides say.
My bet is that they will again elect a Republican.

You give Americans too much credit...or maybe just enough with your prediction of who will keep "winning" elections. I will concede this: maybe if Democrats would quit acting like bitches, they'd quit ending up as bitches.

To wrap this up: you can keep liking Santorum and I can keep a.) hoping you don't live in Pennsylvania or b.) if you do that you are unable to leave the house on election day. :kiss2:

rainyday

05-10-2006, 02:52 PM

You know, if what you say about Santorum is true I'd probably retract my quip above. I've been distracted by life events for a while now and haven't been keeping up with the news (not my usual M.O.). Clearly I've missed some stuff.

Tina

05-10-2006, 02:59 PM

Personally, I have no problem with insulting political or public figures. They are not only public, but public *servants* and therefore, open to scrutiny.

Where I have a problem is when we insult *each other* and make sweeping generalizations about each other. Frankly, while I don't know about the fetus-fondling, I agree about Santorium, just because of his other transgressions, and find that politicians *should* be questioned and criticized where it is warranted. Seth, do you have any reputable links about the whole fetus thing?