Say hello to our next president...

Sometimes, I feel that there's something lacking about Romney.. . :csad: Like there's a sort of disconnect somewhere in his campaign. However I cannot remove the fact that his speech regarding his religion was very inspiring, and very moving, and I truly laud him for that. Its just that, afterwards, he's been so combative lately, and I simply don't want to see or hear anybody attacking anybody - maybe he needs to change his strategy, perhaps focus on how he would solve the subprime housing crisis, immigration problems, oil, Iran.. I'd like to hear more of how he would confront those issues, because I really do think he can. Then, and only then, I just might consider voting for the guy.

I'm wishy-washy about Romney as well, but I think he can beat Clinton. It would be a tough campaign, but one he can win. Afterwards, I see him as the ultimate place holder president. He wouldn't do much harm...and he just screams one-termer. What is the end game, you ask?

2012: A POPULIST-Democrat candidate like Sherrod Brown can win the presidency and take the party back from radicals like Pelosi. With a Populist Democrat in control...real change (not the buzz word Obama is touting) can occur and we can see this country taken back for the common man.

About McCain, man oh man, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.:o :cwink:

Agreed. At any rate, welcome to the Hype. :up: :yay:
 
another republican government? After all what happened? Voters have to be very stupid to do that.

What exactly happened? Tell me what would of happened under a democratic leadership? Would the economic recession not happened? Would we not be at war? Would hurricane Katrina not have happened? The truth of the matter is this country was heading to this point no matter what due to the inaction of congress. Whether it be from the GOP's ridiculous overspending or the democratic forever childish need to embarrass the other party. Vote for one or the other based on the issues, don't buy into the propaganda either side is pushing.
 
I'm wishy-washy about Romney as well, but I think he can beat Clinton. It would be a tough campaign, but one he can win. Afterwards, I see him as the ultimate place holder president. He wouldn't do much harm...and he just screams one-termer. What is the end game, you ask?

2012: A POPULIST-Democrat candidate like Sherrod Brown can win the presidency and take the party back from radicals like Pelosi. With a Populist Democrat in control...real change (not the buzz word Obama is touting) can occur and we can see this country taken back for the common man.



Agreed. At any rate, welcome to the Hype. :up: :yay:

If only we could get a real republican :( Less Government is the way to go :up:
 
If only we could get a real republican :( Less Government is the way to go :up:

Not always. The government should exisit to serve its people. Sometimes, in doing so...it must take on a more pro-active role. I believe our country is approaching one of those times. And don't confuse pro-active with intrusive or a welfare state. Our country needs neither of those.
 
There is a great way of thinking for both paths...of course, each is a philosophical debate unto itself.
The devil is in the details....
 
Matt said:
I'm wishy-washy about Romney as well, but I think he can beat Clinton. It would be a tough campaign, but one he can win. Afterwards, I see him as the ultimate place holder president. He wouldn't do much harm...and he just screams one-termer. What is the end game, you ask?

2012: A POPULIST-Democrat candidate like Sherrod Brown can win the presidency and take the party back from radicals like Pelosi. With a Populist Democrat in control...real change (not the buzz word Obama is touting) can occur and we can see this country taken back for the common man.


Agreed. At any rate, welcome to the Hype. :up: :yay:
Thanks:yay:

That's a good point you raised. I am awfully tired of Pelosi, Murtha, et al most of the Democratic Party today (except Bill Richardson, and guys like him who are too qualified to enter the race). And I agree, like I said in some other thread, if for some reason, FDR would come back from the dead, I'd vote for him. He's a man of his word, knew the ABC's of ground-breaking socio-economic reforms and basic infrastructure, and had a more cohesive war strategy and knew who to assign when it comes to its proper implementation on enemy territory. He was the man who knew how to deliver results.
 
After what happened this past 8 years with Bush in office (Iraq, Katrina, deficit, economy, etc etc), I think the Dems deserve a chance in the WH. I used to like McCain, but he has pandered to Bush so much (after Bush slandered him in 2000) that I don't have much respect for him anymore. Obama may not have as much experience as McCain, but I'm willing to give him a chance. Candidates who have "experience" do not always make the best prez; just look at Bush.
 
art.mccain.fl.win.afp.gi.jpg


It's all but guaranteed at this point. The US will never elect a female or black candidate. That's the [perhaps] unfortunate truth about this country. Anyway, I really want to make this thread so that I can bump it and say "I told you so" by the end of the year.

I agree, however I'm not so sure that McCain will will.
 
I agree, however I'm not so sure that McCain will will.

If Clinton becomes the nominee, McCain would completely rape her campaign.

She'd have no choice but to drop her experience platform because McCain's experience far exceeds hers.

Iraq would blow up in her face because of her vote for it, her constant defending of the vote but saying we should pull out, while McCain criticized the handling of the war but has remained consistent in his support and the situation has been getting better.

Clinton is involved in numerous scandals such as Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate along with the baggage of her husbands scandals with Monica Lewinski, the pardons, etc. McCain just has Keating Five and his divorce both of which can be easily swept away.

And finally, McCain is far better than Clinton in capturing the two most important voting blocs: the independents and the moderates (conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans). He'd have the average Republican and conservative vote. And the GOP would fearmonger the neo-conservatives and evangellicals into voting for McCain by telling them that if they don't vote or vote for a third party they'll be responsible for putting Hillary Clinton in office. The only people who would vote for Clinton are Democrats and false "independents" (people who haven't registered for a party, claim to be independent, but prefer a certain party).

Now if Barack Obama got the nomination, now there will be a challenge. That would be a good campaign to see.
 
If Clinton becomes the nominee, McCain would completely rape her campaign.

She'd have no choice but to drop her experience platform because McCain's experience far exceeds hers.

Iraq would blow up in her face because of her vote for it, her constant defending of the vote but saying we should pull out, while McCain criticized the handling of the war but has remained consistent in his support and the situation has been getting better.

Clinton is involved in numerous scandals such as Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate along with the baggage of her husbands scandals with Monica Lewinski, the pardons, etc. McCain just has Keating Five and his divorce both of which can be easily swept away.

And finally, McCain is far better than Clinton in capturing the two most important voting blocs: the independents and the moderates (conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans). He'd have the average Republican and conservative vote. And the GOP would fearmonger the neo-conservatives and evangellicals into voting for McCain by telling them that if they don't vote or vote for a third party they'll be responsible for putting Hillary Clinton in office. The only people who would vote for Clinton are Democrats and false "independents" (people who haven't registered for a party, claim to be independent, but prefer a certain party).

Now if Barack Obama got the nomination, now there will be a challenge. That would be a good campaign to see.

I completely agree, I just meant I'm not so sure that McCain will be the nominee.
 
If it weren't for him supporting the war, I'd have no problem with McCain. But, I'm sorry. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who wants to continue a war.
 
I completely agree, I just meant I'm not so sure that McCain will be the nominee.

McCain's nomination is now an inevitability. He'll win important Super Tuesday states in New York (101 winner take all), California (173 winner take all), New Jersey (52 winner take all), Arizona (53 winner take all), and Illinois (70 proportional).
 
*begins ranting*

The only reason I haven't changed my registration to independent is because of the history of the Democratic Party. I am still a Democrat in the sense that Franklin Roosevelt was. I am in the party of Roosevelt, of Johnson, of Truman, of Wilson. The list can go on. The Democratic Party has such an amazing history. No other American party can say the same. The Republican Party has had 3 great Presidents (Eisenhower, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. People will argue for Reagan...but he's not. His policies were so shortsighted its not even funny and has done a lot of damage in the long run. People will say he won the Cold War, but that is a load. The Soviets destroyed themselves. They were on their way to being bankrupt. Reagan just happened to be president at the time). I wish the Democrat party would find its way back to the great party it was under FDR. FDR fought for the middle class. Now-a-days, the Democratic Party does not care if every middle class job is outsourced, so long as a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parent's knowledge. The party has lost its way under the leadership of the babyboomers and that is sad.

*ends ranting*

Heh, this statement screams 'blind populist zealot', can't pass up on all the flaws in this one.

The Republican party indeed had Lincoln, who with the rest of the Republican Party, are the ones who managed to abolish slavery, gain equal rights, AND secure voting rights for African-Americans. We're also the first major party to endorse and push through legislation that ensured women's right to vote.

Hell, for the most of the late 19th century in the 20th, Republicans were the dominant party of Americans. To be exact, 28 of 40 years, that's from 1952 on through to 1992 the White House was under the Republican Party. Yes we had Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Lincoln we also had Nixon, Ford, Regean, AND Bush Sr. ALL great Presidents with an enormous amount of impact of the nation we have today.

As to your naive claims concerning Reagan, the United States won the Cold War because of his leadership. Millions were freed from communism because of the man you'd like to diminish. It was under Reagan AND Bush Sr. that the United States became the world's only superpower. Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights. The freedom of Americans to make their own decisions, and to live their own lives, relatively free from governmental or other interference, has caused us to become a beacon of hope around the world, the basic principles that Thomas Jefferson held are the ones that make up our party.

The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Ammendments exist because of Republicans. Unfortunately, there have been several departures from the core of the party over the years but nonetheless, your assertion that only the Democratic Party has a rich history is completely false.
 
Heh, this statement screams 'blind populist zealot', can't pass up on all the flaws in this one.

The Republican party indeed had Lincoln, who with the rest of the Republican Party, are the ones who managed to abolish slavery, gain equal rights, AND secure voting rights for African-Americans. We're also the first major party to endorse and push through legislation that ensured women's right to vote.

And I would not, nor did I ever sell Lincoln short.

Hell, for the most of the late 19th century in the 20th, Republicans were the dominant party of Americans. To be exact, 28 of 40 years, that's from 1952 on through to 1992 the White House was under the Republican Party. Yes we had Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Lincoln we also had Nixon, Ford, Regean, AND Bush Sr. ALL great Presidents with an enormous amount of impact of the nation we have today.

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you called Nixon, Ford, and Bush Sr. great presidents and move on.*

As to your naive claims concerning Reagan, the United States won the Cold War because of his leadership. Millions were freed from communism because of the man you'd like to diminish. It was under Reagan AND Bush Sr. that the United States became the world's only superpower. Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights. The freedom of Americans to make their own decisions, and to live their own lives, relatively free from governmental or other interference, has caused us to become a beacon of hope around the world, the basic principles that Thomas Jefferson held are the ones that make up our party.

The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Ammendments exist because of Republicans. Unfortunately, there have been several departures from the core of the party over the years but nonetheless, your assertion that only the Democratic Party has a rich history is completely false.

Reagan and Bush Sr threw smoke into the fire. Our Soviet policy was working fine. We were at peace with the SU, Reagan pretty much pissed them off for the sake of it. As if he was trying to turn the Cold War into...well...a war. Furthermore, the Soviets collapsed because of their economy. Quite frankly, they went broke and that led to revolution. It had nothing to do with "great leadership" from Reagan. The same scenario would've played out under Walter Mondale.


* Nixon would've been great if he didn't completely cluster-**** our pull out from Vietnam and then get caught up in Watergate.
 
Sadly, that's about what I'd expect from what I've seen of your views, which happen to be very biased with the guise of equality.

What you seem to have overlooked is the simple fact that the Republican Party has just as rich a history as the Democratic, if not more so.
 
McCain's nomination is now an inevitability. He'll win important Super Tuesday states in New York (101 winner take all), California (173 winner take all), New Jersey (52 winner take all), Arizona (53 winner take all), and Illinois (70 proportional).

It certainly appears like it and I'm all for it, but I'm just worried there could be a big upset next week.
 
Sadly, that's about what I'd expect from what I've seen of your views, which happen to be very biased with the guise of equality.

What you seem to have overlooked is the simple fact that the Republican Party has just as rich a history as the Democratic, if not more so.

Yep, Bush Sr. and Ford...such great history. And if I were so biased, why would I have began my post by pointing out various great Republican presidents? The Democrats simply have a longer, richer history.
 
Yep, Bush Sr. and Ford...such great history. And if I were so biased, why would I have began my post by pointing out various great Republican presidents? The Democrats simply have a longer, richer history.

Thus my equality statement.

It's classic, you lead off with a positive and then get to the point. For example:

-"I have a black friend..." Which is the classic cover used by closet racist remarks.

-"I don't hate gay people but...' Which invariably leads to a gay bash.

And your classic:

-"I don't like Hillary but..." Which has led to you bashing Obama and being pro-Clinton under the table, i.e. in every possible stance except openly.

You gave out underhanded praise and then dug in with a statement that's false, plain and simple. Obviously we have very different views on the definition of the word 'rich'.
 
McCain's nomination is now an inevitability. He'll win important Super Tuesday states in New York (101 winner take all), California (173 winner take all), New Jersey (52 winner take all), Arizona (53 winner take all), and Illinois (70 proportional).

Agreed. The writing is on the wall now, especially with the expectation that Rudy will endorse him. The thing is neither McCain, Huckabee or Guiliani have any love for Mitty. Of the 4, he probably has the highest approval ratings, hence the voting patterns we've seen thusfar. And if it comes down to 2 candidates, with McCain vs. Mitt Romney, McCain will still trounce him. Why? Because for the simple fact that Mitty is not likable, despite his experience in government.

McCain WILL take it--I can sense it. *removes fingers from temples*
 
I also agree (and have said in other threads here) that if McCain is indeed the Repubbie nominee, it will mean SUDDEN DEATH for Hillary Clinton. He will completely evaporate every brick of her campaigning foundation. Mark my words.

The only viable candidate that could actually give him a run for his money is Obama. His views on matters are essentially the same as Billary's and Edwards, yet he doesn't have dirt in his past that could be used against him by McCain's political machine (i.e. he was the only Senator that didn't support the war on Iraq).

Plus, I am not so sure that the American public is jumping at the chance to reinstate 4 more years of Repubbie control...most have had their fill of it, thanks to fumbles of the current Administration.
 
As to your naive claims concerning Reagan, the United States won the Cold War because of his leadership. Millions were freed from communism because of the man you'd like to diminish. It was under Reagan AND Bush Sr. that the United States became the world's only superpower. Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights. The freedom of Americans to make their own decisions, and to live their own lives, relatively free from governmental or other interference, has caused us to become a beacon of hope around the world, the basic principles that Thomas Jefferson held are the ones that make up our party.

The problem with your assertion that the U.S. won the Cold War because of Reagan is completely false. Studies have shown that the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway. During the 1980s, the country's economic growth was at an all time low, the economy was in a deep recession, and the political climate had been changing in many of the Soviet satellite nations since the late 1970s. Certainly, Reagan's calls to the end the communist regime in the USSR helped end the Cold War; but Reagan didn't solely end the Cold War. The Cold War would have ended not because of an American president, but because of the economy, and it did so solely because of its own economic downturn-- NOT international calls to abandon its government and start anew.

The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Ammendments exist because of Republicans. Unfortunately, there have been several departures from the core of the party over the years but nonetheless, your assertion that only the Democratic Party has a rich history is completely false.

My Democratic Party is the Democratic Party which emerged in the Sixties, when LBJ led the Democrats into accepting and promoting civil rights. My Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party of two hundred years ago, the party which oppressed an entire race and entire generations because they looked different. My party is not what the Republican Party has become. When you get a Republican who can fight for gay rights, a woman's right to choose, cutting taxes for the middle class and freedom of religious expression to all denominations including those who aren't rooted in Christianity, then I'll support the Republican Party. But for now, I have the Democratic Party, and that's the party I plan to support until they personally screw me over.
 
I couldn't agree with you more.

No offense but if you guys decide to have Hillary as the nominee, the Democrats deserve another 4 years of a Republican administration. Giving her the nomination is just literally asking "Please sir can I have some more," to the Republicans.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,559
Messages
21,759,746
Members
45,596
Latest member
anarchomando1
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"