Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TULedHead

The Next President of the USA will be?

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

He runs as a repub because of his economic stance, which happens to be extremely free market...

I know. It was a joke remarking on his tendency to move liberal on other issues, like the Iraq War, Immigration, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but I think your endrosement of Rudy is ridiculous and I wish you'd do more research. I think, if you look up enough, you'll find that Rudy is without a doubt the worst candidate for the job.

Who said I was endorsing Rudy Guiliani? Way to completely put words in my mouth. I'm a Democrat, and unless Hilary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'm voting for a Democrat in the general election next year. If Hilary is it, I'm not voting. I'd rather not vote at all than waste my vote.

So all that stuff you typed out fell on deaf ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
**Spoiler Alert**

The next U.S. President will be Mitt Romney. If I'm wrong I'll buy the house a round.

The United States public will never elect a Mormon. Though he did make a very compelling speech defending his religon earlier this month, the conservative(pro-christian) right will never elect him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
**Spoiler Alert**

The next U.S. President will be Mitt Romney. If I'm wrong I'll buy the house a round.

Make that 2 rounds for the house if Mitt doesn't win. This guy is the real deal and his crossover appeal to the left side of the isle is undeniable, especially if the left is stuck with Hillary as their nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all i know is it wont be ron paul coz he has a fucking soul still. it will be one of the other puppets doesn't even matter which. they are all following orders from the elitists anyways. the goals and agendas are all the same... repuglicon or demoncrat?. paper or plastic? more or less, going to a voting booth is like going to a mcdonalds drive through, no matter what you order it's still MCDONALDS.

Edited by zero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taco Bell is not McDonalds

Hillary Clinton is not Mitt Romney

That was one of the most worthless posts I've ever seen. Thank you for making my night. I had a good laugh at your post.

Edited by wanna be drummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Make that 2 rounds for the house if Mitt doesn't win. This guy is the real deal and his crossover appeal to the left side of the isle is undeniable, especially if the left is stuck with Hillary as their nominee.

Undeniable indeed. He'll "crossover" back and forth on abortion and gay rights based on whoever his audience is. In his senate race against Ted Kennedy in the 90's Mitt said he would be "better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy" (!) ; he said that he would always be pro choice because his mother ran for election on a pro choice platform and a close family friend died from a botched illegal abortion.

My, my, how times have changed. What dictated this sea change, do you think? Could it be that he was pro choice and pro gay when he was courting Massachusetts liberals, and pro life and anti-gay now that he is courting the religious right? Do you think that Mitt could be a panderer? Gee, ya think?

Let me give you a piece of advice: bring a friend with you when you go car shopping, because you're awfully susceptible to being told what you want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The United States public will never elect a Mormon. Though he did make a very compelling speech defending his religon earlier this month, the conservative(pro-christian) right will never elect him!

If he gets the GOP nomination it's a done deal. They sure as hell won't vote for Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am Mormon and will vote for Mitt. It is time for the world to stop thinking of us as a cult. Hell, I am from the south (US) too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Undeniable indeed. He'll "crossover" back and forth on abortion and gay rights based on whoever his audience is. In his senate race against Ted Kennedy in the 90's Mitt said he would be "better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy" (!) ; he said that he would always be pro choice because his mother ran for election on a pro choice platform and a close family friend died from a botched illegal abortion.

My, my, how times have changed. What dictated this sea change, do you think? Could it be that he was pro choice and pro gay when he was courting Massachusetts liberals, and pro life and anti-gay now that he is courting the religious right? Do you think that Mitt could be a panderer? Gee, ya think?

Let me give you a piece of advice: bring a friend with you when you go car shopping, because you're awfully susceptible to being told what you want to hear.

Irrelevent. What it comes down to is who has the most money to play with. He's got

the cash and he's in it to win. He gets the GOP nomination it's a done deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrelevent. What it comes down to is who has the most money to play with. He's got

the cash and he's in it to win. He gets the GOP nomination it's a done deal.

You will have to forgive me the conceit that a politician should actually believe in their platform. I know that selecting candidates based on integrity is an antiquated idea, but I'm afraid I just can't let it go.

The privatization of energy in California and the rolling blackouts that followed proved to me that there are some things in the world that should not be run for a profit. So it sucks that you're right about it being all about the money . . . to the extent that you are right. I still think the country will blink when it comes to Mitt Romney, no matter how much money he has.

I was one of his constituents. We didn't like him very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That sucks, you Bay Staters didn't like Mitt? I thought MA had a pretty good wrap when he was governor.

That's what his campaign literature will tell you. Try to find an actual constituent of his to agree with that assessment, and you will have a hard time finding one. Listen to a Romney supporter and he'll try and convince you that Massachusetts citizens don't know when things are good in their own state. What arrogance!

Watch this video from local news Channel 7.

Romney's Real Record

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he gets the GOP nomination it's a done deal. They sure as hell won't vote for Hillary.

Yeah that's for sure. I don't see how Hilary is ahead in all these polls! Every person I've talked to hates Hilary. She won't be too electable if she does get the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's a fraud and a carpetbagger.....

oh puh-lease. slapface.gif

that tired claim was used when she ran for the Senate.

Can't you come up with a fresh critcism.. you know,.. perhaps a more

thoughtful, insightful rationale for opposing her being the next POTUS? :rolleyes:

--------------------------

--------------------------

Here's an oportunity for 'Lizabeth to educate herself about Rotten Rudy..

[note that even conservatives consider him to have dangerously fascist tendencies..]

magcover.jpg

January 14, 2008 Issue

The American Conservative

Declaring Forever War

Giuliani has surrounded himself with advisors who

think the Bush Doctrine didn’t go nearly far enough.

[snip]

..I decided to look more closely at what Giuliani was saying about foreign policy and who was advising him. What I found alarmed me: Rudy’s performance here was no aberration. Those who thought George W. Bush was too timid in the conduct of his foreign policy will find a champion in Rudy.

The Giuliani campaign was slow to articulate a detailed foreign policy. Through the summer of 2007, it was content to offer platitudes among the mayor’s “Twelve Commitments” such as, “I will keep America on the offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.” But by the fall, the candidate published a major piece in Foreign Affairs that outlined his agenda. Explicitly rejecting realism, he instead sounded the tocsin: “Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.” Giuliani warned, “the terrorists’ war on us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through strength.”

Had I been more attentive over the years, I might have been less surprised by the mayor’s hard-line neoconservative stance. I had forgotten that while U.S. attorney in New York, Giuliani tried to close the PLO’s New York office. As mayor, he made headlines in 1995, when he had Arafat ejected from a concert at Lincoln Center. In a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition this fall, Rudy pointed to this incident as emblematic of his leadership style: “I didn’t hesitate, like Hillary Clinton hesitates to answer questions on what she’s going to do about Iran. I didn’t seek to negotiate with him, like Barack Obama would do or says he’d do with these people. I didn’t call for a team of lawyers to help me. … I just made a decision. See, I lead. That’s what [being a] leader is about.”

Giuliani holds up his résumé as mayor to buttress his claim that he is ready to be president. “I know from personal experience,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs, “that when security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs.” Alas, his New York record is not so reassuring. Recall such pre-9/11 missteps as his decision to locate the city’s counterterrorism center in the World Trade Center, which had already been the target of an al-Qaeda terrorist attack in 1993; his failure to integrate the fire and police communications systems; his penchant for surrounding himself with sketchy characters like Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, whom Giuliani would later recommend to train Iraqi security forces and as secretary of the department of homeland security. He dropped out of the blue-ribbon Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group because it cut into his paid speechmaking. Giuliani apparently thinks his years in Gracie Mansion sufficed to school him in high politics.

*link to full article*

----------

Giuliani's done.

Romney's near-done.

Huckabee won't be far behind.

McCain is looking more and more like the emerging republican nominee..

unless Ron Paul.. :whistling:

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't you come up with a fresh critcism.. you know,.. perhaps a more

thoughtful, insightful rationale for opposing her being the next POTUS? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I can. How about a candidacy based on her own merits instead of basing policy decisions on popularity polls, and riding the coat tails of her "husband?". Oh wait...That's impossible.

What the fuck has she ever done ON HER OWN that would qualify her to run this country? She can't even control her husband (or have the guts to leave him) let alone run a world superpower. Anyone who would vote for this broad either has their head impacted in their ass, or is clinically brain dead.

Enough is enough with the Clinton's and Bushes, it's time for some new blood, and some new ideas. ANYONE who is willing to make the tough decisions necessary to turn this country around and stick to it, without having to run it past an opinion poll or a think tank first is a better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh puh-lease. slapface.gif

that tired claim was used when she ran for the Senate.

Can't you come up with a fresh critcism.. you know,.. perhaps a more

thoughtful, insightful rationale for opposing her being the next POTUS? :rolleyes:

slapface.gif

Why is fresh criticism necessary?

In true Clintonista fashion, the original criticisms have never been addressed/overcome/disproved.

In fact, that's the same response most Clinton koolaid-ers reort to no matter how far back you go.

They never address the criticisms, they just ask "That's so tired and played-out, can't you find anything new?"

So answer the question.

She IS a fuggin' carpetbagger opportunist who rode the coattails of her husband's popularity to find a workable position from which to launch a future presidential run. She puts on more faces than Eleanor Rigby (again, in true Clintonista fashion) in order to be everything to everyone, whatever it takes to get that power.

It's a solid criticism, and it's never been countered.

So why do we need to find FRESH criticisms (we CAN, btw, it's quite simple - take your pick) when these are never explained?

Oh, wait - that IS how you counter them.

Demand more criticisms until hopefully, eventually, nothing else can be thrown out there and then you can say "SEE! Told ya! You got NUTTIN'!"

:rolleyes: backatcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am Mormon and will vote for Mitt. It is time for the world to stop thinking of us as a cult. Hell, I am from the south (US) too!

x2

Mitt FTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I can. How about a candidacy based on her own merits instead of basing policy decisions on popularity polls, and riding the coat tails of her "husband?". Oh wait...That's impossible.

What the fuck has she ever done ON HER OWN that would qualify her to run this country? She can't even control her husband (or have the guts to leave him) let alone run a world superpower. Anyone who would vote for this broad either has their head impacted in their ass, or is clinically brain dead.

Your arguments are ridiculous.. at best. :rolleyes:

Hillary's been intimately involved in politics her entire adult life. It's laughable to think of her as a typical "first lady". Anyone who thinks Hillary wasn't involved in policy making.. as the Arkansas Governor's wife and as the wife of the POTUS.. is totally clueless. And since she was involved in policy making throughout those many years, she had a boatload of political experience even before she became a senator. And as a senator.. a two-term senator, mind you.. she's be on several committees, including the Armed Services Committee.

I'm not saying she's the best candidate among the dems; imho, she's not; imho, she's not even in the top 3 among dem candidates. But imho she'd be a better POTUS than any of the republican candidates, and to dismiss her as inexperienced and incapable is absolutely ludicrous. Her opponents wouldn't be painting her as "a Washington insider" if she lacked experience, now would they? No, they wouldn't. And none of the pundits are suggesting she's inexperienced, nor are they challenging her claim that she's experienced enough to "hit the ground running" if she gets elected, are they? No they're not. Maybe you can glean a clue from that, eh? ;)

Clearly you dislike Hillary, and I don't begrudge you that. But just because you dislike her

that doesn't mean she lacks the experience and political savvy to be an effective POTUS.

and btw.. you might take note of the fact that Hillary was re-elected (in a landslide margin of victory) to serve a second term as NY senator. Please explain to me how Bill Clinton's coattails got her re-elected as opposed to her having been re-elected ON HER OWN merits.. you know,.. based on her first term job performance. :whistling:

and btw II.. who are you to say Hillary "lacked the guts" to leave Bill? Is every wife obligated to leave a husband who's had an affair? People with a degree of wisdom might suggest to you that it takes an incredible amount of personal fortitude.. you know, "guts".. to be willing and able to work through a marital crisis of that magnitude. But I suppose you know what's in Hillary's heart and mind (and gut), eh?.. cuz you're so.. what.. sensitive and insightful? :rolleyes:

and btw III,.. afaic, anyone who refers to Hillary (or any other woman running to be POTUS) as a "broad" and who let's his personal dislike of Hillary lead him to dismiss her as being inexperienced and incapable of running a world superpower.. "either has his head impacted in his ass, or is clinically brain dead". Since you managed to type out a response of some sort, I guess we can rule out brain dead. ..mostly. ..eh? :P^_^

Cheers.. up in there.

:beer:

:hippy:

[edited for typos]

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She's a fraud and a carpetbagger.....

hillary_collage.jpg

Who's The babe in the Ravens Hat, I'm getting Hot? :angry:

I think this belongs in Douchebagswithbabes thread :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...