Jump to content

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

  • Replies 6.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Really? :blink: I know that face! It would be kind of cool to know my state's Governor is Vice President...but I'll always be on the O-Train. B)

I think she's a little under-qualified experience-wise. She's only been Governor a year and a half.

uh, you question her qualifications with a year and a half experience, but not Obama's with pretty much the same amount? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of "experience".. I offer for your consideration, the following:

When he was elected POTUS, Abraham Lincoln had no prior executive

experience, and had less legislative experience than Obama has now.

Abraham Lincoln:

No Previous Executive Experience

United States House of Representatives (1846-48)

Other presidents who were elected having had no prior executive

experience and (in some cases) limited legislative experience:

[list excludes military Generals who became POTUS]

James Madison:

No Previous Executive Experience

Virginia state legislature (1776-79)

Continental Congress (1780-83)

John Quincy Adams:

No Previous Executive Experience

United States Senate (1803-09)

James Buchanan:

No Previous Executive Experience

Pennsylvania House of Representatives (1814-20)

United States House of Representatives (1821-31)

John F. Kennedy:

No Previous Executive Experience

United States House of Representatives (1946-52)

United States Senate (1952-60)

*source: wikip*

James Buchanan excluded, that's pretty good company

Barack Obama will be in if he's elected POTUS,.. eh? B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted this link before... but while the next president debate is taking a quick time-out...

I would like to see how you think the electoral college will decide this election

Mock Electoral College

I wish this system would go away... we made bills in my AP gov't class and then debated them... mine was to abolish the electoral college and institute a simple majority popular vote... it passed 6-3, btw

Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of "experience".. I offer for your consideration, the following:

When he was elected POTUS, Abraham Lincoln had no prior executive

experience, and had less legislative experience than Obama has now.

Abraham Lincoln:

No Previous Executive Experience

United States House of Representatives (1846-48)

Other presidents who were elected having had no prior executive

experience and (in some cases) limited legislative experience:

[list excludes military Generals who became POTUS]

James Madison:

No Previous Executive Experience

Virginia state legislature (1776-79)

Continental Congress (1780-83)

John Quincy Adams:

No Previous Executive Experience

United States Senate (1803-09)

James Buchanan:

No Previous Executive Experience

Pennsylvania House of Representatives (1814-20)

United States House of Representatives (1821-31)

John F. Kennedy:

No Previous Executive Experience

United States House of Representatives (1946-52)

United States Senate (1952-60)

*source: wikip*

James Buchanan excluded, that's pretty good company

Barack Obama will be in if he's elected POTUS,.. eh? B)

When you're talking Adams and Madison and the like, there really wasn't a lot of experience to HAVE, now was there?

But when I say experience I'm talking on a national level (house of Rep, Senate, or as a Governor)

Most of those had a number of years on a national level.

Also, I think it was a tad bit simpler time then, as well.

Things didn't move anywhere near as quickly as now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama Leads McCain In Four Battleground States

Quinnipiac University/Wall Street Journal/ Washingtonpost.Com Poll Finds

June 26, 2008 - An emerging Democratic coalition of women, minorities and younger voters is propelling Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to leads of five to 17 percentage points over Arizona Sen. John McCain among likely voters in the battleground states of Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to four simultaneous Quinnipiac University polls, conducted in partnership with The Wall Street Journal and washingtonpost.com and released today.

Sen. McCain's lead among white voters in Colorado and Michigan cuts the gap to single digits, but doesn't offset Sen. Obama's strength among other groups. The Democrat also leads by eight to 21 percentage points among independent voters in each state. Overall results show:

Colorado:

Obama 49%

McCain 44%

(Obama leads 51 - 39 percent among independent voters)

Michigan:

Obama 48%

McCain 42%

(Obama leads 46 - 38 percent among independent voters)

Minnesota:

Obama 54%

McCain 37%

(Obama leads 54 - 33 percent with independent voters)

Wisconsin:

Obama 52%

McCain 39%t

(Obama leads 50 - 37 percent with independent voters)

*source: Qinnipiac.edu*

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

Booyah!

:thumbsup:

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

California: McCain Slammed Following Call for Offshore Drilling

June 25th, 2008 - John McCain’s call for offshore oil drilling may have helped him in Florida, but it’s having the opposite impact in California. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Golden State finds Barack Obama leading McCain 58% to 30%. A month ago, Obama led 52% to 38%.

Rasmussen Markets data show that Democrats have a 92% of winning California’s fifty-four Electoral College votes this November.

*source: RassmussenReports.com *

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

Double-Booyah!!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:beer:

:hippy:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah. ok. :rolleyes:

Ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? :whistling:

Yeah, and JFK got lucky with that one, but not before promising to dismantle our ICBMs in Turkey and vowing to never invade Cuba again. On a wuss factor scale from 1 - 10 that comes in around a 9.

And besides, the Soviets continued to maintain tactical nukes in Cuba even after they dismantled the ICBMs (strategic nukes) despite JFK's claim that his administration had succeded. Krushev later had that tactical nukes removed out of fear that Castro would attempt to deploy them to start a war. Even Krushev thought Castro was just that crazy.

To say that JFK was a good commander in chief is a bit of a stretch. He totally fucked up the bay of pigs invasion by not approving United States Air Support. Had he given that okay, the Castro regime may have been overthrown, and thus sparing Cuba of all these long years of Communist oppression.

Oh but I forgot.... you libs like Castro. Thinks he is a swell guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to summarize.. [ B) ]

June 18, 2008

Florida:

Obama 47%

McCain 43%

Ohio:

Obama 48%

McCain 42%

Pennsylvania:

Obama 52%

McCain 40 %

June 26, 2008

Colorado:

Obama 49%

McCain 44%

(Obama leads 51 - 39 percent among independent voters)

Michigan:

Obama 48%

McCain 42%

(Obama leads 46 - 38 percent among independent voters)

Minnesota:

Obama 54%

McCain 37%

(Obama leads 54 - 33 percent with independent voters)

Wisconsin:

Obama 52%

McCain 39%t

(Obama leads 50 - 37 percent with independent voters)

California:

Obama 58%

McCain 30%

I know, I know.. McCain's just getting off to a slow start.

He's gonna start picking speed..

any..

time..

now.

uhh..

..right? :unsure:

superold.gif

Now that he's got his slippers on, he's off to the races! :thumbsup:

C'mon though, ®ighties,.. ya do gotta admit..

McCain's no match for the next American SuperherO!! :cheer:

superman.gif

:D

:beer:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds very 'Rovish' as in Karl Rove to me.

Would be a great move, possibly grab up a bunch of those disgruntled Hillary gals by the bushel.

:D

Yes indeed, Del,.. a woman on McCain's anti-Roe v Wade, anti-women's health ticket is all it's gonna take to get those disgruntled pro-Roe v Wade, pro-women's health Hillary gals to throw their support behind a republican candidate rather than voting for pro-Roe v Wade pro-women's health democratic candidate Barack Obama. No doubt about it, muh-man!

:hysterical:

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

THE TRUTH ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN

For the past 25 years, John McCain has consistently voted against women's health. From opposing funding for family planning programs to voting against requiring insurance coverage of birth control, McCain has taken extreme positions. He has voted against women's health and has not supported legislation that would help reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. This has earned him a zero rating the lowest rating we give in the U.S. Senate.

"Sen. McCain believes government has the right to interfere with the most personal and often the most difficult decisions affecting a woman's health. Most Americans believe just the opposite and, as more voters realize Sen. McCain's ardent anti-choice position, this will be an issue for him in the general election."

~ Cecile Richards, president, Planned Parenthood Action Fund

*source: thetruthaboutjohnmccain.com*

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

:whistling:

Yup,.. McCain is definitely the candidate women are

going to support. Why? Because.. *http://youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo*

You and McCain can kiss the liberal-to-moderate women's voting bloc good-bye, Del. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

:whistling:

More proof that McCain is (not) the women's candidate..

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

McCain Makes Awkward Wife-Beating Joke

June 27, 2008

In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, columnist Jon Ralston asked McCain why he didn't choose Gov. Jim Gibbons (in the middle of a messy divorce) to chair his Nevada campaign:

McCain: I appreciate his support. As you know, the lieutenant governor is our chairman.

Q: Why snub the governor?

McCain: I didn't mean to snub him. I've known the lieutenant governor for 15 years and we've been good friends....I didn't intend to snub him. There are other states where the governor is not the chairman.

Q: Maybe it's the governor's approval rating and you are running from him like you are from the president?

McCain: (Chuckling) And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago ...

*interview transcript* *source*

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

slapface.gif

Is it just me,.. or does it seem that every time

McCain opens his mouth he inserts his foot. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
:whistling:

More proof that McCain is (not) the women's candidate..

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

McCain Makes Awkward Wife-Beating Joke

June 27, 2008

In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, columnist Jon Ralston asked McCain why he didn't choose Gov. Jim Gibbons (in the middle of a messy divorce) to chair his Nevada campaign:

McCain: I appreciate his support. As you know, the lieutenant governor is our chairman.

Q: Why snub the governor?

McCain: I didn't mean to snub him. I've known the lieutenant governor for 15 years and we've been good friends....I didn't intend to snub him. There are other states where the governor is not the chairman.

Q: Maybe it's the governor's approval rating and you are running from him like you are from the president?

McCain: (Chuckling) And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago ...

*interview transcript* *source*

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

slapface.gif

Is it just me,.. or does it seem that every time

McCain opens his mouth he inserts his foot. :rolleyes:

wonder which wife he was talking about????

Link to post
Share on other sites
THE TRUTH ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN

~ Cecile Richards, president, Planned Parenthood Action Fund

*source: thetruthaboutjohnmccain.com*

Oh yeah, we can trust Planned Parenthood to provide us the "truth" about anyone/anything even remotely conservative in nature.

*source: thetruthaboutjohnmccain.com* <<< actual URL www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/thetruthaboutjohnmccain.html

Why would they try to mask the fact that they are Planned Parenthood???

You and McCain can kiss the hardcore-socialist-to-radically-liberal women's voting bloc good-bye, Del. ;)

fixed

And since yer so fond of all these polls, here's what Gallup has to say today...

As would be expected, almost all Democratic voters who say they support Obama for their party's nomination also say they would vote for him in a general election matchup against McCain. But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

ouch.

Those chickens may not hatch like you're hopin' for, muh-man.

And as Iran becomes more of a menace, the average American becomes less inclined to put a rookie in charge, favoring a candidate with actual military service and extensive political experience on a National level.

Even the Washington Post recognizes the "disconnect" between the dem's (and, by extension, Nobama's) shrill mantra of "pull the troops!" and the actual situation in Iraq.

Nobama would look so much more appealing if that danged reality didn't keep gettin' in the way! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've posted this link before... but while the next president debate is taking a quick time-out...

I would like to see how you think the electoral college will decide this election

Mock Electoral College

I wish this system would go away... we made bills in my AP gov't class and then debated them... mine was to abolish the electoral college and institute a simple majority popular vote... it passed 6-3, btw

Here's a hint - stay in school.

What you refer to as a "simple" majority rule would trample underfoot most of what the framers of our Constitution and our nation understood wa-a-a-y-yy back then, yet many people STILL don't get today:

Your majority rule would completely eliminate/disenfranchise the votes and wishes of easily 75% of the states in our nation.

Does that seem fair?

That as long as you could win a few key major population areas over, you'd be president.

Our country would basically be run by the cities of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

With a population around 300 million, and most presidential elections hovering around 50% turnout, 75-80 million votes would put you in the White House.

Top 10 metro areas (2007 est.)

1 New York - 18,815,988

2 Los Angeles - 12,875,587

3 Chicago - 9,524,673

4 Dallas - 6,145,037

5 Philadelphia - 5,827,962

6 Houston - 5,628,101

7 Miami - 5,413,212

8 Washington - 5,306,565

9 Atlanta - 5,278,904

10 Boston 4,482,857

The top 3 represent over 40 million votes, a vast majority of which will consistently vote democratic/liberal.

What happens to the people of South Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, and many many more? They are effectively eliminated from having any say in who becomes president.

Candidates wouldn't even bother campaigning there. The will of a few major population areas would be imposed on the remainder of the country.

Anyone who favors "majority rule" over the electoral college system either doesn't understand it or doesn't care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah, we can trust Planned Parenthood to provide us the "truth" about anyone/anything even remotely conservative in nature.

*source: thetruthaboutjohnmccain.com* <<< actual URL www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/thetruthaboutjohnmccain.html

Why would they try to mask the fact that they are Planned Parenthood???

"Masking" that they're Planned Parenthood? :lol:

The quote is clearly from the "president, (of the) Planned Parenthood Action Fund" and the website banner clearly indicates it's Planned Parenthood. That's not a very good job of "masking" who they are if that's what they were trying to do. :P

And why would they need to hide who they are anyway? Planned Parenthood is a highly respected organization among most women. Pro-choice women trust Planned Parenthood and consider PP an extremely valuable and reliable resource regarding women's health issues and pregnancy issues.

Besides, they're not trying to convince people who dismiss Planned Parenthood of anything anyway; they're trying to alert people (women who consider PP a reliable resource of information) to who John McCain really is when it comes to women's health issues. As you can see, McCain has the worst possible rating PP gives out. To women concerned about women's health issues, that speaks volumes.

Face it, muh-man,.. the liberal-to-moderately conservative women's voting bloc will be voting for Obama. :thumbsup: And that spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E for McCain.. the angry guy who jokes about domestic violence and calls his wife a trollop.. and a c**t. <_<

I'm not surprised that you look upon Planned Parenthood with disdain, Typo. I also wouldn't be surprised if you think "abstinence only" programs are the most effective programs for reducing the rate of unplanned pregnancies. ..eh? slapface.gif

:beer:

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Masking" that they're Planned Parenthood? :lol:

The quote is clearly from the "president, (of the) Planned Parenthood Action Fund" and the website banner clearly indicates it's Planned Parenthood. That's not a very good job of "masking" who they are if that's what they were trying to do. :P

And why would they need to hide who they are anyway? Planned Parenthood is a highly respected organization among most liberal women.

fixed again.

the majority of people on the net are not forum-dwelling veterans of the web - many are just here for a few minutes a day reading quotes from links like yours and whatnot. And it doesn't require heavy-duty spam-level deception to mislead them as to the source of what they're reading. Sure the quote was credited to the pres of PP, but a simple domain name re-direct is enough to "mask" the actual source so they don't realize they're not reading from a separate site.

I'm not surprised that you look upon Planned Parenthood with disdain, Typo. I also wouldn't be surprised if you think "abstinence only" programs are the most effective programs for reducing the rate of unplanned pregnancies. ..eh? slapface.gif

Yeah.

Sincerest apologies for believing the mind is stronger than the flesh, and that we are not helpless slaves to our physical desires.

We teach our children that they can be stronger than the influences they face.

How do you teach children that they are incredible creations with the potential to be anything they aspire to, while simultaneously admitting (by providing access to birth control) that most likely they'll fail. That regardless of all the wonderful ideals and virtues you extol, that they can be leaders of men, inventors of wonders, but you believe they will fail to even achieve control of their own bodies.

Do you really believe kids don't recognize the hypocrisy of that?

Telling them to "reach for the stars" while pointing them directly to the middle of the herd?

Telling them to be the best they can be, then consigning them to mediocrity?

Or maybe we shouldn't even teach them to avoid sex at all, but to embrace it as an eventual part of life.

Sorry muh-man, but I believe we all have greatness within us, we have only to achieve it.

As opposed to "if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em."

As for Planned Parenthood, yeah, you're right.

I embrace that crazy notion that life does begin at conception. And that a fetus (from the Latin for offspring) is quite alive right up until the moment it's "curetted" from the womb and vacuum-sucked from within a woman's body.

Why does a woman's "right to choose" never involve the birth control methods the same supporters embrace? Because she failed to choose birth control, she now has the right to end a new life, or as Nobama said, be "punished" with a baby?

And please don't say anything about rape and incest.

Those make up a microscopic percentage of abortions.

And for the record, I SUPPORT abortion in cases of rape or incest, or in cases of threat to the mother's life or health.

But the VAST majority of abortions are simply regret for an indiscretion.

So yeah, great deductive reasoning coming to the conclusions you made on me.

slapface.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Live in denial all you want, friend,.. but the facts speak loud and clear:

Abstinence-Only Education Ineffective In Preventing,

Delaying Sex Among Teens, Study Says

Abstinence-only sex education programs are not effective in preventing or delaying teenagers from having sexual intercourse, according to a report released on Friday by Mathematica Policy Research, the Washington Post reports (Sessions Stepp, Washington Post, 4/14). The report, which was commissioned by Congress, followed 2,057 U.S. teenagers in late elementary and middle school who participated in four abstinence programs, as well as students in the same grades who did not participate in such programs.

The study was conducted in Clarksdale, Miss.; Miami; Milwaukee; and Powhatan, Va. The average age of the students who participated in abstinence education was 11 to 12 when they entered the programs in 1999, and they participated in the programs for one to three years, the AP/Boston Globe reports. The students were an average age of 16.5 when Mathematica conducted a follow-up study in 2005 and early 2006.

About half of the students who received abstinence education and about half of those who did not reported that they abstained from sex, according to the study (Freking, AP/Boston Globe, 4/16). Teenagers who were sexually active reported having had sex for the first time when they were about 15 years old, the findings showed.

More than one-third of both groups had two or more sexual partners, the study found (Washington Post, 4/14). Twenty-three percent of both groups reported having had sex and always using a condom; 17% of both groups reported having had sex and only sometimes using a condom; and 4% of the students in both groups reported having had sex and never using a condom, according to the report

*source: medicalnewstoday.com*

*Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs; Final Report *

---------

:whistling:

I'm not saying abstinence is a bad thing; I'm merely pointing out the FACT that "abstinence only programs" have proven to be ineffective. What might more effective is *comprehensive sex/reproductive EDUCATION*,.. and what is one such place where such education is available to those whom don't get it from their parents or in school: yup, you guessed it: Planned Parenthood. ;)

And make no mistake about it, bud,.. Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. :rolleyes:

Nobody that I know of cheers for abortions. Everyone would like to see as few as possible abortions taking place. But supporters of women's right to choose believe the option for safe, legal abortions should be available to women. History has shown that criminalizing abortions does not stop them, it merely drives them underground, at dramatically increased risk to the women who choose to have them. Planned Parenthood seeks to REDUCE the occurrence of abortions by teaching women about safe sex, birth control, and alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Planned parenthood provides counseling and guidance to woman struggling with the decision, and I assure you that PP is not, as a policy or practice, actively "encouraging" women to get abortions.

Why anyone who is against abortion would demean Planned Parenthood and

would oppose comprehensive sex/reproductive education is completely beyond me. :rolleyes:

And as much as I'd prefer to see abortions not happen, I recognize that

they will take place.. and as such I support keeping them safe and legal.

I'm firmly opposed to late term abortions though. Partial birth abortions should

be banned.. except in cases where saving the life of the mother may require it.

None of it makes me feel good, and I sure don't envy anyone who has to face the choice of whether or not to get an abortion. Quite obviously, abortion is not a feel-good event for anyone. :(

Nonetheless, I am in support of keeping abortions legal and thereby as as safe as possible.

:hippy:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Live in denial all you want, friend,.. but the facts speak loud and clear:

I'm not saying abstinence is a bad thing; I'm merely pointing out the FACT that "abstinence only programs" have proven to be ineffective.

NO PROGRAM will be effective if the children have no support at home, to include religious exposure. Yeah, I believe in God, too.

All the studies in the world mean nothing if the parents aren't raising their kids right.

And as I said before, if you're just mouthing all the "required parent-type stuff" (stay out of trouble, don't have sex, yada yada yada) but not reinforcing it with real effort, a solid foundation of religious principles and morals, and expecting the absolute best of them, you'll get just what your studies prove - it's the same as not even saying anything to them at all.

And here's a clue - LOTS of kids make it to their wedding night without pre-marital sex - it's hardly impossible.

My only point is not enough parents make the necessary effort to support their kids, instead giving in to the notion that "they're gonna do it anyway."

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. :rolleyes:

Nobody that I know of cheers for abortions. Everyone would like to see as few as possible abortions taking place. But supporters of women's right to choose believe the option for safe, legal abortions should be available to women. History has shown that criminalizing abortions does not stop them, it merely drives them underground, at dramatically increased risk to the women who choose to have them. Planned Parenthood seeks to REDUCE the occurrence of abortions by teaching women about safe sex, birth control, and alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Planned parenthood provides counseling and guidance to woman struggling with the decision, and I assure you that PP is not, as a policy or practice, actively "encouraging" women to get abortions.

Then why do they object so vehemently against women viewing sonagram/ultrasound images of their babies?

God forbid they get a glimpse of the living growing human baby inside them and decide maybe having a doctor poke a hole through its skull and vacuum its brain out before then removing the remains of the baby might not be such a great idea, after all.

And as much as I'd prefer to see abortions not happen, I recognize that

they will take place.. and as such I support keeping them safe and legal.

Apply that rationale to any other abhorrent act and see how it fits:

And as much as I'd prefer to see <insert random vile act HERE> not happen, I recognize that

they will take place.. and as such I support keeping them safe and legal.

The truth is, I don't object so much to the legality of abortion as I do to the use of state or federal taxes to fund abortion or organizations that promote abortion. Again, except in the case of rape incest or endangerment of life.

My biggest problem with pro-choice is:

Why is it illegal to even so much as put a filling in one of my daughter's teeth without my knowledge and consent, but it's OK to perform a D&C on her without my knowledge and consent?

I'm gonna drop my side of the abortion debate in the President thread, partly because I grow weary, and partly because it could engulf the whole thread, much as it does with the country in general. It's a debate that will change few minds, I know nothing I say will change your views, nor you mine.

So, back on topic - Obama is a poor choice for president.

There.

hijack released.

:D

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.


×
×
  • Create New...