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

782-12142007Morin.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Special handling

How the Huckabee administration worked to free rapist Wayne

Dumond.[who then went on to rape again.. and murder]

[reprint of article from 2002, updated 2005]

New sources, including an advisor to Gov. Mike Huckabee, have told the Arkansas Times that Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence to bring about the parole of rapist Wayne Dumond, who Missouri authorities say raped and killed a woman there shortly after his parole.

Huckabee has denied a role in Dumond’s release, which has become an issue in his race for re-election against Democrat Jimmie Lou Fisher. Fisher says Huckabee’s advocacy of Dumond’s freedom, plus other acts of executive clemency, exhibit poor judgment. In response, Huckabee has shifted responsibility for Dumond’s release to others, claiming former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker made Dumond eligible for parole and saying the Post Prison Transfer Board made the decision on its own to free Dumond.

But the Times’ new reporting shows the extent to which Huckabee and a key aide were involved in the process to win Dumond’s release. It was a process marked by deviation from accepted parole practice and direct personal lobbying by the governor, in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board (the informal name by which the Post Prison Transfer Board is known).

After Huckabee told the board, in executive session, that he believed Dumond got a “raw deal,” according to a board member who was there, and supported his release, board chairman Leroy Brownlee personally paved the way for Dumond’s release, according to board records and former members. During that time — from December 1996 to January 1997 — Brownlee regularly consulted with Butch Reeves, the governor’s prison liaison, on the status of his efforts, two state officials have told the Times.

*full article*

Murder Victim's Mother Assails Huckabee

Says GOP Presidential Hopeful Shouldn't Be President Due To His

Handling Of Case Of Wayne DuMond, Who Killed Her Daughter

Dec 5, 2007

(CBS) The mother of a woman murdered by a convicted rapist after he was paroled while Mike Huckabee was Arkansas governor is now speaking out against the GOP presidential hopeful.

Lois Davidson, whose daughter Carol Sue Shields was murdered by Wayne DuMond after he was released, told CBS News Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith that Huckabee's involvement in the case suggests poor judgment.

"I don't think he did enough background research on Wayne DuMond's life," she said. "And if he didn't do that kind of research, I don't think he's gonna be good for the country."

As CBSNews.com detailed yesterday, DuMond was arrested in 1985 for the rape of a 17-year-old girl who was a distant cousin of former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. He was convicted to life in prison plus 20 years, but some members of the media, including New York Post columnist Steve Dunleavy and radio host Jay Cole, suggested that DuMond was innocent and had been railroaded by Clinton.

Clinton's successor, Jim Guy Tucker, reduced DuMond's sentence to to 39 years, making him eligible for parole. When Huckabee became governor in 1996, he said he was considering commuting DuMond's sentence to time served. After the victim and her supporters protested, Huckabee did not do so, but he reportedly wrote a letter to DuMond saying "my desire is that you be released from prison."

*full article*

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would vote for Hillary because I am a woman and i always vote for woman whenever i voted last time a few years ago.

Ugh. So their politics/abilities/intelligence don't matter? As long as they have two X chromosomes, you'll vote for them? To me, that's a wasted vote.

I don't pay attention to those things when casting a vote; I worry about things that actually matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agenda for the 2008 Democrat National Convention

Denver, Colorado

7:00 pm Opening flag raising ceremony/along with every other flag from the world

7:15 pm Pledge of Allegiance to the U.N. in Spanish

7:20 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

7:25 pm Non-religious prayer and worship with Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton

7:45 pm Ceremonial tree hugging, (as they all drink water from “oil” dependant plastic bottles.)

7:55 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

8:00 pm ‘How I Invented the Internet and global warming.’ - Al Gore (Who needs the presidency when you can win an Oscar!)

8:15 pm Token Gay Wedding - Barney Frank presiding

8:35 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

8:40 pm Our Troops are War Criminals - John Kerry

9.00 pm Saddam Memorial Rally - Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon

11.00 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

11:05 pm Collection for the Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund - Barbara Streisand

11:15 pm Free the Freedom Fighters from Guantanamo Bay - Sean Penn

11:30 pm Oval Office Affairs - William Jefferson Clinton

11:45 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

11:50 pm How George Bush Brought Down the World Trade Towers - Howard Dean & Rosie O'Donnell

12:15 am "Truth in Broadcasting Award" - Presented to Dan Rather by Michael Moore

12:25 am Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

12:30 am Satellite address to the Nation by Mahmud Ahmadinejad

12:45 am Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Nancy Pelosi

12:50 am Speech and toast by Hugo Chavez to the departure of “the Great Satan", George 'W' Bush

12:50 am Hillary proposes a toast to our 89 million new Democratic Mexican voters

1:00 am Ted Kennedy proposes a toast to the extinction of the Republican Party

1:05 am Coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton

1:30 am Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

1:35 am Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agenda for the 2008 Republican National Convention

7:00 pm Opening flag raising ceremony/Ashcroft sings "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy"

7:15 pm Pledge of Allegiance to the Ten Commandments

7:20 pm George W proposes a toot.

7:25 pm Ultra religious prayer and worship with Pat Robertson complete with the starting of the Rapture Countdown Clock.

7:45 pm Ceremonial tree chopping and spraying of Alaskan animals with oil.

7:55 pm George W. proposes that the room "blow a few rails".

8:00 pm ‘How I didn't invent IRAQI WMD.' speech by Dick Cheney. Hecklers win a hunting trip with Dick.

8:15 pm Token Defense of Marriage Act Ceremonial game of "Pin the Tail on the Dyke" - Mary Cheney presiding.

8:35 pm George W. excuses himself to go "take a powder".

8:40 pm "Why Our Troops Aren't Worth The Body Armor" - By Donald Rumsfeld.

9.00 pm Rush Limbaugh streaks through the room throwing fistfuls of Oxycontin to the crowd.

11.00 pm George W. has a spontaneous bloody nose.

11:05 pm Collection for the Osama Bin Laden Getaway Fund- By the stockholders of the Carlyle Group.

11:15 pm Quick field trip to the inner city to give the poor people the finger.

11:45 pm George W reads "My Pet Goat" to the crowd, stopping midway through with a glazed look.

11:50 pm George W, Cheney, and Karl Rove are ritually sodomized by the CEO of Exxon Mobil.

12:15 am Ann Coulter reads from her new book "Gold Star Mothers and 9/11 Widows Should Be Raped By Mike Tyson".

12:25 am George W shows slides from Bush/Bin Laden family picnics.

12:30 am "How To Avoid Being Interviewed By Police Following an Accidental Shooting" - Dick Cheney.

12:45 am "How To Avoid Being Interviewed By Police Following an Act of Treason"- Karl Rove.

12:55 am Alberto Gonzalez ask for volunteer to help demonstrate why waterboarding isn't torture. Eerie silence follows.

1:15 am Mitt Romney announces that if elected he will purchase the remains of the Berlin Wall to install along the Rio Grande. Says he can get a good deal on old Gulag machine gun towers.

1:05 am Entertainment by the Black Hooded Abu Ghraib Dancers entitled "Shock and Awe". One of the dancers accidentally hits Gonzalez in the eye with a swinging electrode.

1:30 am Bill O 'Reilly presents attendees with a free loufa sponge.

1:35 am George W, Cheney, and Rove circle jerk while using an illegal wiretap to listen to Bill Clintons's phone conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for Romney, he finally decided what plan to follow for Iraq..

The Bush Plan.

Why the fuck do we elect these assholes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dodd Filibuster Threat Wins

Spying Bill Postponed to Next Year

December 17, 2007

Connecticut senator Christopher Dodd's threatened filibuster of a bill giving immunity to telecoms that helped the government spy on Americans unexpectedly carried the day Monday, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to postpone the vote on the measure until after the winter break.

The announcement was an unexpected victory for civil liberties groups, whose anti-immunity fortunes looked grim this morning as the Senate looked primed to pass an expansive spying bill that would free telecoms like AT&T and Verizon from privacy lawsuits.

Dodd showed his moxie and determination all day, as he held the floor for long stretches, railing against an administration-backed bill that would have freed telecoms from 40-odd lawsuits pending against them in federal court.

The presidential candidate threatened to filibuster and hold the Senate floor if the Senate shot down his amendment to strip immunity from the bill. That threat moved Reid to postpone a vote on the bill, so that the Senate could take up war funding bills, a massive domestic spending bill and changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax before the winter break.

Dodd's determination to fight telecom immunity also boosted his lagging presidential campaign.

*source

060530_dodd_vmed_4p.widec.jpg*

Kudos to Senator Todd! :thumbsup:

No immunity for the telecoms. If they violated FISA law, they ought to be held accountable and those who directed them to break the law [bush, Cheney, Alberto Guantanamozales] should be held accountable.

If they didn't violate laws.. what do they need immunity for?

That Chris Dodd was the lone candidate to stand up

on this issue kinda makes me wanna vote for him.

Kinda.

Afaic,.. he's hero for a day, anyway. :beer:

This doesn't make any sense... so the government coerces you to do illegal things...then punishes you when you follow their orders? uh, entrapment anyone?

oh and btw, Hermit, Lincoln was a douche. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got an email a couple of days ago claiming that Obama was raised Muslim. Anybody know if this is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got an email a couple of days ago claiming that Obama was raised Muslim. Anybody know if this is true?

I thought Obama was Muslim?

Could be wrong, though. Not that it'd matter. The only Muslims I worry about about the fanatics in the Middle East.

But I thought he was Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama's middle name is Hussein. Maybe that will answer your question.

Yeah,.. that means he's Muslim. :rolleyes:

I don't suppose the fact that he's a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ

might be a better indicator than his middle name of what religion he practices, eh TUled?

..not that you've ever been one to let facts get in the way of your self-delusions. :rolleyes:

It seems that the female former staffer that had an affair with John Edwards on the campaign trail is pregnant with his baby. Gotta love the Dems just for the entertainment value that comes with them:

John Edwards Knocks Up Campaign Staffer While Wife Gets Cancer Treatment

:hysterical:

you are getting desperate, arent you, Turdhead.. erm.. TUled?

:hysterical:

The National Inquirer (nuff said?) ran this tabloid

story a month ago and its gone nowhere since then.

:rolleyes:

hey Turdhead,.. did ya catch this breaking news story?-->

Bat Boy is Mike Huckabee's love child with Rudy Giuliani!!

batboy.gif

The resemblance is uncanny, aint it?!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This doesn't make any sense... so the government coerces you to do illegal things...then punishes you when you follow their orders? uh, entrapment anyone?

"coerced"?

"entrapment"?

:lol:

tell that to Qwest.. whose lawyers advised the company against cooperating with the US govt domestic spying program because of the illegality of what they were being asked (not coerced) to do. Qwest didn't go along with the government while other telecoms (who also have high priced lawyers advising them on such matters) did what the government asked them to do. Those other telecoms ought to be held accountable. And if they were "coerced", the only way we'll find out is through law suits. If the governemnt "coerced" telecoms into violating the law, dont we citizens deserve to know that.. and shouldnt those doing the "coercion" be held accountable?

:whistling:

Surely you're not suggesting we simply bury our collective heads in the sands of denial and pretend our civil liberties (as granted us by the US Constitution) haven't been, and aren't being, violated.. are you tinblimp? ..you who enthusistically supports a libertarian leaning candidate. Where are your libertarian principles on this one, bro?

:unsure:

B)

oh and btw, Hermit, Lincoln was a douche. :P

yeah,.. pretty much every presidential historian has written

extensively about what a total douche Abraham Lincoln was.

:P

:lol:

:beer:

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who cares what religion Obama is? Why does it matter?

Fear mongering repubs wanna make it an issue because if they can paint Barack Hussein Obama as a Muslim, they think less people would be inclined to vote for him in the primaries; and if he does get the dem nomination they believe that people thinking he's a Muslim will translate into more repubs coming out to vote against him in the general election.. out of fear he won't be aggressive in protecting America from radical Islamist terrorism.

The truth that Obama is NOT a Muslim doesn't matter one bit to fear mongring repubs; the mere suggestion that he's a Muslim has the affect of making people wonder about it.. as we've seen here in this thread.

Fear mongering is all the repubs have at this point. :rolleyes:

well.. except for Ron Paul. They do have him.

He's the only decent repub in the race. :beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fear mongering repubs wanna make it an issue because if they can paint Barack Hussein Obama as a Muslim, they think less people would be inclined to vote for him in the primaries; and if he does get the dem nomination they believe that people thinking he's a Muslim will translate into more repubs coming out to vote against him in the general election.. out of fear he won't be aggressive in protecting America from radical Islamist terrorism.

I guess I fell into the trap of assuming he was Muslim by his name. I apologize for that.

But I think both parties have their share of fear-mongerers, not just the Republicans

well.. except for Ron Paul. They do have him.

He's the only decent repub in the race. :beer:

Ron Paul isn't the only decent Repub... he's the only decent candidate. Everybody should vote for him. He's the best man for the job now. He's got the best Iraq policy, the best Health Care policy, the best economic policy, he'd end the war on drugs... he's the exact president we need to fix this country. But he won't get it. That's the fucked up part. "Republicans" don't like him because he's not Conservative enough (he's a real Republican rather than a bullshit Conservative), and Democrats don't like him because he's Republican.

But he has to win. If we want to fix all of America's problems, then Paul is the best choice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul isn't the only decent Repub... he's the only decent candidate. Everybody should vote for him. He's the best man for the job now. He's got the best Iraq policy, the best Health Care policy, the best economic policy, he'd end the war on drugs... he's the exact president we need to fix this country. But he won't get it. That's the fucked up part. "Republicans" don't like him because he's not Conservative enough (he's a real Republican rather than a bullshit Conservative), and Democrats don't like him because he's Republican.

But he has to win. If we want to fix all of America's problems, then Paul is the best choice...

I'm a democrat and I like Ron Paul. If he gets elected he'll have my support. Unfortunately for you,.. a moderate, rational-minded republican (I presume you're a republican.. based on your summary dismissal of every dem candidate despite the obvious qualifications of many of them).. you'll probably never get the chance to vote for Ron Paul in the general election because the majority of repubs don't seem like him due to his position on Iraq. His chances of getting the nomination certainly aren't nil, but they don't seem to be too great either. Personally I hope he does get the repub nomination.. that would make for a great general election campaign!

Having said that, there are dem candidates who I prefer over Ron Paul. Edwards, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Richardson would all get my vote rather than Paul. Imho, the dems are flush with excellently qualified, decent candidates. Whoever the dem nominee ends up being, its going to be someone who is highly qualified and who will be good for America if elected to serve as POTUS. I stand by what I said before (and what I've been saying for months): Ron Paul is the only decent republican candidate in the race.

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only Republican I would ever consider voting for is Guiliani, and that's because of his liberal stance on social issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only Republican I would ever consider voting for is Guiliani, and that's because of his liberal stance on social issues.

you obviously havent been paying attention.

educate yourself about Rotten Rudy, Liz.

He's a total scammer.

* he does business with terrorists.

* he made millions in 'consulting' fees re: Bush's domestic spying program.

* he screwed his mistress in an apt that was supposed to house 9-11 rescue workers..

and he billed the taxpayers for it.. and he billed the taxpayers for his mistress to

have body guards.

* he supports waterboarding and every other aspect of Bush-Cheney foreign policy.

* he supports the use of privately contracted mercenaries.. abroad and domestically.

* he's pro big business.. across the board.

* he has absolutely no scruples.

* the list goes on and on.

C'mon Elizabeth.. you're smarter than to ever so much as even consider Rudy.

Its a moot point though. His candidacy is collapsing before our eyes.

..he has no chance of winning the repub nomination. B)

John McCain is making a re-emergence though.. :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a democrat and I like Ron Paul. If he gets elected he'll have my support.

That's good to know. Most Dems I know (offline, at least), hate him pretty much because he's republican

Unfortunately for you,.. a moderate, rational-minded republican (I presume you're a republican.. based on your summary dismissal of every dem candidate despite the obvious qualifications of many of them)..

I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I could care less about our political "parties." In fact, in my personal opinion, the fact that we vote for a candidate based on what political party they side with disgusts me.

I vote on the issues, and whichever candidate I agree the most with. I do not agree completely with any of the candidates... I agree mostly with Ron Paul.

And the obvious qualifications of many of the dems? Give me some qualifications of the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barak(sp?) Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and how they are better than Ron?

But then again, I'd be hard-pressed to found how someone like McCain or Rudy or them are more qualified then Ron, as well, so...

you'll probably never get the chance to vote for Ron Paul in the general election because the majority of repubs don't seem like him due to his position on Iraq.

Exactly. This is what saddens me.

His chances of getting the nomination certainly aren't nil, but they don't seem to be too great either.

Though they do seem to be improving. I think we may see more and more (college) students voting in this election, and many students (at least, where I live) like Ron Paul.

Personally I hope he does get the repub nomination.. that would make for a great general election campaign!

You aren't kidding. The campaign would be incredible!

Having said that, there are dem candidates who I prefer over Ron Paul. Edwards, Biden, Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Richardson would all get my vote rather than Paul. Imho, the dems are flush with excellently qualified, decent candidates. Whoever the dem nominee ends up being, its going to be someone who is highly qualified and who will be good for America if elected to serve as POTUS.

Like I said above... How?

I stand by what I said before (and what I've been saying for months): Ron Paul is the only decent republican candidate in the race.

:hippy:

I see your statement, and I raise you... (:D)

He is the only decent candidate (over all) in the race.

Electrophile, read Hermit's list and don't dismiss it. Do some digging. Rudy may in fact be worse than George Bush. And the last thing we want in the White House is a President worse than George W. Bush... third anti-Christ indeed (if you believe in that sort of thing)...

Anyways... I'm going to bed for the night. It's 3 am here and I have work to do tomorrow. Night all. :)

Edited by Nathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care where he was fucking his mistress. Sexual peccadilloes are none of my concern unless they involve animals, dead people or children. Past that, if he wanted to fuck her in Times Square with a traffic cone on his head, more power to him. All I said was that he was socially liberal -- I'm socially liberal, so when I noticed politicians who are, I take note. That's all I said. I made no other comment about where he stands on other issues because I don't follow his campaign as again, I'm not a Republican.

Electrophile, read Hermit's list and don't dismiss it. Do some digging. Rudy may in fact be worse than George Bush. And the last thing we want in the White House is a President worse than George W. Bush... third anti-Christ indeed (if you believe in that sort of thing)...

So he sucks. Most politicians do. Is that supposed to be news? I'll alert the media. All I agree with is his stance on abortion, gay rights and stem cell research (I've heard he is for it). His stance on any other issue really doesn't interest me.

Edited by Electrophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the most general sense, Liz, I appreciate the sentiment "I don't care where he was fucking his mistress; sexual peccadilloes are none of my concern",.. but if you don't care that he was sleeping with his mistress in a loft that was supposed to be reserved for 9/11 rescue workers.. and if you don't care that he was billing taxpayers for his mistress to have security detail.. then you're not being very discerning. ..at all.

:rolleyes:

That you'd vote for Rudy based solely on his "liberal stance on social issues" ["I agree with his stance on abortion, gay rights and stem cell research", you say] without any consideration for his positions on other issues, reveals the depth of your political ignorance and naivete. As does the fact that you've said under no circumstances would you vote for Hillary [who's positions on abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research are quite likely more liberal than Rudy's] because.. you consider her "a shrill harpie".

:rolleyes:

You self righteously mock those who've said they'd vote for Hillary merely "because she's a woman", and yet your "because she's a shrill harpie" rationale for not voting for her is just as equally lacking in thoughtfulness, insight, and substance.

slapface.gif

Priceless. :hysterical:

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

And the obvious qualifications of many of the dems? Give me some qualifications of the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barak(sp?) Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and how they are better than Ron?

Throughout the thread I've been touching on the qualifications of each of the candidates, so I'm not gonna break it down candidate by candidate here. But suffice it to say, they're all well-educated, intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate; each has his/her own particular strengths that, afaic, offset their shortcomings; they all have plans for ending the war, for getting our foreign policy back on track, and for rebuilding the military; for bringing about universal health care, for improving education, for addressing the illegal immigration problem, for balancing the budget, for restoring our civil liberties, and for improving America's reputation around the globe.. a reputation that has been soiled by the Bush administration; in varying degrees they're all willing to shake up the special interest/lobbyist status quo (Edwards probably moreso than the others; Obama, Dodd, Biden, Richardson in the middle; and Hillary probably the least); and they all have plans to transition us from dependency on fossil fuels to alternative energy resources; they all take global warming/climate change seriously; they all have a plan for addressing trade treaty inequities and for restoring the strength of America's middle, working class; they have stand firm on human rights issues; and in varying degrees they all show good leadership characteristics. Across the board I think they're all very well qualified.

The reason I would vote for any of the dem candidates over Ron Paul (whom, btw, is the only decent repub in the race, afaic) is because I think Paul is a bit of an extremist with regard to his 'small govt' mentality; he's almost anti-government in that he wants to eliminate govt agencies and programs that I think are very important, like, for example, the Dept of Education, the EPA, etc. I also wouldn't vote for him because he would seek to undo Roe v Wade. I do however, admire his core libertarianism, the fact that he's taken a position against the death penalty in federal cases, and his positions regarding medical marijuana, the so-called war on drugs, and the stark difference in his foreign policy vision compared to Bush-Cheney et al.

Ron Paul is not a bad candidate.. he's definitely the best among the repubs..

but for what I'm looking for in a candidate, he's not as desirable as any of the dems.

I would sure love to see him get the repub nomination though! B)

:hippy:

Edited by Hermit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't care where he was fucking his mistress. Sexual peccadilloes are none of my concern unless they involve animals, dead people or children. Past that, if he wanted to fuck her in Times Square with a traffic cone on his head, more power to him. All I said was that he was socially liberal -- I'm socially liberal, so when I noticed politicians who are, I take note. That's all I said. I made no other comment about where he stands on other issues because I don't follow his campaign as again, I'm not a Republican.

It'd be one thing if he was fucking his mistress in his house or somewhere in private. It's certainly another when he's fucking her somewhere he shouldn't even be.

And he's making taxpayers pay for her security? Uh... no.

Here's the problem with political candidates and their trists, mistresses, etc. This is why the wholeClinton and Lewinsky thing was such an issue, and why Rudy having a mistress is so bad...

If these people can't be loyal to their wives, can we honestly trust them to be loyal to their duties as a president?

So he sucks. Most politicians do. Is that supposed to be news? I'll alert the media. All I agree with is his stance on abortion, gay rights and stem cell research (I've heard he is for it). His stance on any other issue really doesn't interest me.

Out of curiosity... do you research at all? Or do you look at ask.com summaries and base your opinions on that?

Okay... so Rudy supports gay rights...

Ron Paul supports all Human rights... he doesn't care if you're gay, straight, black, white, man, woman, or child... if you're human, you have rights.

I do admit I prefer Rudy's stance on abortion, but it's about the only thing I agree with him on...

Both Rudy and Ron Paul share the same general feelings on Stem-Cell research, though Ron takes it further.

Rudy would like to see less government involved with it, while Ron would like to see the Government stay completely out of it. Both, however, support it.

But how can you not care about any other stances? What about the Iraq war? We need to get out. Rudy would keep us in... longer. In fact, we'd be in WWIII with Rudy in office. With Ron Paul or any democratic candidate, this futile, ridiculous war would be over and we would have the funds to start working on America, which is where we need our troops.

And the war on drugs? Rudy supports it, fully. He has no problem consistently spending billions and billions of dollars loosing two wars (Iraq and the War on Drugs), and putting us further and further into debt, for absoluetly no good reason.

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.

Throughout the thread I've been touching on the qualifications of each of the candidates, so I'm not gonna break it down candidate by candidate here. But suffice it to say, they're all well-educated, intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate; each has his/her own particular strengths that, afaic, offset their shortcomings;

Depends on who you're talking about. I disagree with you vehemently when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Barak Obama, on the other hand, you may almost be right about. I'll get back to you one the rest, lol... :D

they all have plans for ending the war, for getting our foreign policy back on track, and for rebuilding the military; for bringing about universal health care, for improving education, for addressing the illegal immigration problem, for balancing the budget, for restoring our civil liberties, and for improving America's reputation around the globe.. a reputation that has been soiled by the Bush administration; in varying degrees they're all willing to shake up the special interest/lobbyist status quo (Edwards probably moreso than the others; Obama, Dodd, Biden, Richardson in the middle; and Hillary probably the least); and they all have plans to transition us from dependency on fossil fuels to alternative energy resources; they all take global warming/climate change seriously; they all have a plan for addressing trade treaty inequities and for restoring the strength of America's middle, working class; they have stand firm on human rights issues; and in varying degrees they all show good leadership characteristics. Across the board I think they're all very well qualified.

Do you realize you've just described Ron Paul?

One of his biggest goals in office is to fix our foreign policy. He is also going to work on rebuilding our military. He fullty supports "universal health care." He believes education is at its lowest point right now and needs to be improved. His plans for balancing the budget will be just as effective if not more effective than any of the dems plans. Ron Paul is the biggest proponent of the Constitution. We'll have every single last one of our civil liberties restored in full with him in office. Ron Paul will without a doubt improve the USA's reputation around the world. It's something he fully supports. He has no problem shaking up the status quo.

As per his stance on energy and fuel, he believes in letting the free market make those decisions... not the government.

Ron Paul recognizes global warming, but he also says "we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."

Ron Paul wants to see the free market strengthened, with less Government involvement. If done correctly, this can not only strengthen the middle/working class, but also the working poor, as well, and it won't benefit the rich.

Ron Paul is the biggest supporter of Human Rights, AFAIC.

Ron Paul, AFAIC, will be an amazing leader, and he will lead us back to glory.

The reason I would vote for any of the dem candidates over Ron Paul (whom, btw, is the only decent repub in the race, afaic) is because I think Paul is a bit of an extremist with regard to his 'small govt' mentality; he's almost anti-government in that he wants to eliminate govt agencies and programs that I think are very important, like, for example, the Dept of Education, the EPA, etc. I also wouldn't vote for him because he would seek to undo Roe v Wade. I do however, admire his core libertarianism, the fact that he's taken a position against the death penalty in federal cases, and his positions regarding medical marijuana, the so-called war on drugs, and the stark difference in his foreign policy vision compared to Bush-Cheney et al.

He wants to see more independence throughout the country. That was the founding fathers' intentions, after all. It's one of the things we rebelled against in the Revolution... government interference. We shouldn't be dependent on the governmenet for everything. We should be independent. That's what will make this country strong.

Ron Paul is not a bad candidate.. he's definitely the best among the repubs..

but for what I'm looking for in a candidate, he's not as desirable as any of the dems.

Fair enough, but I really do think you should make some more side-by-side comparisons. I've been, and it's one of the reasons I fully support Ron over all the dems and other repubs.

I will tell you this, though. If Paul doesn't make it, I will most likely vote Democrat (unless that democrat is Hillary... then I just may not vote at all).

I would sure love to see him get the repub nomination though! B)

:hippy:

Exactly... :D

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+ Ron Paul would probably pull the US troops out of Iraq, which is always good.

Peace

But of course. Ron recognizes (like the dems... and he runs as a repub... how interesting... :blink: ) that the Iraq war is a bad thing, and understand that we need that money, and our troops, back here in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course. Ron recognizes (like the dems... and he runs as a repub... how interesting... :blink: ) that the Iraq war is a bad thing, and understand that we need that money, and our troops, back here in the US.

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

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...