Presidential Election! 2008!

[Andrew]

So.... who's in it to win?

Personally, I would love a Condi vs Hillary showdown, with Hillary as the winner... but realistically, that won't be happening, will it.

What's your perspective on it at the moment....?

[RedStarWarrior]

I don't think our nation is progressive enough as a whole to elect Clinton. Rice won't be running, so I think McCain has a great shot. Doesn't matter what we predict right now as we don't even know for sure who is running yet.

[Andrew]

Who is mccain to us nön americans.

[RedStarWarrior]

Look it up, you lazy bastard.

Anyway, if Giuliani runs, I am voting for him. I hadn't thought about him running, but it seems rather credible. He would definately beat McCain.

Giuliani with McCain as a running mate would be Clinton hands down...

[Heald]

[Roy Karrde]

Who is mccain to us nön americans.

Mc Cain is a very centrest to almost left Republican from Arizona.

Anyway I don't see how anyone would want Hillary, she's a nut. And I mean a even bigger one than her husband. Hillary (Health) Care for example? as for Giuliani, I dunno, I would want to see what he did in New York pre 9/11, becuase really that is the main points he has going for him, that he helped New York during 9/11. Now that in and of itself is a pretty big acomplishment, but I would rather see what else he has done.


Would anyone really want this....thing, as the leader of the Free World?

[Heald]

[image editted out for the sake of Baby Jesus]
Would anyone really want this....thing, as the leader of the Free World?

Don't judge a politician on looks.

Also, the US is the free world now? Tell that to all those detained in US facilities without trial all over the globe.

[Roy Karrde]

It's a coined phrase used by Politicians and stuff, that the US is the leader of the Free World.

[Heald]

It's a coined phrase used by Politicians and stuff, that the US is the leader of the Free World.

Really? Well they're still wrong.

[mr_pikachu]

I remember a few years ago, my family and I discussed who we'd like to run in 2008, and Giuliani's name kept coming up. I'm really not much for McCain, but I'd definitely prefer him over Hillary.

I honestly don't see Rice running (unless she's made some announcement that I haven't heard). Probably not Kerry either, especially after his recent comments... though perhaps that'll blow over. The '04 defeat can't have helped his reputation, though. Hmm... Lieberman sometimes runs, but I'm not sure if he will this time after having to go Independent to win his Senate seat.

Yeah, this is definitely very early speculation, but it's entertaining nonetheless. ^_^

[Blademaster]

My vote goes to the squirrel.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Major props to Heald. I couldn't have said it better myself.

All I have to say on the matter is:

Go Jon Stewart!

Kerry, I don't know man, if he has learned his lesson and is willing to get off his high horse to win an election, he'd be a force to be reckoned with. The only reason he lost was that he didn't want to lose his hair and get a double chin by sinking to the level of Karl Rove and lobbing dirt incessantly. But honestly, I would love to see Stewart/Colbert against some Karl Rove-backed candidate, that would be a sight to see, how badly Rove would get his ass kicked.

[Asilynne]

You dont know what Guiliani did pre-9/11? Heres a bio I just found Hes known for Cleaning up NYC, it used to be one of the most dangerous cities but while he was mayor the crime rate went down signifigantly. If he ran for pres that would be very interesting and Id vote for him. Then again Id vote for ALMOST (key word is almost) anyone but Hillary, what a bitch lol Id love to see a woman pres but her? Uh uh.
And Jon Stewart? ROFL dude stop watching so much TV, hes what we call a "comedian", his job is to talk, you cant be seriously thinking that you would want him to run this country. And while its arguable that a polititions job is to talk, Im sure everyone here is smart enough to know the difference between speaking for a TV show and speaking for a country. Its called Real Life.
As for Kerry, I really hope hes smart enough to step out of the presidential elections from now on, someone as weak willed and wishy washy as him shouldnt be the leader of anything, let alone a whole country. Hes a follower, and while Im sure theres nothing wrong with being a follower (not everyone can be a leader) Followers should not be put in charge of a large group of people.

[mr_pikachu]

Actually, in a sense, I agree with DTZ about Stewart.

After all, I'd certainly vote for him before I'd vote for the other Clinton.

[DarkTemplarZero]

What makes a comedian and politican satirist less qualified to run a country than a lawyer, a war hero, or a man who abused drugs and alcohol into his 40's by his own admission (i.e. Bush)? He has public support and recognizability most certainly, he knows how to debate, he almost singlehandedly took down CNN's show Crossfire by appearing on the show once, and he really has some intelligent opinions on the Middle East: http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item...stewarts_plan/ , he knows how to make political ads (see Daily Show on 10/31/06), and certainly he doesn't bother with the bickering that plagues the American government today. Now I'd like to ask you something. What do you think a politician should be? Should a politician be a former judge? Soldier? Drug addict? Just what is a politician to you? Come on, I want something a bit more substantial than "Im sure everyone here is smart enough to know the difference between speaking for a TV show and speaking for a country". Speaking is irrelevant, no politician writes their own speeches, although Stewart showed that he's quite capable of ad-libbing on Crossfire. The point is that a lot of people, including myself, believe in what Stewart has to say. Although he'd be the first to say that he'll never run for president as he said when he was interviewed for the cover article of Time, I have no doubt that he would make a great leader.

And actually I would call Kerry among the most morally incorruptable and strong willed politicians out there: despite Rove's constant immoral attacks on him, Kerry refused to sink to his level and ran his race rather than trying to trip up his opponent. You might call this wishy washy, I call it courageous. In the meantime, before you bust out flip-flopping, first of all I'd rather have a leader who is capable of admitting when he is wrong rather than one who tries to deceive his followers into thinking that he was right, and second of all, if you talk about flip-flopping, Bush constantly alternated between calling Kerry a "flip-flopper" and a "consistently liberal senator". Is it just me or are those oxymoronic? Besides, calling a decorated war hero weak willed and wishy washy is like calling Bush a sober life-long devout Catholic. If Kerry is weak willed, then you and I are little more than puddles.

[Roy Karrde]

Wait....didn't I see this movie? Wasn't it called Man of the Year? Where a Comedian gets into the White House and finds himself over his head?

As for Kerry, he will never make it to the White House again, he killed any chance of that with his remark about the Military/Bush. That and politicians that lose in a election for the presidency almost never win again.

[DarkTemplarZero]

I don't know what movie you watched, the movie I saw was a rather cheesey pseudo-thriller involving a comedian getting into the White House and then casting off the title honorably when he discovers that a not so accidental glitch in the voting machines gave him the presidency. I can understand not watching it, it wasn't that good of a movie, but at least IMDB or Wiki it before commenting on it, honestly. But I digress.

And as for Kerry, first of all when was he actually at the White House with that "again" statement you just made? Secondly, I don't doubt that, although the comment's more or less forgotten Rove would pounce on it... errr pounce is an exaggeration, that fat slob could barely roll that far, but you catch my drift.

[Roy Karrde]

As for the movie, I never saw it, I actually have never seen a movie while in my time in Waco, I was going on what my little Sister told me who saw the movie. Then again when ever do you trust eleven year olds.

As for my second statement, I ment close to the White House, and for the comment need I remind you that Kerry did not apologise for it, for two days, and that was after Bi Partisan Calls for him to. The man is a disgrace to the office. As for Rove, I really don't see why you have a hard on for him, other than he is considered a Political Genus in Washington and has helped win 3 out of the last 4 Elections.

Anyway this topic is about the next Presidential Election. Not about Rove, and not about Bush. Hopefully the Democrats will remember that when they run in the next election.

[Asilynne]

Saying Kerry is couragious is naiive and makes me laugh really. Does being in a war automatically make you brave? Just because he is a decorated war "hero" as you put it doesnt mean he has an ounce of bravery. I remember when the election was taking place, a lot of his old 'war buddies' came forward with the truth about what happened in Vietnam, and how he almost got them all killed. So if you admire him for his decorations your in love with the pretty picture and not the truth of the man himself.
I look into his eyes and all I see is fear. Fear of being discovered for who he really is. That has nothing to do with how many medals he has or what he did in his past, it has nothing to do with the pretty picture hes painted for himself, it has to do with what you can see right in front of you if you have the depth enough to look.

A lot of people see Bush as an idiot because he talks southern and mispronounces, but again your looking at the picture that society has painted of him. Yes I would rather have a man that chokes on pretzals as a president rather than a man who goes through life with a stick up his ass like Kerry. Its human to choke on a pretzal, and Kerrys so busy keeping up appearances it seems like hes more a robot than a person.

And really Zero I dont like debating with you or whatever you like to call it, because of the way you present your agruments and 'facts'. You treat every word someone says that doesnt agree with you as a personal attack, and because of that you have a harsh "Im right and if you dont agree your stupid" attitude. I like discussing things with people and I really dont mind if they disagree with me but you make me sigh. I know youve probably had a hard life in Russia but we are not the KGB. You dont have to be so defiant in your arguments. Loosen up a lil lol

[mr_pikachu]

I think it'd be worthwhile to preempt another massive flamefest by DTZ...

In terms of the "truth being revealed" about Vietnam, I have to admit that the claims made in those commercials proved a little dubious upon further examination. Many of the other people in the area at the time that Kerry was apparently dishonorable came forward and said that it never happened. The question is whether you think it's more probable that someone would lie to make themselves look like they served with a war hero/presidential candidate, or whether they would take the chance to attack him in favor of another candidate on less-than-solid grounds.

Because it's so questionable, I'm hesitant to form an argument based on that alone. Nonetheless, however, I do agree that serving in a war doesn't automatically mean you're loaded with courage and valor. And every time someone brings up his medals, I can't help but think of the "But I still won three purple hearts!" line from that JibJab video. Besides, the way I see it, courage is only one part of the equation of a good leader. That alone wouldn't make him a suitable president.

[Blademaster]

And every time someone brings up his medals, I can't help but think of the "But I still won three purple hearts!" line from that JibJab video.

Oh, yeah! I loved that video! This Land, I believe... The beginning where Bush calls Kerry 'Herman Munster' makes me laugh everytime I hear it.

[Everoy]

I dunno about all of you, but I'm hopin' for Oprah for president. With Ellen DeGeneres as her running mate. 'Cuz Ellen is the gay Oprah.

[Heald]

And Jon Stewart? ROFL dude stop watching so much TV, hes what we call a "comedian", his job is to talk, you cant be seriously thinking that you would want him to run this country. And while its arguable that a polititions job is to talk, Im sure everyone here is smart enough to know the difference between speaking for a TV show and speaking for a country. Its called Real Life.

Yeah, except Bush can't even talk. He can hardly ever articulate a sentence and all his interviews and press conferences are heavily editted (as shown in a BBC programme a year or so ago) to cut out the time he wastes jibbering and pausing to think to what to say next, or, more likely, while he listens to the earpiece that Cheney gave to him to spoonfeed him his comments and answers.

Also, the President's job is mainly to talk; he is the figurehead of the Executive. Anything that is a 'Presidential action' is seldom done, decided upon or carried out by the President, or at least solely the President alone. More or less every decision the President makes has in reality been decided by the Executive Office on his behalf. All he does is rubber stamp it with the Presidential 'Seal of Approval', so to speak.

The difference between comedians (or, at least, good comedians with intelligence, such as Jon Stewart) and politicians is that comedians are far too smart to be politicians. Comedians more or less put themselves and their opinions first and don't dilute what is close to their heart with bullshit and brown-nosing. Politicians, on the other hand, more or less have to lie to themselves every single day. Whatever their actual opinions are, they are not allowed to show any form of extreme argument (if they are seeking office, at least) e.g. relating to abortion, if you have a concrete opinion about it, you are labelled either a fetus-killing monster and right-wing Christian nutjob. Comedians aren't afraid to tell the truth because they thrive in controversy. Politicians have to pander to popular opinion and aren't allowed to show signs of being the slightest bit human, e.g. Bush choking on a pretzel, Nixon being a crazy paranoid liar, Clinton getting tempted by a blow-job etc. otherwise the media has a field day and say stupid shit like 'HAHA THE PRESIDENT MADE AN EVERYDAY MISTAKE LETS KILL HIM'.

I hate the fact that politicians are far too restricted by the mass media and their reputations to do anything good or right, but that's just the way the planet is - probably more than 90% of human beings are incredibly gullible and are too stupid to realise that even if a newspaper says that getting a blow-job from a secretary or choking on a pretzel means that someone is a bad President, it doesn't.

The same proportion of human beings are incredibly short-sighted as well - in both the UK and the US, there are two main parties that both of which have pretty similar views but just disagree on some key issues for the sheer hell of it. Both electorates are built up mainly of idiots who vote not on policies, people or issues, but on how pissed off they are with either party. Take the four-term Conservative reign in the UK between 1979 and 1997. It started when people had got so pissed off with Labour due to the economic decline they had brought about that they voted the Conservatives in in 1979. In 1983, the Conservatives had turned around the economic decline that Labour had brought about, giving them a bigger majority. However, after that, their majority dwindled, not for any particular reason, except the media just kept making big deals over tiny issues, such as the Falklands War, which was a no-win situation for the Conservatives - either let Argentina keep the Falklands and look weak or fight and look like war-mongers. In the end, 'Black Wednesday' was the straw that broke the camel's back - although it was mainly Germany's fault, the media made it look like it was the Conservative's fault and Labour won a landslide, despite how badly they ruined the country last time they were in charge - people had simply forgotten that they were unfit to run the country. Basically, neither main party is fit to run the country, but until people realise this, we'll have to deal with the same bullshit over and over.

[Blademaster]

Yeah, except Bush can't even talk. He can hardly ever articulate a sentence and all his interviews and press conferences are heavily editted (as shown in a BBC programme a year or so ago) to cut out the time he wastes jibbering and pausing to think to what to say next, or, more likely, while he listens to the earpiece that Cheney gave to him to spoonfeed him his comments and answers.

Also, the President's job is mainly to talk; he is the figurehead of the Executive. Anything that is a 'Presidential action' is seldom done, decided upon or carried out by the President, or at least solely the President alone. More or less every decision the President makes has in reality been decided by the Executive Office on his behalf. All he does is rubber stamp it with the Presidential 'Seal of Approval', so to speak.

The difference between comedians (or, at least, good comedians with intelligence, such as Jon Stewart) and politicians is that comedians are far too smart to be politicians. Comedians more or less put themselves and their opinions first and don't dilute what is close to their heart with bullshit and brown-nosing. Politicians, on the other hand, more or less have to lie to themselves every single day. Whatever their actual opinions are, they are not allowed to show any form of extreme argument (if they are seeking office, at least) e.g. relating to abortion, if you have a concrete opinion about it, you are labelled either a fetus-killing monster and right-wing Christian nutjob. Comedians aren't afraid to tell the truth because they thrive in controversy. Politicians have to pander to popular opinion and aren't allowed to show signs of being the slightest bit human, e.g. Bush choking on a pretzel, Nixon being a crazy paranoid liar, Clinton getting tempted by a blow-job etc. otherwise the media has a field day and say stupid shit like 'HAHA THE PRESIDENT MADE AN EVERYDAY MISTAKE LETS KILL HIM'.

I hate the fact that politicians are far too restricted by the mass media and their reputations to do anything good or right, but that's just the way the planet is - probably more than 90% of human beings are incredibly gullible and are too stupid to realise that even if a newspaper says that getting a blow-job from a secretary or choking on a pretzel means that someone is a bad President, it doesn't.

The same proportion of human beings are incredibly short-sighted as well - in both the UK and the US, there are two main parties that both of which have pretty similar views but just disagree on some key issues for the sheer hell of it. Both electorates are built up mainly of idiots who vote not on policies, people or issues, but on how pissed off they are with either party. Take the four-term Conservative reign in the UK between 1979 and 1997. It started when people had got so pissed off with Labour due to the economic decline they had brought about that they voted the Conservatives in in 1979. In 1983, the Conservatives had turned around the economic decline that Labour had brought about, giving them a bigger majority. However, after that, their majority dwindled, not for any particular reason, except the media just kept making big deals over tiny issues, such as the Falklands War, which was a no-win situation for the Conservatives - either let Argentina keep the Falklands and look weak or fight and look like war-mongers. In the end, 'Black Wednesday' was the straw that broke the camel's back - although it was mainly Germany's fault, the media made it look like it was the Conservative's fault and Labour won a landslide, despite how badly they ruined the country last time they were in charge - people had simply forgotten that they were unfit to run the country. Basically, neither main party is fit to run the country, but until people realise this, we'll have to deal with the same bullshit over and over.

Right, that does it...

(gets out a big sign that says 'Heald in '08')

[Jeff]

Aaaaaanyway, back on topic...

I'd vote for Giuliani, he seems like he'd make a good leader and the fact that he reduced crime in New York is also promising. As for the Democrats, they just don't seem to have anyone good going for them, Obama running would be too soon, and Hilary is... well Hilary.

Speaking of which, lol:

[Blademaster]

(dies of laughing)

[SuperSonicMewtwo]

i don't really have a lot of time at this moment so i wasn't able to read all the posts previous.

if any woman were to run, i'd want it to be Condi, but I don't think she would win simply by the fact america has neither had a woman president nor an african-american president. i doubt the populous as a whole is actually able to deal with those two things at the same time for such a high office.

hillary... no. i don't go on looks, i go on the way she acts and the actions she has taken as a senator among other things, and i don't like her.

i do like Lieberman. I don't agree with many of the things he works for, but i do agree with others. Also, he refused to be controlled by his party's will, he stood up on his own for the things he believed were right. that means a lot to me.

i'll admit i don't know enough about McCain to judge him for the possibility of another presidential run.

[DarkTemplarZero]

If Condi became president the world would end. She would nuke the rest of the world because every ambassador would try their bend it like Beckham skills and try to kick a soccer goal through that massive gap between her teeth.

As for Hillary, I really don't think she has what it takes to lead. Her voting record's decent I guess, a bit too conservative for my taste but still, if she was more of a leader I might vote for her.

Lieberman, I would vote for but he's a faschist when it comes to foreign policy and human rights. That and the fact that he's vehemently against the sale of violent video games and rips GTA almost as badly as Jack Thompson and he's a completely blind supporter of Israel and doesn't agree with the Geneva Conventions. I do like the fact that he can think for himself, and the fact that he supports stem cell research, gay rights, and disses affirmative action. Basically I like what he thinks domestically but he's just as bad as Bush when it comes to foreign policy (he voted for the Military Commissions Act, that sick fucker) and the United States cannot afford another administration like Bush's without causing World War III.

Other than Kerry if he runs again, I'd say that the one I'm most likely to vote for is Chris Dodd.

[Roy Karrde]

Looks like Kerry is dead in the water.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15924584/?GT1=8717

[DarkTemplarZero]

Yeah, unfortunate. I'm a big believer in Kerry's policies, voting record, and moral character, but I don't think he's charismatic enough to make a good president.

[RedStarWarrior]

Kerry will never be renominated by the Democratic Party...they aren't that stupid.

Anyway, Hillary hasn't been as active lately which has been hurting her. Obama has been gaining ground as a result.

[Razola]

It's cute that Heald thinks he knows how American politics work. The only thing he's gotten right is that it's mostly bullshit.

[Heald]

It's cute that Heald knows how American politics work. Among the things he's gotten right is that it's mostly bullshit.

Corrected.

Also, I'm pretty sure most Americans have no idea how their own politics works. If they did, I'm be pretty sure they wouldn't keep voting jackasses in.

[mr_pikachu]

I'll concede the point about too few Americans knowing anything about politics, as I agree with that statement for the most part. (There are way too few exceptions for what has become the rule.)

However, I don't think that's the problem with elections. Let me put it this way... name the last presidential candidate who didn't have some gaping problem in his or her policies, beliefs, etc.

That's what I thought.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Well there will always be people who'll think that somebody's policy has aspects that they don't like, so technically there has never been a president who didn't have gaps in policy according to some.

And such are elections. The average IQ in the US is approximately 100, i.e. falling under the category of barely capable of a four year college degree, so a significant portion of the US has the mental capacity of a bar of soap and so you get idiots voting for people they can relate to.

[Roy Karrde]

Oh c'mon DTZ, we know that there is no way to take a mass IQ test of Americans. That was proven in that false website that was put up after the 2000 and 2004 elections in which they tried to pass off that Blue states were smarter than Red states.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

There it is.

[RedStarWarrior]

All politicians are jackasses, Heald. This doesn't apply to just Americans.

[pokemasterfrank]

You dont know what Guiliani did pre-9/11? Heres a bio I just found Hes known for Cleaning up NYC, it used to be one of the most dangerous cities but while he was mayor the crime rate went down signifigantly. If he ran for pres that would be very interesting and Id vote for him. Then again Id vote for ALMOST (key word is almost) anyone but Hillary, what a bitch lol Id love to see a woman pres but her? Uh uh.
And Jon Stewart? ROFL dude stop watching so much TV, hes what we call a "comedian", his job is to talk, you cant be seriously thinking that you would want him to run this country. And while its arguable that a polititions job is to talk, Im sure everyone here is smart enough to know the difference between speaking for a TV show and speaking for a country. Its called Real Life.
As for Kerry, I really hope hes smart enough to step out of the presidential elections from now on, someone as weak willed and wishy washy as him shouldnt be the leader of anything, let alone a whole country. Hes a follower, and while Im sure theres nothing wrong with being a follower (not everyone can be a leader) Followers should not be put in charge of a large group of people.

Just as a note. Your past profession doesn't really matter. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. And the one to debunk the comedian thing - Reagan was an actor. The only thing that matters is if you have the skills to do the job and the charisma to sway the public. I mean, a main reason JFK won was because he had people coaching him and showing how to act on camera during debates and such. He looked the part.

Anyway...

If Kerry were to run again, he'd lose :/ I agree with DTZ - he isn't charismatic enough. And frankly, I don't think he'd do a very good job.

Rice. Bleh. After doing a research paper involving the Bush administration, I find that my respect for Rice has dropped - and that's saying a lot because I didn't think it could drop any further Seriously, she's Bush's lapdog. Yes, GW. I understand GW. I agree with everything you say, GW

Clinton. Bleh :/

You know, I have no qualms about voting for a female candidate - the only problem is is that the ones that are highlighted at the moment are as crappy as the male candidates

All politicians are jackasses, Heald. This doesn't apply to just Americans.

Indeed.

[Asilynne]

OMG its FRANK! Come lets leave this politics topic and go back to RPG ^v^ *drags frank kicking and screaming back to the room of RPG so he can roleplay with her again*
I missed you x.x and Im glad you dont like Kerry either XD

And yeah I know that, Lincoln was born poor as dirt and became pres. But these dont exactly mean that everyone who comes from a job line separate from Politics is going to do just fine, as in just because those presidents did fine despite their respecive backgrounds doesnt mean I should give Jon Stewart my full support if hell ever froze over and he was nominated. I dont think hed win for the sole reason that people cant take him seriously.

But yeah come back to RPG, I missed RPing with you ;.;

[mr_pikachu]

Well, that's an interesting point about taking a comedian seriously. It is a little bit different than being an actor, being comedians do nothing but make jokes (at least in front of the public eye), while actors sometimes at least act serious. That might be a potential problem beyond what Reagan experienced.

Then again, I read a rather frightening study recently that compared The Daily Show with news broadcasts on CNN, CBS, Fox News, and a few other stations. Stewart's program was found to have every bit as much political content as the rest of them - that is, it was just as informative as the traditional news programs. I'm not sure whether that says more about The Daily Show or about the state of news today.