Presidential Election

[Twisp]

I thought we used to have a politics section, but I guess we don't. Who do you think is going to win the next Presidential election? It's still pretty early, but speculation is always fun. I think that Clinton is probably going to be the Democratic nominee, and think thay Guliani is going to be the GOP nominee. Personally, I am pulling for Ron Paul.

[revrandy]

I must admit I am enjoying seeing Hillary somewhat in trouble times...

I don't know if she is as safe as she was...

[DividedThigh]

this election will be pivotal in our history, the next president will be appointing at least two and maybe three supreme court justices, that will shape the country for the rest of my lifetime, i beleive we should all carefully consider ours and our childrens future when we choose, dt:yourock

[DividedThigh]

I must admit I am enjoying seeing Hillary somewhat in trouble times...

I don't know if she is as safe as she was...

you aint seen the trouble that will be coming down the pike if this socialist gets elected, so far no matter how ugly nothing sticks to her, kind of like billy, dt:bliss

[Ferd]

Hillary is in trouble in Iowa.

Nationally she is leading by a pretty wide margine but Iowa has a way of changing things.

If Obama wins in Iowa where Hillary has really worked hard, it changes the dynamic of the race on the Democrat side.

For the Repbublicans, Iowa is a little different. Rudy has stayed away from Iowa so there is no real gage on the impact Iowa will have on him. At this point Romney is the front runner there but Huckabee is closing in on him. If Huckabee wins Iowa, I think Romney is sunk and this becomes a Rudy/Huckabee race. If Romney wins then it is Rudy/Romney.


One of these 5 will be the next president.

For the Dems Hillary has the highest negatives of anyone who has ever run for President. That is a very steep hill.

For Obama, he is very inexperienced and has been mistake prone, and African American. These are the two biggest things working against him.

For Mitt, he has been both for and against conservitiave positions, is a morman, and is a republican in a time where there is strong sentiment aginst the republcian party.

Rudy is seen by the conservitives and the Christian Right as being something other than what they (me) are. Besides being a Republcian, Rudy runs the risk of causing the Republican wing of the Republican party to stay home and not vote.

Huckabee will be painted as TOO Christian. He has also been soft on emmigration, and not quite as conservitive as some have thought. While he is too "Republican" to win the moderates in a time when many independant voters are turned off to Republcians; he is also not quite conservitive to jazz the base. he also has the lowest "Celebrity" appeal of any of the major candidates and I think may stand the least chance of winning (and this is the guy I am voting for).

I think the winner will be the one that the people think is the "lest bad" instead of the best option.

[Twisp]

I think the winner will be the one that the people think is the "lest bad" instead of the best option.
I think the winner will be that. It is sad that we have mainly a 2 party election. Technically, we have had larger elections, but the third parties haven't stood a chance of winning. I guess I am going to be "throwing" my vote away with Paul, but he is the only candidate that I do not have to hold my nose to vote for.

[chaotic_resolve]

Huckabee's a lousy conservative republican, I don't care what he says. My friend from AR has nothing good to say - terrified that he's gaining popularity among the religious right. Taxes will go up if Huck is elected.

[DividedThigh]

Huckabee's a lousy conservative republican, I don't care what he says. My friend from AR has nothing good to say - terrified that he's gaining popularity among the religious right. Taxes will go up if Huck is elected.

hey cr, i dont like huckabee and neither do i like taxes, but what is wrong with being a conservative republican, huh, dt:donuts

[chaotic_resolve]

hey cr, i dont like huckabee and neither do i like taxes, but what is wrong with being a conservative republican, huh, dt:donuts
Nothing's wrong with being a conservative republican . . . I mean Huckabee is a lousy one, if he really is one. He's really not one though. He's raised taxes and from what I've read online and heard from a friend, he's not a true conservative republican.

[DividedThigh]

Nothing's wrong with being a conservative republican . . . I mean Huckabee is a lousy one, if he really is one. He's really not one though. He's raised taxes and from what I've read online and heard from a friend, he's not a true conservative republican.

ok, cool, i was curious, i dont like him , and especially the tax thing, i prefer fred thompson, he was my senator for a while when i lived in tennessee, dt:yourock

[Ferd]

hey cr, i dont like huckabee and neither do i like taxes, but what is wrong with being a conservative republican, huh, dt:donuts

I think CR's comments were more toward Hickabee not being a Conservitive in reality rather than a negative comentary on conservitism.

[Ferd]

ok, cool, i was curious, i dont like him , and especially the tax thing, i prefer fred thompson, he was my senator for a while when i lived in tennessee, dt:yourock

i was really getting behind Fred. but Fred has disappointed. He has not built any kind of a political machine at all. I dont think he wants to do the work to get elected.

[Ferd]

I think the winner will be that. It is sad that we have mainly a 2 party election. Technically, we have had larger elections, but the third parties haven't stood a chance of winning. I guess I am going to be "throwing" my vote away with Paul, but he is the only candidate that I do not have to hold my nose to vote for.

Ron Paul isnt my kind of guy for president at all. First he is more liberatarian than republican and I still believe in limited government instead of anarchy.

RPs ideas of what the constitution is, are vastly different than my own. i dont like RP, I dont thin he can get elected and I think he would be as bad for America as a democrat for vertually the opposite reasons.

[DividedThigh]

i was really getting behind Fred. but Fred has disappointed. He has not built any kind of a political machine at all. I dont think he wants to do the work to get elected.

i wonder about that, i hope he gets it together cause he is a decent conservative man, nobodys perfect, but at least i can agree with him on most things, i dont think huck is a real conservative anyway, come on he is a baptist, just kidding of course, lol,dt:donuts

[Ferd]

i wonder about that, i hope he gets it together cause he is a decent conservative man, nobodys perfect, but at least i can agree with him on most things, i dont think huck is a real conservative anyway, come on he is a baptist, just kidding of course, lol,dt:donuts

well, as of now, in the primary i will vote for Huck. but a few months ago, it was Fred. I am cooling on Huck the more if find out about him.

Where is Newt when you need him huh?

[Twisp]

Ron Paul isnt my kind of guy for president at all. First he is more liberatarian than republican and I still believe in limited government instead of anarchy.

RPs ideas of what the constitution is, are vastly different than my own. i dont like RP, I dont thin he can get elected and I think he would be as bad for America as a democrat for vertually the opposite reasons.
Ron Paul isn't an anarchist. He simply wants more state-level government and less Federal government. That wouldn't be a bad thing. As far as the constitution, he just interpets it fairly literally.

[DividedThigh]

well, as of now, in the primary i will vote for Huck. but a few months ago, it was Fred. I am cooling on Huck the more if find out about him.

Where is Newt when you need him huh?

well that is true, in spite of his flaws, and we all have them i would support him, i think our best ally will be if hillarious is nominated, she is a socailist, and will lose her cool and show the world that temper and then she is toast, lol,dt:tease

[Ferd]

Ron Paul isn't an anarchist. He simply wants more state-level government and less Federal government. That wouldn't be a bad thing. As far as the constitution, he just interpets it fairly literally.

I disagree with your assessment. Others do as well. I believe in Orriginal intent, however, RP acts for all intents and purposes that nothing happened after 1810. PR may see himself as Jeffersonian, but i assure you that Madison would not view RP as a postive influence.

RPs view of Americas place in the Global economy boarders on Isolationist and that will simply not work.

RPs view of the roll of Governemnt goes too far. RP may give lip service to the constitution but he and the Federalist papers seem to be at odds.

[Neck]

Huckabee's a lousy conservative republican, I don't care what he says. My friend from AR has nothing good to say - terrified that he's gaining popularity among the religious right. Taxes will go up if Huck is elected.

I just saw him for 2 minutes on Kenneth Copeland being interviewed. Copeland made a big statement that he was their as an ordained mininster not as a politician.

[Twisp]

I disagree with your assessment. Others do as well. I believe in Orriginal intent, however, RP acts for all intents and purposes that nothing happened after 1810. PR may see himself as Jeffersonian, but i assure you that Madison would not view RP as a postive influence.

RPs view of Americas place in the Global economy boarders on Isolationist and that will simply not work.

RPs view of the roll of Governemnt goes too far. RP may give lip service to the constitution but he and the Federalist papers seem to be at odds.
I guess everyone has a right to their opinion, but I don't see how you can say he is an isolationist. He believes that we shouldn't rely on other nations or organizations quite as much as we do now. And I don't see how wanting less Federal government is a bad thing.

[SoCaliUPC]

I prefer Mitt Romney.

I am anxiously awaiting the debate tomorrow.

[Twisp]

I prefer Mitt Romney.

I am anxiously awaiting the debate tomorrow.
I am also. I have been able to watch a few of the other one online.

[BrotherEastman]

Hillary is in trouble in Iowa.

Nationally she is leading by a pretty wide margine but Iowa has a way of changing things.

If Obama wins in Iowa where Hillary has really worked hard, it changes the dynamic of the race on the Democrat side.

For the Repbublicans, Iowa is a little different. Rudy has stayed away from Iowa so there is no real gage on the impact Iowa will have on him. At this point Romney is the front runner there but Huckabee is closing in on him. If Huckabee wins Iowa, I think Romney is sunk and this becomes a Rudy/Huckabee race. If Romney wins then it is Rudy/Romney.


One of these 5 will be the next president.

For the Dems Hillary has the highest negatives of anyone who has ever run for President. That is a very steep hill.

For Obama, he is very inexperienced and has been mistake prone, and African American. These are the two biggest things working against him.

For Mitt, he has been both for and against conservitiave positions, is a morman, and is a republican in a time where there is strong sentiment aginst the republcian party.

Rudy is seen by the conservitives and the Christian Right as being something other than what they (me) are. Besides being a Republcian, Rudy runs the risk of causing the Republican wing of the Republican party to stay home and not vote.

Huckabee will be painted as TOO Christian. He has also been soft on emmigration, and not quite as conservitive as some have thought. While he is too "Republican" to win the moderates in a time when many independant voters are turned off to Republcians; he is also not quite conservitive to jazz the base. he also has the lowest "Celebrity" appeal of any of the major candidates and I think may stand the least chance of winning (and this is the guy I am voting for).

I think the winner will be the one that the people think is the "lest bad" instead of the best option.
300,000,000 Americans, and this is the best we can do?

[pelathais]

I think the winner will be the one that the people think is the "lest bad" instead of the best option.

I think the winner will be that. It is sad that we have mainly a 2 party election. Technically, we have had larger elections, but the third parties haven't stood a chance of winning. I guess I am going to be "throwing" my vote away with Paul, but he is the only candidate that I do not have to hold my nose to vote for.

It almost always comes down to that. Most of the best people are just too smart to get into this game, and that's sad.

Does Ron Paul still say the U.S. provoked and deserved 9/11? His exchange with Rudy a few months back filled me with contempt for the guy. No offense, but when you join forces with Rosie O'Donnell and OBL you don't even need to be thinking about running for any U.S. office.

Ward Churchill got fired for taking RP's position on 9/11.

[Neck]

I thought we used to have a politics section, but I guess we don't. Who do you think is going to win the next Presidential election? It's still pretty early, but speculation is always fun. I think that Clinton is probably going to be the Democratic nominee, and think thay Guliani is going to be the GOP nominee. Personally, I am pulling for Ron Paul.

I have decided not to watch any of the election stuff this election cycle.

I will let them waste their money.

I will go in and vote and that is my involvement

[SoCaliUPC]

I have decided not to watch any of the election stuff this election cycle.

I will let them waste their money.

I will go in and vote and that is my involvement

At least go in informed. I think one of the reasons why we have the type of people running and keep saying "is this the best" because people do not make INFORMED decisions.

[Sam]

Now that Oprah is actively supporting and campaigning for Obama that will increase his chances. When Oprah speaks, women listen. She is very popular and very influential.

The Hollywood crowd, the Gays, the Abortionists, the Socialists, and people of that ilk will support the Democratic candidate whoever he/she is.

If you are getting tired of all this campaign hoopla even though the election isn't until next year, you can go online to
http://foolishpleasurestudio.com/eyewool/slap_hillary.html
and play the hillary game.

[meBNme]

Hitlary is comunist

[Pragmatist]

Ward Churchill got fired for taking RP's position on 9/11.

He was fired for plagiarism. His position on 9/11 brought attention to his plagiarism.

[SoCaliUPC]

Why some people can not see the ideals that Hillary spouts off at the mouth reeks of communism...is beyond me. Why anyone would vote for her is the $1,000,000 question.

Then...UNPATRIOTIC Obama. Nuff said!

[pelathais]

He was fired for plagiarism. His position on 9/11 brought attention to his plagiarism.
Point well made!

[Twisp]

It almost always comes down to that. Most of the best people are just too smart to get into this game, and that's sad.

Does Ron Paul still say the U.S. provoked and deserved 9/11? His exchange with Rudy a few months back filled me with contempt for the guy. No offense, but when you join forces with Rosie O'Donnell and OBL you don't even need to be thinking about running for any U.S. office.

Ward Churchill got fired for taking RP's position on 9/11.
What he said was that our foreign policy provides "blowback" for us. We had our troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is why they attacked us. That is pretty much word for word what he said. Which, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense.

[Ferd]

What he said was that our foreign policy provides "blowback" for us. We had our troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is why they attacked us. That is pretty much word for word what he said. Which, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense.


And what he said in my opinion is clearly a good reason not to vote for him. He is wrong on the reasons behind 9/11 and that proves he is not qualified to be president.

[Twisp]

And what he said in my opinion is clearly a good reason not to vote for him. He is wrong on the reasons behind 9/11 and that proves he is not qualified to be president.
What do you think is wrong about it?

[meBNme]

What is wrong about it?

ummm, that they blew up a civilian building killing thousands of noncombatant men women and children with intentions of more than triple the number they actually killed.... all because we we "in the peninsula!?!?!?

That is pure insanity.

So IF and that's a big if, IF that was the reason, then they attacked us because of insane hatred.
And if that politician really believes that, then he is insanely misled.

Do you want an insane president?
Do you want one that says, Oh well, we deserve to have our noncombatant citizens murdered so lets just withdraw from every place that has Muslims?

Well sure why don't we, lets all just go to the moon, since we'd even have to withdraw from the north American continent.

[Twisp]

ummm, that they blew up a civilian building killing thousands of noncombatant men women and children with intentions of more than triple the number they actually killed.... all because we we "in the peninsula!?!?!?

That is pure insanity.

So IF and that's a big if, IF that was the reason, then they attacked us because of insane hatred.
And if that politician really believes that, then he is insanely misled.

Do you want an insane president?
Do you want one that says, Oh well, we deserve to have our noncombatant citizens murdered so lets just withdraw from every place that has Muslims?

Well sure why don't we, lets all just go to the moon, since we'd even have to withdraw from the north American continent.
When did he ever say that we deserved it? He said that we were over there bombing them and that is why they hate us. He actually said in the debate that our actions in their land is the reason they hate us. It makes perfect sense that what we do around the world has an effect on what happens in our country. That is just common sense. I can't see how you believe someone is insane just because they believe in cause and effect. You last sentence doesn't really make any sense.

[Ferd]

What do you think is wrong about it?

Twisp, I don’t have the time to get into too much detail, however, to begin with, RPs first assumption is that our being engaged in the middle east (going back to the 70's and even before) is somehow wrong or misguided.

Secondly, Bin Laden's goal was not, and is not to just launch a plane into an American building. Nor is there any sense to the notion that the pretext was based on Americans being in Saudi lands.

Bin Laden wants to rule the world. Bin Laden wants to make Jihad a world wide battle to destroy the infidels.

and third, the attacks on 9/11 happened because of the Clinton administration not taking Bin Laden serious. They treated terror as a police matter instead of a military matter.

At the end of the day the things that led up to 9/11 are extremely complicated and involve a lot of different factors including the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran's fostering terrorism and extremism in Islamic scholarship, the brutality of Islamic governments in the Middle East, The conflict between Israel and Palestine, Americas attempts to bring peace and a whole host of other things.


For Ron Paul to boil it down to "blowback" is a colossal misunderstanding of reality. and THAT is something that Ron Paul does quite often. Reality doesn’t look the same to him and the rest of us.

[Twisp]

Twisp, I don’t have the time to get into too much detail, however, to begin with, RPs first assumption is that our being engaged in the middle east (going back to the 70's and even before) is somehow wrong or misguided.

Secondly, Bin Laden's goal was not, and is not to just launch a plane into an American building. Nor is there any sense to the notion that the pretext was based on Americans being in Saudi lands.

Bin Laden wants to rule the world. Bin Laden wants to make Jihad a world wide battle to destroy the infidels.

and third, the attacks on 9/11 happened because of the Clinton administration not taking Bin Laden serious. They treated terror as a police matter instead of a military matter.

At the end of the day the things that led up to 9/11 are extremely complicated and involve a lot of different factors including the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran's fostering terrorism and extremism in Islamic scholarship, the brutality of Islamic governments in the Middle East, The conflict between Israel and Palestine, Americas attempts to bring peace and a whole host of other things.


For Ron Paul to boil it down to "blowback" is a colossal misunderstanding of reality. and THAT is something that Ron Paul does quite often. Reality doesn’t look the same to him and the rest of us.
And again, all he said was that it was one of the main reasons. He didn't say it was the only reason. As for blowback, he said that our foreign policy resulted in the blowback. I'm pretty sure that covers mosst of the reasons you gave. You would be remiss to think that the reasons he stated did not have any influence in them attacking us.

[Twisp]

Here's an interesting article on Yahoo today about Huckabee:

Huckabee tries to gloss over Ark. record
By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Mike Huckabee's presidential rivals are pointing to chinks in his record as Arkansas' governor — from ethics complaints to tax increases to illegal immigration and his support for releasing a rapist who was later convicted of killing a Missouri woman.

The Republican presidential candidate has plenty to champion from his 10 1/2 years as governor — including school improvements and health insurance for the children of the working poor. But his record has rough edges, and Huckabee has a habit of playing fast and loose with it.

Other campaigns for the GOP nomination, watching Huckabee's rise in polls in Iowa, are starting to mine his past for political fodder. Take ethics, for example.

"People are starting to contact us and they're saying we want everything on Mike Huckabee," says Graham Sloan, director of the state's Ethics Commission.

What they'll find is 436 pages of documents chronicling Huckabee's various tangles with a commission he's derided as a political tool of Democrats. It's a panel that has held proceedings 20 times on the former governor and lieutenant governor.

But the Ethics Commission files don't cover everything, and this year — anticipating criticism — Huckabee's campaign set up a "truth squad" to push his side of various stories. It often offers, at best, an incomplete account of his record.

On major issues:

_The truth squad says the only finding by the Arkansas Ethics Commission that Huckabee accepted a gift improperly was tossed out by a state court. In fact, the panel investigated 16 complaints against Huckabee and found five violations. Only one, for accepting a $500 canoe from Coca-Cola, was tossed out.

Two of the complaints against Huckabee pertain to unreported gifts — the canoe and a $200 stadium blanket received by his wife, Janet. Two stem from cash the governor or his wife received but did not initially report. The panel also ruled in 2003 that Huckabee's campaign violated state law when it used its funds to pay for an event during the summer of 2002 called Gospel Fest

During his tenure, Huckabee accepted 314 gifts valued overall at more than $150,000, according to documents filed with the Arkansas secretary of state's office. (He accepted 187 gifts in his first three years as governor but was not required to report their value.)

_Huckabee has consistently understated his role in the parole of rapist Wayne DuMond, who had been convicted in the 1984 rape of a distant cousin of former President Clinton.

Two months after taking office, Huckabee stunned the state by saying he questioned DuMond's guilt and that it was his intention to free the rapist, who had been castrated by masked men while awaiting trial. Huckabee said then he had "serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt" and acknowledged later that he had met with DuMond's wife about the case while he was lieutenant governor. Two months after ascending to the governor's office, Huckabee met with the woman again.

The ex-governor now blames his predecessor for making DuMond parole eligible — Jim Guy Tucker commuted a life-plus-20 years sentence to 39 1/2 years — but distances himself from his role in DuMond's release. Huckabee met privately with the state parole board, and two members have said he pressured them for a vote.

"He made it obvious that he thought DuMond had gotten a raw deal and wanted us to take another look at it," former board member Charles Chastain said in 2001. "Some board members who were usually very tough about letting people out ... (later) voted in favor of him, and seemed eager to."

On his campaign Web site, Huckabee says the parole board was made up entirely of Democrats appointed by Clinton and Tucker. It doesn't mention that Huckabee reappointed board member Railey Steele days before he voted with three other members to set DuMond free. DuMond was later convicted of killing a woman in Missouri and died in 2005.

_Huckabee likes to say he was tough on taxes in Arkansas, noting a $100 million tax cut in 1997 that until this year was Arkansas' largest. When asked about a fuel tax increase he backed in 1999, Huckabee says incorrectly that he joined 80 percent of Arkansas voters in approving it.

Huckabee in 1999 supported a $1 billion highway bond program, including costs for interest and lawyers' fees, but the question on the ballot was only whether the state could take on the debt, not how Arkansas would pay for it. Huckabee had signed the fuel tax increase two months earlier.

Shortly after taking office, Huckabee took a four-day trip by bass boat along the Arkansas River to tout a 1/8th-cent sales tax increase for outdoor programs. (Two nature centers now carry the names of Huckabee and his wife.) Taxes went up $40 million in the months before the $100 million tax cut Huckabee touts.

Other taxes went up as Arkansas changed its property tax system and made improvements to its school system.

_Huckabee's recent strong stand on immigration, including an intolerance toward companies that employ illegal immigrants, runs counter to the image he crafted in his final years in office. He was battling conservatives within his own party who were pushing for stricter state-level immigration measures.

Huckabee opposed a Republican lawmaker's efforts in 2005 to require proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren't federally mandated and proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Huckabee derided the bill as un-American and un-Christian and said the bill's sponsor drank a different "Jesus juice."

That same year, Huckabee failed in his effort to make children of illegal immigrants eligible for state-funded scholarships and in-state tuition to Arkansas colleges. At the time, Huckabee said he didn't understand the opposition to it.

"It hurts me on a personal as well as a policy level to think that we are still debating issues that I kind of hoped we had put aside in the 1960s, maybe at the latest the '70s, and yet I understand people have deep passions about things usually they don't fully understand," Huckabee said.

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/huckabee_record)

[Theresa]

undecided? Dont know what the issues are? dont know what the issues mean?

Try this...

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

[Twisp]

undecided? Dont know what the issues are? dont know what the issues mean?

Try this...

http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
Interesting site. I was a 84.21% match with Ron Paul. Lol. You can also go here for information:

ontheissues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm)

[Ferd]

And again, all he said was that it was one of the main reasons. He didn't say it was the only reason. As for blowback, he said that our foreign policy resulted in the blowback. I'm pretty sure that covers mosst of the reasons you gave. You would be remiss to think that the reasons he stated did not have any influence in them attacking us.

Twisp, American Foreign Policy is pretext at best. if you want to list that as "one of the reasons", it would certainly NOT be one of the main reasons, it MIGHT be a tertiary reason at best. American Foreign Policy is pretext, not causal.

America is the king of the hill. we could to the exact opposite of what we have done and the result would be the same. we could follow some third path in Foreign Policy and the results would be the same.

Ron Pauls view is simplistic and without context. I dont trust a guy that cannot put historic reality into context.

[DividedThigh]

i dont trust anybody who is a member of the blame america first crowd, us poor americans are responsible for all the suffering in the world, including the farce of global warming, by the way it is in the 20 s here today, can i get some of that warming please, lol,dt:bliss