46 replies to this topic

[HylianHero]

I didn't see another thread like this, but if there is feel free to delete this.

What are your opinions, now that the first caucuses/primaries are finished, we can clearly see the front runners. Who is looking best for you? What are your thoughts on the candidates platforms, and who do you agree with?


I'll post mine in a little while (still watching the democratic New Hampshire debate ).

[MikePetersSucks]

I think it's pretty clear that either Hillary or Obama will get into office, or at the very least a Democrat. Bush has pretty much ruined the reputation of the Republican Party for atleast a few years, and people are the kind of impressionable idiots who will vote Hillary or Obama not only due to their agendas and political views, but also "lol first woman/black Pres'di'dent."

[Travuko]

I hate politics.

[Veteran]

Seeing as Bush managed to win the previous election with most of the country hating him or thinking him a moron, I won't be surprised if the republicans win again.


If Hilary wins, what title will be given to Bill? First Man?

[Oberon Storm]

Mike Huckabee probably has a really good chance. The fact he light years ahead of little boy George in the brains department probably works in his favor. I don't know how much of a stink that whole rapist thing will raise, though. And his fair tax thing is a joke I think.

After IowaI don't think Hillary will get it. That's very much a good thing I think. A Clinton she may be, but a Bill Clinton she is not. Even then, as great of a president as I believe Bill Clinton was, I don't think a Clinton is all that great an idea. All a Clinton presidencey would be is divisive. The republicans would be out trying to get her for something. There would be nothing but constant fighting and even less would get done than they do now and congress would get even more distracted from the relevant issues.

I was hoping Joe Biden would do better than he did. I was also hoping Barack Obama would have waited for another four or eight years before running. The lack of experience is going to hurt him a little, I think, but I also think he can win, even against Huckabee or John McCain.

Going into Iowa Biden, Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson, and Dodd never really stood a chance. On the Republican side, Thompson, Paul, and Tancredo Had no chance. Brownback dropped out a long time ago. I'm glad Giuliani came out as miserably as he did. He has done nothing but kiss Curious George's ass and try and ride the 9-11 wave. I hate him for it. And Ron Paul accept money from white supremecist groups. He is also against civil rights. Great guy he would have been.

I'm looking forward to a Huckabee Obama fight with Obama coming out on top.

[wisp]

Please explain what you mean when you say Ron Paul is "against civil rights". His website offers an explanation of his stance on combating racism which seems to be pretty congruent with my own thoughts and those of others with whom I tend to agree.

http://www.ronpaul20.../issues/racism/

An excerpt:

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

[Chikara Nadir]

I'm looking forward to a Huckabee Obama fight with Obama coming out on top.

I actually am, too. I suppose I kinda hoped that Mitt Romney had more of a chance, as he had been leading pretty well until this point, but Huckabee's certainly doing well at giving fresh appeal. Between his most famous supporter (Chuck Norris) and his claim that he'd give up any slandering of the opposing candidates and run a clean, positive campaign, people seem to be impressed.

I myself am an Obama supporter- he doesn't appear as a moderate Democrat like Hillary seems to at times, saying what seems to be popular at any given time then changing opinions as the tide shifts. Instead he's right out there, shouting his fresh opinions about wanting to spend millions in Africa, on protecting against global warming, changing to universal healthcare in the USA- and he was the first candidate I heard making these claims without hesitation. Of course I hear plenty of arguments that he's "new to the Senate" and has no experience- but after all, Hillary's only in her second term and John Edwards is in his first (he'd been a lawyer before as I understand).

But if Obama doesn't make it...I'd sorta prefer Edwards still over Hillary. She just...puts a bad taste in my mouth. Too underhanded, too connected to talking to the leaders of other nations rather than the civilians who are dealing with famine, war, etc. Besides, Edwards has already said that he "likes Obama more" as a vice presidential candidate if he wins. XD

[Oberon Storm]

Please explain what you mean when you say Ron Paul is "against civil rights".

He sees the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional. I can't help but strongly disagree. Strongly enough that that alone makes me afraid of him. Then when you pile on the possibility white supremacist groups seem to be throwing their support behind him, his seeming relationship with white supremacist groups, and his own words it would seem to me that electing this guy president would be right up there with electing Strom Thurmond if not worse.

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

His website offers an explanation of his stance on combating racism which seems to be pretty congruent with my own thoughts and those of others with whom I tend to agree.

http://www.ronpaul20.../issues/racism/

An excerpt:

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

I also disagree with him on this. I'm not very libertarian. While I may be on some issues, on other issues, such as health care, I might as well be Communist. So some of those things listed, such as some regulations and welfare, are good things. I'm not exactly sure what constitutes "racial set-asides" though.

Edited by Chief Fire Storm, 07 January 2008 - 06:40 PM.

[Green Goblin]

having studied into it a bit, I feel I can back Obama without this whole "first black president" thing. His stance on universal healthcare, global warming, gun control and foreign policy are all things I can respect with minimal objections.

I'm curious as to how a person like huckabee could get as far as he could. He's against Roe v. Wade, doesn't support Gay marriage, stem cell research, and supports the idea of isolating all HIV infected people. He also takes people off of death row because they were "born again". Now, capital punishment argument aside here, why the hell did that get legitimized? "Oh, he killed three people including a pregnant woman, but now he's found Jesus. Just don't do it again, mmkay?" o_O;

[Selena]

I need to start paying a little more attention, because I've been kind of apathetic so far. But from what I've read about everyone, I'm so far going with Obama.

[Toan]

I hate politics.

Thanks for spamming. If you've nothing to add to this conversation, then don't bother posting for the sake of posting.

If Hillary wins, I'm leaving the country after I get my degree, assuming she doesn't destroy the nation before I graduate. Bush is only president because of Daddy Bush, and look how much trouble that's got us in. If Hillary becomes president, it'll be because of her hubby's reputation. From my perspective, it's beginning to look an awful lot like royal families of the medieval era, where we just keep grabbing from the same families regardless. Honestly, just because it worked once doesn't mean we have to try every other member of the family including the pet dog and hope for the best.

Personally, I'm for Obama as well, because his so called "lack of experience" in the corruption of DC is only a good thing. Maybe we can get something accomplished for once.

[Veteran]

Look at it this way, if you get the 'Woman President' out of the way now, it'll be a long time before it happens again. A vote for Hilary is a vote for your children's futures.

[Splash]

Look at it this way, if you get the 'Woman President' out of the way now, it'll be a long time before it happens again. A vote for Hilary is a vote for your children's futures.

A vote for Hilary is a vote to send any progress in women's rights and respect back fifty years.

Of course, on that side the race the only sane choice I can see from the top three is Obama, since the other two consist of the oh-so-famous politics version of Britney Spears and a proclaimed lawyer-hater that made his career from being an Ambulance Chaser in the first place.
I don't know who I want to be president yet, but if either of those two are going to be on the final ballot I think I will be following Toan out of this horribly confused country.

Edited by Splash, 09 January 2008 - 12:49 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

Huckabee has revealed he wishes to turn the US into a theocracy. I think there's a good chance Huckabee will come out on top in the end of the primaries, btu I really hope it's McCain instead.

[world_trecker]

During the Reagan Era, most of the world itself relied on America as a major support platform. The economy was excellent, especially toward the 90's, and more recognition was being taken upon. I mean...... first it was Communism.... now Terrorism. The Republican party is totally messed up at this point, and we can all point towards Bush. 1. He vetoed most bills to help with healthcare, economics, etc. Now who the hell would do that. On top of that, one of the top 10 stock markets are loosing money everyday. Our economy stinks, and we are having an extreme inflation in house morgages.

On the Democratic side, both Hillary and Obama have thier faults. There are criticizms on either side, and not one comes to a point of where they will make a deffinite change. "CHANGE"....is all they say, but what about the "whole dollar". Wheres the other 50% of that change that Americans want to see. Civil rights...... If either one of them make a point on that, and make deffinite change, I will accept one for choice.

In my view, Clinton is a very easy going person, whos never really had that experience...... "I was first lady" Who cares if she was first lady, she wasnt in the senate and all, I mean has she created and passed Bills? She faked a cry on national tv, just to get nominations to feel simpathetic about her. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE A WEAK PRESIDENT. Point made. Second...she needs to stop using Black ministers to talk against Obama and his teenage life.

Obama.....well I cant see anything wrong yet, except hes a verry charasmatic person, who never gives up and is a great competitor when it comes to politics. Now who cares if he took grass at his age......least he stoped and all, and he even progressed afterwards. Why is it that people have to look at the bad side. Why cant we look at the improvements. He graduated from Harvard University, and even joined a civil rights group. A person on weed would still keep on the streets.. the man is change.

Now lets face the republican side. I am afraid of both McCain and Guliani, because to me they are both replicas of Bush. Our economy and reputation stinks right now, that if we were to vote either one of them into office, the entire world would be looking at a potential nuclear holocaust. Not to mention the fall of the United States.

Note: Most empires in the world fell all because of lack of stable capita.

Fred Thompson..... he just looks like J Ford.....sometimes I think its his reincarnation. He has bad facial expression, and can never get his points out correctly......instead of figuring out a way to make change..... we all know he had to attack Huckabee.

"He even signed a bill to abolish smoking in the entire US of A."

Well, thats verry invalid as an attack, because that would be a good thing. We dont want smokers.....and smokers die anywho... its a bad thing....it should be abolished.

John Paul.......well.... hes an excellent candiate for the Democratic side. It seems verry awkward for him to be in the Republican side... all because hes an Anti- war... Well does that undermine the fact that ALL Republicans are PRO WAR?
I think not. But lets look at his details a bit more closely.

He states of our staggering economy. He states the fact of our constant policing in the entire world. You know what.... They can all handle themselves...why do we have to meddle in other peoples business. We have nukes.... yeah... they do to..... but we tell them not to have it. What are we so afraid of? If they have nukes....and were superpowers, they would do the same.

The case of the little tiny boats attacking the Destroyer. WHAT A BALONIE. That destoryer could wipe out the boats in seconds..... Why is it, that the Republicans have to make it a big deal that little tiny boats were circling the destroyer. Ill tell you......they wanted it to be a perfect timing and excuse to start another WWIII with Iran.

Bush... hes pathetic now. He goes to the Holy Land to make freinds with two enemies that have been enemies since thousands of years ago. I mean.... hello.... PALISTINIANS VS. ISREALITES....Its been going on man..why go over there making freinds.... Ill tell you why... just to make things look good, and point peoples minds toward the Republican party.

Now toward the press.... the worst of all reporters..... BILL O RIELY. He stinks and is a huge advocate to [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of politicians.... "DONT BLOCK THE SHOT!"

you know what..... forget that, because he shouldent be pointing cameras in the wrong way himself. He makes people look bad, and he tried to make Obama look bad...... heck....he even hires correspondants to go with what hes saying.

Overall..... our country will fail because our candidates are focusing more on the intrests of the rich and major coorperations. Were are the intrests for the poor.....disabled....health care.....better yet....Civil Rights? Im verry critical....but people just have to see these things as possible outcomes.


P.S. If anyone finds this offending.....including mods.... I was only trying to get the point out of the flaws and mishaps that both parties have. Im pro Democrat, but I still think that both parties need fixing up, and that the press needs to stop censoring the truth about stuff, when they make it look like its worth lots.

Cheers now.

Edited by world_trecker, 15 January 2008 - 08:33 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Seeing as my views on everything could be closely identified with anarchism, I'm not about to get any deeper into this debate.

Politics is a circus and politicians are the bearded ladies, clowns, and trapeze artists. They all jump around and show off with their individual shenanigans and all it gets us. The People, is a bad rep. I believe that even the politician with the most promise is still a bad idea. They're still a politician and can be influenced by their parties, which shouldn't exist either.

If someone should be President, it should be one of us. And no, I'm not up for electing that one I-Live-In-Tornado-Alley-Redneck-But-Apparently-I'm-too-stupid-to-move Texan you occassionally see on TV.

[Poore]

My vote falls to Batman.

[Toast]

Seeing as my views on everything could be closely identified with anarchism, I'm not about to get any deeper into this debate.

Uh huh. Too extreme for us?

Personally I'm behind Obama at the moment, although all this mud slinging on the Democrat side is getting old. I definitely don't want Huckabee in office; anyone who can't finish a four-year college shouldn't be eligible for... say... the leader of the free world. Lets face it, most people over the age of 18 on these forums have more education than this man.

[Steel Samurai]

I definitely don't want Huckabee in office; anyone who can't finish a four-year college shouldn't be eligible for... say... the leader of the free world. Lets face it, most people over the age of 18 on these forums have more education than this man.

Dude, it wasn't that he couldn't finish, it's that he finished a year and a half early. He didn't drop out till he was doing his masters. University he attended was apparently very good academically as well. I also find this prejudice against non-university graduates disturbing.

[Toast]

Dude, it wasn't that he couldn't finish, it's that he finished a year and a half early. He didn't drop out till he was doing his masters. University he attended was apparently very good academically as well. I also find this prejudice against non-university graduates disturbing.

Well, I suppose there is a bit of prejudice on my part. I believe anyone should be able to run for the office of US president, but there is something to be said for higher education. A lot of candidates today have upwards of 6 years of college education in applicable fields like Law or International Affairs. Huckabee has 2.5 years in Theology, which while a notable and respected major doesn't do much for him while he runs a country. I'm sure the university he attended was a challenging and noted institution, but you're comparing Ouachita Baptist University to Harvard Law School.

[Selena]

Why do you find it disturbing? Most white collar jobs require a bachelors or masters degree before you can even apply. The presidency tends to be more important than the standard job in business. Especially since this country tends to get in the most trouble. I wouldn't mind if it became mandatory for a candidate to have gotten a degree with a fairly high GPA. Followed up by several years in some field that will boost skills necessary for the job (politics, law, military, diplomacy, etc.).

And better still, to have done that without getting an easier ride thanks to a well established family.

[TheAvengerLever]

Presidency shouldn't even be counted as a job. It's more of a service than a job.

And no, Toast. Not too extreme for anyone. I just think an anarchist (or someone close to their beliefs) has no room in a political debate, but I thought I'd share my thoughts on politics anyway.

[Goose]

Do videos like this influence your votes?

[Selena]

...No. Why would they?

[Goose]

TRying to gain the youth vote they are. Dem old people think we have no interest in anything intelectual so they attempt sex to get us in.

[Arturo]

Absolutely pathetic.

[Raien]

On youtube, that video was tagged as "comedy". Clearly it's not a serious attempt to win votes. And shame on those people who thought it was. lol

[vodkamaru]

So are any of you voting in your state's primary? Also what do you think about the recounts that are going on? Are those Diebold machines rigged?

Edited by vodkamaru, 17 January 2008 - 09:19 AM.

[Oberon Storm]

I hope to. I just need to get registered here. I guess Texas is a little different than Indiana when it comes to registering.

I don't like Diebold. I watched a documentary on HBO about the last two presidential elections and the voting machines. After watching it I believe all electronic voting needs to be scrapped for now until we can do better than this.

[CID Farwin]

I suppose I'm the only person here (who's posting about it) that's backing Mitt Romney.

but you're comparing Ouachita Baptist University to Harvard Law School.

What's so great about Harvard, again? (not that I'm particularly for Ouachama Baptist University)

I find the prejudice against anyone not graduated from Harvard disturbing.