Let's talk presidential politics!

Parent Cafe
1

<p>i’m not a parent but i posted this in another forum and thought its a good thing to discuss and have my opinions broadcast here (might as well take advantage of this site somehow)…</p>

<p>so here it goes, my rundown of the political candidates in no particular order:</p>

<p>Hillary Clinton - horrible, panders, every single corporation is rooting for her, she’s not bill clinton and people need to stop supporting her because they think a vote for her is a vote for bringing bill back, she’s terribly bitter, she has very very little experience yet keeps making believe she has some.</p>

<p>Rudy Guiliani - he practically is GWB but with the corruption already under his belt, he was widely despised in NY before sept 11, he was ok in running a city but would be horrible running the country, is pro torture, is a complete hypocrite and will be the reason for WWIII if he’s president. Also he’s already been profiting from the war and as president you’ll bet he’ll make sure his friends continue to profit even more at the hands of more dead americans. His company’s defense deals with some arab countries are very very shady. Overall, the least qualified person ever to run for president.</p>

<p>Mitt Romney - he’s a bigot when it comes to religion but mainly in order to pander to the evangelicals, has changed his view on almost every position he’s ever had in order to pander to “social conservatives”, he left any talk of healthcare out of his campaign in order to (guess what) pander to the republican base, he’s a crazy war monger who is going to do more of what has been happening under bush…taking people’s rights away.</p>

<p>Mike Huckabee - Probably the only sincere republican out there, knows nothing about foreign policy, a true social conservative but doesnt seem like he’ll infringe on people’s rights, he’s actually compassionate and doesn’t want to kill undocumented mexicans.</p>

<p>Bill Richardson - his stage presence is an automatic disqualification, he’s unelectable</p>

<p>Fred Thompson - turns out not all actors are charismatic, he knows nothing about foreign policy, doesn’t even know that the soviet union no longer exists, just plain stupid overall</p>

<p>John McCain - actually knows the definition of torture but where is the old straight talking mccain?? he went from the most honest republican in 04 to another GWB except on torture and immigration.</p>

<p>John Edwards - very sincere, very liberal, awesome stage presence, very compassionate, his ideas are actually radical enough to bring about change</p>

<p>Mike Gravel - why is this guy even on this list? lol</p>

<p>Ron Paul - the only one of the republicans who actually gets it on iraq. his libertarian views are a bit scary though and are actually what may make america a third world country where the gap between rich and poor is enormous.</p>

<p>Tom Tancredo - just a horrible human being…no compassion whatsoever, loves torture, he’s just a mess</p>

<p>Dennis Kuchinich - he’s a socialist plain and simple, he also might be a bit crazy with the whole UFO thing, he’s super liberal but i think he’s completely unelectable, his place is in the senate</p>

<p>Joe Biden - the BEST choice, endless foreign policy experience, a total straight shooter who tells the truth, he’s compassionate, he’s trustworthy, he understands history and won’t repeat mistakes like GWB, he’s not afraid to tell it like it is, absolutely the most qualified person for the job!</p>

<p>Barack Obama - no experience, all his ideas are practically summaries of other people’s ideas, he has the charisma but very little to back up all his talk about change</p>

<p>Duncan Hunter - i’ve heard of this guy before but have no idea what his ideas are. Isn’t he the nut who introduced the anti-Columbia University bill after the Ahmadinajad thing?</p>

2

<p>

</p>

<p>?? Please elaborate.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree about giuliani, but don’t be so sure that he doesn’t have the corruption under his belt. It just hasn’t gotten mainstream yet.</p>

<p>And, don’t be so sure that huckabee wouldn’t also start WWIII:</p>

<p>[Scoop:</a> Michael Collins: Mike Huckabee - Minister of Death](<a href=“http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0712/S00059.htm]Scoop:”>Michael Collins: Mike Huckabee - Minister of Death | Scoop News)</p>

<p>Um, who’s Joe Biden? :)</p>

3

<p>Seems like you’ve given a fair and balanced review of every candidate without reviewing your biases and preferences. Congrats! :)</p>

4

<p>Shraf - I think you did a pretty good job of wrapping things up, except I wouldn’t be so tough on Hillary.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>i was saying he DOES have the corruption under his belt. Using NYC’s money to pay cops to protect his mistress and walk her dog as mayor…enough said. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>well the libertarian view is pretty much one of individual liberty and that we shouldnt have any social welfare programs and that government is bad etc. And really the social welfare programs are what keep this country from either falling into anarchy or having some people be ridiculously poor.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>GASP! go find out now! …here i’ll help u :)</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - Straight Talk from Joe Biden at MSNBC Debate](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuOkXgZqofA]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuOkXgZqofA) - a rundown of a great debate performance</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - Joe Biden at the Des Moines Register Debate](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_s_ykD_l0Q&feature=user]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_s_ykD_l0Q&feature=user) - another great debate performance</p>

<p>…yes no bias here at all :smiley: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>i think i actually went easy on her. I didnt even mention all her GWB-like actions…planting questions, dirty politics, lying</p>

6

<p>Huckabee: “true social conservative but doesnt seem like he’ll infringe on people’s rights, he’s actually compassionate and doesn’t want to kill undocumented mexicans.”</p>

<p>N’oh, oh. He is not a social conservative. He is very liberal in some respects. Which is why he’s not too popular with the non-evangelicals who are actually socially conservative.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>oops, my mistake. For some reason I thought I saw a ‘not’ in there.</p>

<p>zoosermom is right about huckabee. Check out taxhikemike.org.</p>

<p>OK, to be fair I will check out Joe Biden.</p>

<p>Regarding Ron Paul, I see your point about social welfare. I have always voted Democrat before. I now support Ron Paul because he is the ONLY candidate (save Kucinich & Gravel) who feels strongly about ending the war NOW and restoring our civil liberties. Those issues take precedence over everything else, imo.</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Speaking as a liberal Democrat I can’t stand Biden. He does tout his foreign policy experience and I think he makes good points on Darfur and China BUT how can he say he’s a know it all on foreign policy when he was one of the people who voted for the war and got us into the worst blunders of the 21st century, IRAQ. Now that’s why I don’t support Hillary either because she also supports the war. Although his plan for Iraq might have some merits I am not looking for the guy who can solve the mess in Iraq because THERE IS NO GOOD SOLUTION IN IRAQ. The best thing would have been never to go there in the first place and am looking for the candidate who would never create another problem like this in another country.</p>

<p>ZOOSERMOM"

Can you give us specific issues?</p>

9

<p>Reality is the two Democrats with the best credentials (Biden and Richardson) have little to no chance at the election. VP candidates perhaps?</p>

<p>There is an intersting thought. What two candidates paired together do you think would make the strongest ticket, and why?</p>

10

<p>Leal already gave you taxes. Immigration. He’s the Mike Bloomberg of national politics. A lover of the nanny state. I guess it’s the born-again health freak.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>joe biden feels strongly about ending the war…but ending the war NOW is just more foolishness and would destabilize the region…it has to be done intelligently …just doing it quickly isn’t enough…that speed and gusto is what got us into this mess in the first place remember</p>

<p>gottaloveucla, i think the only person who didn’t vote for the war was dennis…the rest of them either supported it or didn’t speak out…and no obama can’t use the excuse that he wasn’t even in the picture as a way of making believe he didn’t support the war. Look at the iran vote (which sounded alot like the iraq vote of '03 all over again) for instance…biden voted no, hillary voted yes and obama didn’t even bother showing up to vote!!!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>i disagree…as long as people don’t buy into the media hype…also people were just saying they support hillary/obama/edwards because they didn’t know anything about anyone else, but the closer we get to voting the more people actually start caring and start seeing who’s actually good and who isn’t.</p>

12

<p>Here’s my primer of the Democratic candidates:</p>

<p>Gravel: He’s a blast from the past and I think what we did for this country in Vietmam is great. However he was way too old and not alive in American politics to be serious. I find its interesting that he’s a Democrat that supports FairTax. That would probably stop him from going too far.</p>

<p>Kucinich: I think liberals love all of DK’s positions although the Department of Peace may be pushing it a bit too far. Sounds too Orwellian. Then again the Dep. of Defense is more like the Dept. of Preemption and Terror these days. I think it’s good that he brings up foreign policy issues that put Edwards and Clinton on defensive for their votes for Iraq and Clinton’s vote on the Iran bill.</p>

<p>Dodd: The Senator from Conn. is past his time. His time to run is in 1992. Although he passed some good bills he has nothing new and exciting to offer. Vainly tries to portray himself as a liberal, but his buddy-buddiness with Liebermann and vote for war in Iraq will stop him from going anywhere.</p>

<p>Biden- Also past time. His time to run was in '88. He could have maybe beat Bush I , but that speech ruined it. His straight-shooting agenda and realism could have appealed to party moderates and establishment Democrats, but Clinton stole that role. I think he’s running for Sec. of State and may get it depending on which Democrat is elected in 2008. Oh and his blustering mouth would scare people off. </p>

<p>Richardson- I think his idea of a Muslim peacekeeping force is cool and he could have appealed to centrists because of his “pro-growth policies” (his words, not mine) in New Mexico, but Clinton stole that. Frankly , he’s probably hoping for a Cabinet appointment especially if Clinton takes the White House. </p>

<p>___ The Candidates that Matter</p>

<p>Clinton- Although her votes on Middle East Policy (both Iran and Iraq) and decidly centrist policies hurt her with the liberal base (people like me) she was guranteed to be a front-runner because she is the wife of the only Democratic President in the last 30 years. Since she had a reputation of being very liberal that hurts her with indepedents and right-leaning moderates her hand was forced to have to run as a moderate. She was also pretty moderate to right as a Senator. This obviously alienated the base and made it obvious that any serious contenders to her bid would have to run to the left. I think that rush to the center may kill off her chances, but the Clintons are notoriously good campaigners. Regardless, her or any other Democrat knows that the President of the United States will be decided in the Democratic nominations.</p>

<p>Edwards- He was running as a sunny Southern centrist in 2004 (which was in tune with his voting record in the Senate) and almost won the nomination thanks to Dean’s fall. He’s running a decidly liberal campaign which appeals to people like me, but many are uncomfortable with him because his rhetoric doesn’t match up to his policies. He voted for the war and was in the center on most issues. He comes off as somewhat opportunistic, but we hope that he would be a liberal in the Oval Office if he gets there. Much to his anger, Obama came to town to split the anti-Hillary vote and made it a 3 person race.</p>

<p>Obama- A relative unknown before his speech at the DNC in 2004, his campaign has surprised many. His strengths are his charisma and speaking abilities that have led many to say he reminds then of JFK and RFK. Since he wasn’t in the Senate when the Iraq vote was casted, but spoke against it somewhat quietly as a State Senator he hasn’t alienated party liberals( who vote in the primaries). In his speeches he talks about hope and abstract ideas which doesn’t satisfy the left, but many are looking at him again because of his appeal to people who may not be Democrats and people who don’t traditionally vote. His voting record tends to be better than Edwards, but the rhetoric deficit is what hampers him. If Edwards falls early he may take the nomination because the anti-Hillary front won’t be splintered.</p>

<p>___ Therefore my rank is

  1. Edwards (That’s why I am going to Iowa from Dec. 26 till caucuses to work for his campaign).
  2. Obama
  3. Clinton (by default)</p>

<p>4-8. Doesnt matter</p>

13

<p>OP: you gave yourself away; If you haven’t seen a UFO, then you’re not old enough. Get out more.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>No, Ron Paul also did not vote for the war.</p>

<p>Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket! Dispose of party boundaries! Radical!</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>As I said above Clinton steals all the party centrists and establishment voters. Only serious contenders to her bid will be liberal by default.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Obama was campaigning which I guess could be an excuse because the bill was gonna pass anyway. Either way, the vote for the war is unacceptable if you run on foreign policy. Whether or not any of the candidates supported the war is irrelevant. 23 Democrats in the Senate voted against it, can Biden compare himself to them?</p>

<p>ZOOSER :

</p>

<p>He balanced the budget. If that makes you a liberal thank you for the compliment :slight_smile: Actually if you care about taxes shouldn’t you be a registered Democrat. Reagan, Bush I, and II all ran up debts. Clinton balanced the budget and had surpluses. THAT’s fiscal responsibility. As for immigration, he said people who did well in high school and who grew up in the United States (it wasn’t their choice to come) can go to school . What a monster. Not that I support Huckabee, I HATE Evengelical Christians and hate his foriegn policy agenda.</p>

16

<p>holy bias batman. I read the first two descriptions and just stopped.</p>

17

<p>gottaloveucla, how can u say that anyone but the three candidates that the media tells you are the “top 3” aren’t important and yet support Ron Paul who truly has no chance of winning the republican nomination? At least on the democratic side there is still some room for someone to come out of the shadows. </p>

<p>also, so what if biden is old…why is that a bad thing at all? </p>

<p>…and thisoldman, what are you talking about?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>true, i apologize for my omission…and sorry to be the bearer of bad news but he said he would only run for president as a republican and not as a third party candidate</p>

18

<p>GottaloveUCLA, excellent summation of the Democratic candidates. Yo must have done yor homework :)</p>

<p>Shraf, as to my point about Richardson and Biden not standing a chance in this election. Your answer was as long as people don’t buy into the media hype thi wasn’t the case. But isn’t that the reality here? They just don’t get the air time to stand a serious chance. Perhaps they can run a Chuck Norris ad like Huckabee to boost their time on the Today show. Without a serious change in the way the media is covering them, they’ll be gone by Feb.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>I support Ron Paul, ***. Although I think SOME of his ideas on foreign policy are good ( I don’t support cutting aid to starving kids in Africa though), I don’t trust him with economic affairs and can’t get over the fact that he’s running ads on NEONAZI sites like [Stormfront</a> - Discussion Board for Activists](<a href=“http://www.stormfront.org/forum]Stormfront”>http://www.stormfront.org/forum) or that he had people in his news letter write hate speech regarding African-Americans.</p>

<p>Scroll to the bottom of the page to see the Ron Paul ad.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>yes…i’m sorry that my opinion is biased</p>