Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Tesla on February 24, 2007, 10:01:17 PM
-
So it's a little early to speculate but it would be interesting to see what different people are thinking about the front runners so far. Here's my drive-by analysis, subject to change of course:
Mitt Romney is the man. The media is tarring him with Mormonism and all the baggage that entails but he's handling it deftly so far. He's a good speaker, a self made gazzilionaire, and a problem solver. This guy has the stature and the bearing that a president should have (which our current president sorely lacks!). He's socially conservative enough to carry the South but slick enough to carry liberal states (he was after all the governor of Massachusetts). So far he's not polling so high but all that will change.
Hillary Clinton is too polarizing. The media loves her but she carries a lot of political baggage from her husband's years in office. If she is the Dem nominee every red state from the last election is going to be a red state this election (and probably a few new ones). She's obviously very driven and ambitious but she just doesn't have the character to be president.
Obama is too inexperienced and he's black (let's face it, this is poltically a detriment in some parts of America). The media has been pathetically drooling over the guy but the honeymoon is starting to end now that he's challenging Hillary. He needs to build more credibility. Just what does he stand for? We really don't know. He'll have a better shot after gaining more political experience.
John Edwards would probably be the best chance for the Democrats. He could probably carry some of the southern states. He has more credibility that Obama but lacks Hillary Clinton's baggage.
Giuliani has the 9/11 hero credibility but he's too liberal to win the Republican primary, case closed.
John McCain is too old. He just doesn't have the stature to be president. Let's face it, the guy is destined to always be the supporting actor and not the star.
I have a feeling that Al Gore might make a "surprise" entry into the race right before the primaries. He was after all a micron away from winning in 2000, and he's been getting great press lately.
My personal favorite, Ron Paul. He actually assesses the constitutionality of bills before voting on them, and he consistently votes against pork spending for his own district. He votes to keep taxes low and spending down and wants to keep America out of most wars. Therefore, he doesn't stand a chance :(
-
since they are all fixed...Rudy will win...
-
Rudy did a great job cleaning up the scum and filth in New York City but I contend that he's too liberal to win the Republican nomination. He's pro-choice, pro gun control, and pro gay marriage. Those stances may help you to carry Manhattan but they will greatly hinder carrying the south or the midwest.
-
Well barring another Supreme Court legislated coup, ...and more Diebold rigging, and as long as Katherine Harris isn't in charge of the elections, I predict the winner will be....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...the candidate that gets the most votes and wins the electoral college. ;D so simple.
-
So it's a little early to speculate but it would be interesting to see what different people are thinking about the front runners so far. Here's my drive-by analysis, subject to change of course:
Mitt Romney is the man. The media is tarring him with Mormonism and all the baggage that entails but he's handling it deftly so far. He's a good speaker, a self made gazzilionaire, and a problem solver. This guy has the stature and the bearing that a president should have (which our current president sorely lacks!). He's socially conservative enough to carry the South but slick enough to carry liberal states (he was after all the governor of Massachusetts). So far he's not polling so high but all that will change.
Hillary Clinton is too polarizing. The media loves her but she carries a lot of political baggage from her husband's years in office. If she is the Dem nominee every red state from the last election is going to be a red state this election (and probably a few new ones). She's obviously very driven and ambitious but she just doesn't have the character to be president.
Obama is too inexperienced and he's black (let's face it, this is poltically a detriment in some parts of America). The media has been pathetically drooling over the guy but the honeymoon is starting to end now that he's challenging Hillary. He needs to build more credibility. Just what does he stand for? We really don't know. He'll have a better shot after gaining more political experience.
John Edwards would probably be the best chance for the Democrats. He could probably carry some of the southern states. He has more credibility that Obama but lacks Hillary Clinton's baggage.
Giuliani has the 9/11 hero credibility but he's too liberal to win the Republican primary, case closed.
John McCain is too old. He just doesn't have the stature to be president. Let's face it, the guy is destined to always be the supporting actor and not the star.
I have a feeling that Al Gore might make a "surprise" entry into the race right before the primaries. He was after all a micron away from winning in 2000, and he's been getting great press lately.
My personal favorite, Ron Paul. He actually assesses the constitutionality of bills before voting on them, and he consistently votes against pork spending for his own district. He votes to keep taxes low and spending down and wants to keep America out of most wars. Therefore, he doesn't stand a chance :(
Pretty good analysis. I don't know enough about Romney to have an opinion about him.
Completely agree about Edwards.
And Obama is not "black." He's half black. :)
Who is Ron Paul?
-
I agree that Hillary Clinton is way too polarizing to possibly win.
I disagree that McCain is too old.
I must admit that I do not know much about Mitt Romney.
John Edwards would be the best choice for the democrats, so I doubt he will get the nomination from them.
I am not really liking the choices so far.
-
Ron Paul is a congressman from Texas. The best way to classify is to call him a libertarian (though that doesn't quite fit). He's a really interesting politician, definitely votes with his conscience unlike basically every other national legislator. Love him or hate him, you definitely know where he stands on an issue. Here's his house of representatives web page:
http://www.house.gov/paul/ (http://www.house.gov/paul/)
Here's a Wikipedia entry on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)
-
Ron Paul is a congressman from Texas. The best way to classify is to call him a libertarian (though that doesn't quite fit). He's a really interesting politician, definitely votes with his conscience unlike basically every other national legislator. Love him or hate him, you definitely know where he stands on an issue. Here's his house of representatives web page:
http://www.house.gov/paul/ (http://www.house.gov/paul/)
Here's a Wikipedia entry on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)
Thanks. How come we don't hear more about this guy? I like what I've read so far (from his House bio).
-
ABAB--anyone but another Bush.
-
Thanks. How come we don't hear more about this guy? I like what I've read so far (from his House bio).
I think he'd be the best candidate by a mile. But as we all know money rules politics, and the various special interest groups don't like this guy because he doesn't grant them any special favors. To give you a clue how unique this guy is, he votes against pork bills that would directly benefit his own district immensely. His district is mainly an agricultural one and he consistently votes against agricultural subsidies. Somehow he stays in office.
-
I was reading about Ron Paul, he seems perfect so far.
-
Thanks. How come we don't hear more about this guy? I like what I've read so far (from his House bio).
Beachy,
Ron Paul is a guy that you and I would probably campaign for, side-by-side.
-
Beachy,
Ron Paul is a guy that you and I would probably campaign for, side-by-side.
You campaigning with BeachBum? No way lib!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;D
-
You campaigning with BeachBum? No way lib!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;D
Actually, I was wearing Bush buttons and Dole bumper stickers when he was telling people to vote for Clinton.
History shows him to be quite the little libby.
-
I think he'd be the best candidate by a mile. But as we all know money rules politics, and the various special interest groups don't like this guy because he doesn't grant them any special favors. To give you a clue how unique this guy is, he votes against pork bills that would directly benefit his own district immensely. His district is mainly an agricultural one and he consistently votes against agricultural subsidies. Somehow he stays in office.
Makes sense. Money does indeed rule politics, unfortunately. If he's not willing to accept money and the strings that come along with it, and he actually votes his conscience and does the right thing, he can forget about being president. How sad is that?
-
Actually, I was wearing Bush buttons and Dole bumper stickers when he was telling people to vote for Clinton.
History shows him to be quite the little libby.
I know, I was just being an ass 8)
-
Rudy did a great job cleaning up the scum and filth in New York City but I contend that he's too liberal to win the Republican nomination. He's pro-choice, pro gun control, and pro gay marriage. Those stances may help you to carry Manhattan but they will greatly hinder carrying the south or the midwest.
if Rudy wins the nomination, then he wins the whole thing....Besides that, the fact that he was so involved in the 9/11 mess...He is basically going to be given the position soley based on what he did to help it all go down
-
Isn't it obvious who is going to be the next prez
This is the candidate that is going to win http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdAjGXFJw3s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdAjGXFJw3s)
-
The one the most US citizen vote for? ::)
-
The one the most US citizen vote for? ::)
See: 2000.
-
Preferably someone who's never been in the same room with W before.
-
Preferably someone who's never been in the same room with W before.
Like a teacher? ;D
-
Rudy did a great job cleaning up the scum and filth in New York City but I contend that he's too liberal to win the Republican nomination. He's pro-choice, pro gun control, and pro gay marriage. Those stances may help you to carry Manhattan but they will greatly hinder carrying the south or the midwest.
keep in mind the conservatives just lost the last election. even the hardcore conservatives like myself are willing to cut the guy some slack, because we know what we need to get back. if a republican can not only win in nyc, but become a local celebrity -he can win anywhere.
-
keep in mind the conservatives just lost the last election. even the hardcore conservatives like myself are willing to cut the guy some slack, because we know what we need to get back. if a republican can not only win in nyc, but become a local celebrity -he can win anywhere.
I would like to think so, but a guy who's been divorced 3 times will never make it.
-
I would like to think so, but a guy who's been divorced 3 times will never make it.
...especially on a "family values" ticket.
-
I would like to think so, but a guy who's been divorced 3 times will never make it.
does he have kids? divorce is one thing,, splitting up a family is another
-
does he have kids? divorce is one thing,, splitting up a family is another
America will never elect a 3 time divorcee' The opponents will push the family thing to the hilt, the details of his divorce will become public and shame him, he'll be painted as a cheating bastard, who can't be trusted.
I like the guy, but it will never happen
-
I think he is only once divorced. First marriage was annulled. Divorced the second. Married to the third. So, he is thrice married.
It's not the multiple marriages that will doom him, it's how he ended the second IMO.
-
America will never elect a 3 time divorcee' The opponents will push the family thing to the hilt, the details of his divorce will become public and shame him, he'll be painted as a cheating bastard, who can't be trusted.
I like the guy, but it will never happen
shit -let a playa play
-
I think he is only once divorced. First marriage was annulled. Divorced the second. Married to the third. So, he is thrice married.
It's not the multiple marriages that will doom him, it's how he ended the second IMO.
Divorced... Annulled... what's the diff? ...except maybe a lack of alimony payments. ???
The bottom line is he can't keep a stable relationship, after promising to do so before God 3 x's.
If a man can't even keep his own marriage intact, ...how are we to expect he can keep the country intact?
-
shit -let a playa play
...unless he's a democrat huh? ::)
-
Divorced... Annulled... what's the diff? ...except maybe a lack of alimony payments. ???
The bottom line is he can't keep a stable relationship, after promising to do so before God 3 x's.
If a man can't even keep his own marriage intact, ...how are we to expect he can keep the country intact?
The difference is he hasn't been divorced three times, so saying he was divorced three times is inaccurate.
And yes people should be concerned about putting a man in charge of the country when he has problems running his own house. It doesn't disqualify him, but it certainly raises legitimate questions.
-
The difference is he hasn't been divorced three times, so saying he was divorced three times is inaccurate.
And yes people should be concerned about putting a man in charge of the country when he has problems running his own house. It doesn't disqualify him, but it certainly raises legitimate questions.
twice, 3 x's, ...is it really that big a diff? not only can the man NOT maintain a marriage,
he's also a philanderer too, having committed adultery with his employees and/or subpordinates no less.
Well, ...if committing adultery, being divorce, and using a position of power to get a little nookie didn't hurt Reagan, ...I guess he still stands a chance, ...after all he's a Republican. But a Dem better not try that. :o
-
twice, 3 x's, ...is it really that big a diff? not only can the man NOT maintain a marriage,
he's also a philanderer too, having committed adultery with his employees and/or subpordinates no less.
Well, ...if committing adultery, being divorce, and using a position of power to get a little nookie didn't hurt Reagan, ...I guess he still stands a chance, ...after all he's a Republican. But a Dem better not try that. :o
You're really all over the place. ::) Are you drunk?
-
You're really all over the place. ::) Are you drunk?
Not at all. I'm referring to Ronald Reagan's first marriage. Before Nancy, he was married to Jane Wyman.
He only met Nancy during the McCarthy scourge, when her name came up on a list of leftists.
She had to get herself out of trouble, ...and Ronnie was the man in charge. He made sure Nancy got a pass,
...and he got himself a wife. I guess she found out sleeping with the man in charge had it's benefits. :-\