Viggen Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 It is always a fascinating event for a middle european to see that, " for me", "exoctic" election process that americans have. Now that i am proud owner of some more channels then before, and be able to follow some 24h news channels like BBC World News, i am intrigued by the current state of affairs. So, whats your guess, which two candidates will face each other for the final show down to become the next US President? cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 Call it a hunch, but I expect Ron Paul to lose despite the 1 vote I'm bringing to the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Manicus Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 So, whats your guess, which two candidates will face each other for the final show down to become the next US President? Obama vs McCain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Nader's taking it all this year! NADER, NADER, NADER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Quintus Sertorius Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Call it a hunch, but I expect Ron Paul to lose despite the 1 vote I'm bringing to the table. I'm voting for him as well. It's disappointing that the candidates I liked most (Paul, Kucinich, Gravel) were pretty much dead at the starting gates, though. I really don't like any of the other Republicans, and I think only a few of the other Democrats would be tolerable. I don't like imperialism as a policy, and the only candidates who publically repudiate it are called "kooks" or "unelectable". What an impasse we have brought ourselves to, America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 It would be great if someone who knows would make a very short resume of the candidates politic program (Say 3 lines). Obama have so far given me a good feeling somehow but I have absolutely no idea about his opinons and that's fairly disturbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Call it a hunch, but I expect Ron Paul to lose despite the 1 vote I'm bringing to the table. I'm voting for him as well. It's disappointing that the candidates I liked most (Paul, Kucinich, Gravel) were pretty much dead at the starting gates, though. I really don't like any of the other Republicans, and I think only a few of the other Democrats would be tolerable. I don't like imperialism as a policy, and the only candidates who publically repudiate it are called "kooks" or "unelectable". What an impasse we have brought ourselves to, America. I'd like to cast a vote for Ron Paul, but I'm not a registered Republican (I'm not registered for any political party), and in New York State (unlike in some other states that allow open primaries) you can only vote in the primaries for a candidate for your own political party. So, that leaves me out, unless someday I should decide to join a political party. Which is highly unlikely. It would be great if someone who knows would make a very short resume of the candidates politic program (Say 3 lines). Klingan, check out Project Vote Smart -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDickey Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) Obama have so far given me a good feeling somehow but I have absolutely no idea about his opinons and that's fairly disturbing. That's the problem with Obama. I don't even think he knows what he stands for. He keeps saying he's going to bring change, but what the hell does that 'change' entail? He's been absent for most of his tenure as senator; his voting record is atrocious; and he's a proven liar. Shortly after being elected to the senate, he made his speech at the Democratic National Convention; that speech alone made him and thrust him into the national limelight. From then on people were talking about, and speculating on, his prospects as president. But he roundly rejected the notion and told Illinois voters that he would not even consider running for president until his tenure as an Illinois senator had ended. Instead, he's pretty much ignored his function as a senator for nearly half his tenure in office to run for president. He held the office of senator, it seems, not to try to make any 'changes' as senator, but simply to put it on his resume, so to speak, and use the office to try to propel himself to the White House. He is a man of fierce ambition and absolutely no substance. Listen to one of his speeches, and I mean really listen. He will talk for fifteen minutes and say absolutely nothing--which, granted, isn't exclusive to him; all politicians do it; but he's somehow exempt from that because people find him 'exciting.' Why do they find him exciting? No one really knows. They just know that he's different than other politicians. How is he different? Again, no one knows. Obama is all hype with no substance. Edited January 9, 2008 by DDickey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Manicus Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Obama is all hype with no substance. It would appear New Hampshire agrees with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 It would be great if someone who knows would make a very short resume of the candidates politic program (Say 3 lines). OK, but first understand my bias before you read it, which should be quite apparent. For all practical purposes I am a constitutional conservative. Essentially that means that I believe the federal government has only a few key responsibilities - provide the basis for a strong economy (basically by staying out of it), provide for the national defense and to provide infrastructure where it is not covered by individual states and really just stop legislating ridiculous new frivolous crap all the damn time. In my history, I have largely voted Republican because they have been the closest to my philosophy in economic terms... at least until recent years (for a variety of reasons). I will probably still vote Republican despite the fact that I hate them, simply because I hate them less than the other guys (and gal). It's hardly encouraging, but I've included more Republicans because the race is less defined than the Democratic side despite the fact that a few of the Reps listed probably don't have a chance. In any case, on with my politically incorrect guide to the 2008 politicians (in no particular order). After 8 years of the bumbling jackass, this is apparently the best that America has to offer. It's damned stunning... Republicans... Mitt Romney... I see nothing inspiring about this guy. What a tool. I think he tries to be the most Reaganesque (Ronald Reagan being the hero of modern Republicans) in policy among this crop of candidates, but his political history shows some rather wishy-washy "say whatever is necessary" behavior. Reminds me of John Kerry, just on the opposite political spectrum. Being a Mormon and a New Englander will not help him get elected with the kooky Christian zealots who seem to control the party these days. If he were a traditional Christian my guess is that he would be the forerunner by far. This, however, is not a reflection of my opinion, because again, I think he's a tool. But to most Republicans these days, being a tool is ok if you are a Christian. (See Huckabee below.) Rudy Giuliani... Other than looking like a hero when the trade center was destroyed by Islamic lunatics, what's this guy really done? Considering his social policies, I can't figure out why this guy is a Republican, though he does appear to support conservative economic policy. He is clearly a moderate candidate and would have a chance to win in the general election by taking votes from both parties, but it will be near impossible for him to get the Republican nomination. He has baggage issues with family history and health problems. Also, his name is hard for me to spell for some reason, so screw him. Mike Huckabee Holy s***. WTF? This guy is an ordained baptist minister so the so-called "base" likes him. Other than doing the typical modern conservative thing of preaching to everyone about how abortion is evil and wasting everyone's time trying to stop gay people from doing the dirty (literally and figuratively) I don't see why the Republicans like him. I mean c'mon people, does it really matter? Anyway, he seems to be all over the place on other key issues (taxes and immigration as examples... like giving benefits to illegals) and seems fairly worrisome regarding foreign policy. Then again, for all us Romanophiles... unlike Bush, he probably knows where Italy is. Here's a fun quote... "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives." John McCain... McCain's biggest problem is that his time is past. His best chance was in 2000 in the primary against Bush. I wonder how different the world might be... Anyway, I may be wrong here, but the guy is 72 and I just don't think he's going to motivate enough votes. For all practical purposes, the guy is a moderate who (like Jooliani or however the hell his name is spelled) might be able to generate some votes from both parties. However, he is a bit hawkish and the Dems clearly don't like that. Still, I believe he would be far more reasonable with the use of military force and regarding foreign policy than the current administration. His support of illegal immigrant amnesty has put him at odds with "the base". Whatever, a more pressing concern among voters may be his rather large jowls. Ron Paul... This guy isn't a Republican. He's a Constitutionalist or a Libertarian or whatever the hell goofy impossible to get elected third party you want to call it. He's a Republican simply for that reason. Much like me, he chose a party that was simply closest to his views even though he really doesn't agree with much of it. Regardless, pretty much this guy stands for individual freedom, the rule of constitutional law and the rights of individual states (and the people) to govern. He doesn't care what gay people do, he doesn't believe in the use of proactive military force, he believes in free trade and that taxes should be at a minimum, etc. Essentially if it is in our constitution, he supports it. Most people think this sort of thing is extreme... and he looks a bit like Mr. Magoo so his chances of getting elected are only slightly better than Arnold Schwarzenegger (considering that he isn't eligible to run for president based on foreign birth. By the by, I even find Arnold's name easier to spell than Guleani). Fred Thompson... This guy might be the most ideological Republican of the entire bunch, but I don't think it really matters. His campaign really just isn't very refined and he seems to bumble around quite a bit. His campaign just can't seem to get off the ground. I guess he might be back on "Law and Order" soon. Democrats... Hillary Clinton... I really don't know if she'd ever had a chance to get close to this point other than because she is the wife (and I use that term loosely) of Mr. Popular, but she is, and that's that. It's not the first time a relative of a former president... Anyway, she is much less of a moderate than Bill was but like him she would probably be quite popular overseas. She's a socialist (supports high taxes, socialized medicine, restriction on free market, etc.) in order to enforce equality but she's also an intelligent player of the political game and understands how to twist and turn in order to manipulate the vote and political whims. Unfortunately, her thighs make it hard to twist and turn without drawing uncomfortable glares. If elected she would probably be as polarizing as the current jackass, but just from the opposite direction... and more importantly she sure shouts alot. After listening to Bush stumble over his words for the last 8 years, I just can't imagine listening to her grating voice for at least the next 4. Whatever. I'll see you in line to get our government mandated prescription. Barack Obama... He's the young super-hip, great new hope. Young girls swoon and the media just can't contain their giddiness at the very mention of his name. His political history is relatively short so we really need to draw his stances from interviews, various campaign stumps and debates, and what we are left with is rather confusing. He tends (in my opinion) to say whatever is necessary to gain the support of whatever group he happens to speaking to at the moment. While this is not terribly unusual in the realm of politics, this message of good things for everyone and everything is clearly resonating with his supporters. In the end though, it'll probably just lead to disappointment when that political reality sets in. Like Hillary, he's a socialist and therefore diametrically opposed to everything I think is important, but unlike her I don't know if he knows the game. Regardless, I don't really care whether or not his father was a Muslim from Kenya or whether or not he may or may not have once been in the same room with a Koran somewhere in Indonesia, but it sure would be interesting from a pure entertainment perspective if the general election ended up being him vs. the Huckabee kook. Whatever... For some reason I want to put 2 R's in his first name, but I find Obama to be far easier for me to spell than Jeweleani. John Edwards... Yeeeeeeeeeeasaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggg! This dude is still around? Except for trying to be a vice-presidential candidate, his chances are pretty much hopeless. There you have it. If you are offended by my clear lack of reverence for your particular preference, and subsequently my view of your views... well, uh, you can just go... well on second thought, I don't want to offend you any further . I hope that my view helps everyone make a decision that would be to my liking subliminal message - Ron Paul! . And for our non-American friends, I hope you all have great new hope for relations with the United States over the next 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) Thanks a lot for that PP, finally I know that I dislike Obama and why. It's not very surprising to find Swedish medias writing about him in a positive manner. Oh yeah Guliani is a pain in the ass mostly beacuse of his name Subliminal message received. Edited January 9, 2008 by Klingan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oh yeah Guliani is a pain in the ass mostly beacuse of his name Giuliani is a freedom-hating, peevish little fascist. Besides the fact that he was the biggest glory-hound of 9/11, as mayor of New York City, Giuliani was hell-bent on "protecting" New Yorkers against everything from fireworks to ferrets. To get just an inkling of what this man would be like in the White House, listen to the way Giuliani, forgetting that he is a public servant, talks to a tax-paying citizen, in (which is hilarious, too). It's not about ferrets, Rudy. It's about FREEDOM. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 From this side it looks that the most interesting candidates are Hillary and Obama. Too bad republicans got such an awful image thank's to Bush. Hoping good from a politician would be mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Obama have so far given me a good feeling somehow but I have absolutely no idea about his opinons and that's fairly disturbing. That's the problem with Obama...he's a proven liar. Forgive a Brit poking his nose in, but I have yet to come across any politition - at all - who ISNT a proven liar! But as for the Democrats (i.e.Clinton and Obama) being socialists as another commentator has suggested... no, definitely not. Endorsing slightly green policies and occasionally sticking up for the little guy does NOT make a socialist out of a religious believer who's life and culture is totally enmeshed in the global market - capitalist ideal. For an accurate description on what makes a socialist, I suggest the writings of Karl Mark or Leon Trotsky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDickey Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) Obama have so far given me a good feeling somehow but I have absolutely no idea about his opinons and that's fairly disturbing. That's the problem with Obama...he's a proven liar. Forgive a Brit poking his nose in, but I have yet to come across any politition - at all - who ISNT a proven liar! I hear that argument a lot. And, to be honest, calling it an argument is overstating its logic. Stating that all politicians are liars does not, in any conceivable way, excuse Obama. He is, as is often said, an avatar for change. How does he expect to facilitate change when, as I've previously pointed out, he is a proven liar--thus, as you've pointed out, marrying him to the culture of lying politicians that precede him? That, my friend, does not exhibit a desire to be new, a desire for change; it simply proves that he is in no way different or unique; that, contrary to what he says, he is no different, and there will be no change. Edited January 10, 2008 by DDickey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.