Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Political Palace (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Who Should Get the Dem Nom? (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22083)

Bradylama Jun 9, 2007 09:59 AM

Who Should Get the Dem Nom?
 
Of the field of current candidates which one should get the nomination for candidacy? I personally think it should be Gov. Richardson, though I could also see myself voting for Obama in the Presidential election.

Richardson seems to be the only one to understand how free markets work and would probably do right by immigration, but I like Obama as a statesman and think that at the least he could help change American social culture for the better.

The_Melomane Jun 9, 2007 11:43 AM

Just curious, (Not aiming this at the candidate you chose, because I honestly don't know who he is. ) but when you say he "understands how free markets work and would probably do right by immigration" do you mean that he'll completely open up the borders? I ask, because in my economics class, I did research on immigration policy. What's technically best economically is just to open the borders and reach an equilibrium, at least in terms of labor.

RacinReaver Jun 9, 2007 12:04 PM

Ron Paul, obviously.

Lord Styphon Jun 9, 2007 12:12 PM

Quote:

do you mean that he'll completely open up the borders?
Given what Richardson has said on the issue, and what he's done as Governor of New Mexico, I'd say that's highly unlikely. Wanting to throw open the border is political suidice in both parties.

As my vote in the poll says, I think Richardson should get the nomination. Of the people running for the nomination, he has perhaps the best credentials (having served as congressman, U.N. Ambassador, cabinet secretary, and governor). As a governor, he's been fiscally conservative and has continued to serve as a diplomat. Out of all of them, Richardson is probably the best equipped to actually be President.

But I'm a Republican, so it's not like what I say matters here.

speculative Jun 9, 2007 05:48 PM

I think Obama and Hilary would both do a great job of "looking good" as president; unfortunately their policies would do the country more harm than good. I feel Richardson could do an "ok" job of "looking presidential" (he seems like a good guy but just doesn't have the strongest charisma of the lot) while his policies could do the country some good.

However, as a republican Newt is my guy and he would do the opposite: he would do a bad job of "looking good" (at least because the media would constantly portray him in a bad light regardless) while on the other hand his policies would do the country more good than harm. (For those liberals who haven't heard him lately, he has been a vocal critic of the Bush war policies long before it was "cool" to do so...)

Bradylama Jun 9, 2007 05:50 PM

I wonder which part of this thread asked your opinion on Republican nominees?

You can start your own thread, but Ron Paul is just going to win anyways. :rolleyes:

Arainach Jun 9, 2007 10:26 PM

Hillary really isn't as scary and horrible as everyone seems to think she is. When one looks at her actual record and views, it's not too bad if you can excuse her habit of trying to appeal to every demographic at once (but then again, what politician* doesn't do that).

*: i.e. politician with any chance in hell of getting ahead

I like Obama as well, although I often have trouble figuring out what the difference between electing him and elect Hillary is. There's enough latent sexism and racism in this nation still to give either one of them problems.

Edwards: He's got a nice face, but he already had (and blew) his chance 4 years ago. No thanks.

Gravel's got a few fantastic ideals and a few absolute nutso ones, but he'd be bearable.

My choice? Give me Gore. I want an intellectual back in the white house.

value tart Jun 9, 2007 10:57 PM

Give me Night Phoenix. I want an intellectual back in the forums.

banned so fast

Meth Jun 9, 2007 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach (Post 449323)
My choice? Give me Gore. I want an intellectual back in the white house.

Pffft! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Gore, an intellectual... good one.

Hillary not scary? Maybe if you're a commie.

I'm really hoping that Hillary and/or Barack Hussein Obama get the nod cause there's no way in hell either of them will win.

You guys remember when Obama was on that Disney Channel show, Smart Guy?
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopo...rtmowry02b.jpg

Arainach Jun 9, 2007 11:52 PM

Quote:

I'm really hoping that Hillary and/or Barack Hussein Obama get the nod cause there's no way in hell either of them will win.
Even though both of them come out quite well compared to all the Republican Front-runners in comparison polls? Even given that polls are never 100% accurate that would hardly support the claim that there's "no way in hell either of them will win".

Night Phoenix Jun 10, 2007 02:36 AM

Quote:

When one looks at her actual record and views, it's not too bad
If you're a socialist, then of course Hillary's views don't look too bad. It's a shame to think that we spent trillions fighting the Cold War against the Soviets to stop the spread of communism only to implement it now by electing Democrats into office.

Meth Jun 10, 2007 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach (Post 449360)
Even though both of them come out quite well compared to all the Republican Front-runners in comparison polls? Even given that polls are never 100% accurate that would hardly support the claim that there's "no way in hell either of them will win".

Yeah, your polls don't support my claim. But it doesn't mean they hold water. It's June of 07... Nov 08 is a long ways off as many voters don't get interested in the candidates until Sept or Oct before the election.

Bradylama Jun 10, 2007 04:28 AM

hurr but the socialism

What about her involvement in Whitewater and her history as a corporate lawyer?

Musharraf Jun 10, 2007 04:50 AM

I think Hillary Clinton has the best chances. Sure, she's a woman, which is quite the worst thing right after being black-skinned and being jewish if you want to run for president, but she's the wife of a more or less succesful and popular US president and she's tough.

edit: uhh okay so I am the first one who's cheering for her. You fucking chauvinists.

Bradylama Jun 10, 2007 05:19 AM

Apparently actual Americans who have actually had to pay attention to her don't really want her to be President.

Arainach Jun 10, 2007 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 449422)
What about her involvement in Whitewater and her history as a corporate lawyer?

Her oh so scandalous 'involvement' that never even resulted in criminal charges much less a conviction?

RABicle Jun 10, 2007 09:51 AM

This poll is missing Al Gore.
He would win (again) and be a fine President.

Bradylama Jun 10, 2007 10:14 AM

Charges or no, the conduct of the Clintons throughout the entire investigation remains highly suspect. On the one hand you had the first investigator, Robert Fiske being appointed by Janet Reno, which created a conflict of interest. You then had Hillary claiming she was unable to produce her billing records, which surfaced two years later in her book room in the White House. Throughout the entire process White House lawyers stonewalled the investigation and drew it out for years, and then in the final days of his presidency, Bill pardoned four people who were convicted over the course of the investigation.

I'm not going to front any conspiracy theories here, but at the very least the actions of the Clintons suggest that they used their power in order to protect their friends and business associates.

It also doesn't help that the original Whitewater dealings occurred in 1979, which was a year after Hillary made a 10,000% gain on her investment in cattle futures. That was an issue where Refco invested $1,000 of Clinton's money in $12,000 worth of Cattle Futures contracts, which violated margin trading rules.

The fact remains that Hillary Rodham Clinton is more Rich White Man than any of her actual rich white opponents, and that another Clinton administration would involve a massive amount of corporate largess and probably another round of suspicious pardonings.

The Clinton Administration has been one of the more shadiest of recent history, and Hillary's use of the term "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" in many ways channels Richard Nixon, a kind of paranoia that would no doubt involve her expanding the power of the executive to spy domestically as her husband did.

She's also more interventionist than Bill was, and was supposedly instrumental in convincing him to intervene in the Balkans. She hasn't learned the lesson that Iraq was a mistake to begin with, and gives the impression that she thinks the war would have been justified if only we could win it. To her credit, Obama has made similar overtures not to seem so "Doveish," but then Obama doesn't have a history of interventionism and originally opposed giving the administration the authority to go to war.

Quote:

This poll is missing Al Gore.
Gore has already stated that he isn't considering running for President, but that could just be another way to generate buzz. I think that he's trying to use the buzz to sell books and increase demand for his speeches, but we'll have to see. Also I think a Gore ticket would make for an ass presidency. ;)

Arainach Jun 10, 2007 11:57 AM

Quote:

The Clinton Administration has been one of the more shadiest of recent history
......what? Have you paid attention to ANYTHING the current Administration has done? And I'd say Iran-Contra tops anything the Clintons ever did for shadiness.

Bradylama Jun 10, 2007 12:05 PM

Did I say most shadiest muthafuckah!?

Arainach Jun 10, 2007 12:09 PM

That would put Clinton's term at #3 of the last 4 administrations. Hardly "one of the more shadiest" (to use your term).

Bradylama Jun 10, 2007 12:15 PM

It also depends on how you define recent history. I was thinking back as far as the Eisenhower Administration, since that's usually as far as they ever get in High School classes.

Meth Jun 10, 2007 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach (Post 449571)
That would put Clinton's term at #3 of the last 4 administrations. Hardly "one of the more shadiest" (to use your term).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shady-ass Bill Clinton
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

and...perjury. He sounds a lot like Pinnochio from Shrek 3.

Arainach Jun 10, 2007 01:00 PM

Perjury about an affair that he should never have had to testify about in the first place since it was none of Congress' business. Let's be honest here: What man WOULDN'T try to lie to avoid telling about an affair?

Meth Jun 10, 2007 01:03 PM

Yeah, let's be honest here...

Are you saying that guys that cheat on their wives and lie about it (in a court of law) aren't shady?

BlueMikey Jun 10, 2007 01:07 PM

Whomever takes Wesley Clark as his VP nom.

(But I like Obama for now. Most electable.)

Arainach Jun 10, 2007 01:13 PM

(1) Given the divorce rate in this nation, yeah, I'd say that that's pretty much par for the course and not that shady any more.

(2) It's still FAR less shady than things like illegally selling arms to Iran to fund terrorists/insurgents in Central America, wiretapping without warrants, shipping crates of cash to Iraq to mysteriously disappear, letting lobbyists rewrite scientific reports, basing environmental policy off of energy corporation lobbyists, violating the Hatch Act, outing covert CIA agents for political purposes (and obstructing justice by refusing to testify about it), deliberately misrepresenting evidence to justify invasions of sovereign nations, failing to include war spending in the national budget to 'balance' it and repeatedly requesting hundreds of billions in 'emergency appropriations' (worst accounting ever), piles of no-bid contracts to defense companies, torturing, revoking habeus corpus, and alleged vote suppression.

Bradylama Jun 10, 2007 01:21 PM

Besides, Hillary isn't the one who committed perjury.

Lord Styphon Jun 10, 2007 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach (Post 449595)
Perjury about an affair that he should never have had to testify about in the first place since it was none of Congress' business.

You're right; Clinton's infidelities weren't any of Congress' business. However, they were the business of a court case in which he was a party. Pursuant to that court case, Clinton testified under oath, and during that testimony, committed perjury.

That was Congress' business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 449614)
Besides, Hillary isn't the one who committed perjury.

No, but she seems to draw people who have to her, doesn't she?

Bradylama Jun 10, 2007 02:48 PM

Looks like you're getting into http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-tinfoil.gif territory.

GhaleonQ Jun 10, 2007 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach (Post 449360)
Even though both of them come out quite well compared to all the Republican Front-runners in comparison polls? Even given that polls are never 100% accurate that would hardly support the claim that there's "no way in hell either of them will win".

To be fair, you have no idea (and I, I'm sure, have only a vague notion) of the absolute, undiluted hatred and fear that Republican staffers and officeholders have of Clinton and Obama (and Edwards, if you care). The Republican behemoth would expand, fine-tune, and execute like never before if any combination of the 3 get the ticket.

Arainach Jun 10, 2007 06:32 PM

Would they? The religious bloc is already pissed at them and fragmenting, the war nuts are few and far between, and the libertarians aren't at all pleased with them either. We'll see what happens when it happens.

Bradylama Jun 10, 2007 06:40 PM

I also don't think that Republican hatred for Obama and Edwards comes anywhere close to the general contempt for Hillary.

Final Fantasy Phoneteen Jun 10, 2007 10:59 PM

I picked Dennis Kucinich because he says some funny things that I can sometimes agree with (even if he goes overboard). In reality, I have no idea who really deserves the nomination. Obama interested me initially, but he's be really fucking slow coming out of the gate. Barely anything he said has been fresh and exciting, and I was promised there would be a lot of it. >:(

Guru Jun 11, 2007 02:07 AM

Who should get the nom? Well, I agree with a lot more political viewpoints held by Richardson and Edwards than any of the other candidates, and I admire that they both campaign rather than congregate at pseudo-celebrity rock-rallies, relying less on fame and money and more on political know-how. For those that are so down on John Edwards just for having "lost" in 2004, I think you're probably placing that blame on the wrong guy (or state, if you're a conspiracy theorist). Kerry lost the White House, Edwards was just along for the ride.

Neither Richardson nor Edwards really have a shot, because they rely less on fame and money and more on political know-how.

So, of the big two who even legitimately have a chance, I think I'd like to see Obama take the nom, just because I think he can and will do more for this country than Hills would. But I honestly think either of them have the potential to be a great President, so long as their terms aren't completely muddled with cleaning Bush's shitty diapers. We need a President that is going to pay attention to the people here, in this country -- not on the other side of the globe.

speculative Jun 11, 2007 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 449990)
Kerry lost the White House, Edwards was just along for the ride.

Edwards made it painfully clear in the latest CNN democratic debate that he wants someone's VP nomination. He was almost tripping over himself to flatter the other candidates every time they opened their mouths.

Bradylama Jun 11, 2007 09:30 PM

Didn't he come out for blood with Hillary and Obama?

Guru Jun 12, 2007 04:20 AM

People like Edwards, they didn't like Kerry (and I don't really blame them). I think Edwards is the reason Kerry even mustered 50% of the vote. Imagine if Kerry had picked some joe-schmoe boring Dem activist that nobody cared about? Bush may have actually legitimately re-won the White House. Scary.

I don't think Obama or Clinton would pick him up for a VP though. I'd say either is more likely to pick up the other after Iowa/New Hampshire. Obama/Clinton 2008! Make every racist, sexist, crotchety conservative die of a coronary.

Adamgian Jun 12, 2007 07:12 PM

I'm for Richardson at the momment - his foreign policy experience and financial know-how could be crucial. Furthermore, he's taken a huge bump in the polls in New Jersey (now at 10%), so I wouldn't discount him just yet. He's more likely a VP than President however.

That said, since Richardson probably won't win President, my second pick is Obama. He's just likeable, and pretty sensible.

My ideal would be an Obama/Richardson ticket, although that may be one minority too many to win the general.

speculative Jun 14, 2007 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 450460)
Didn't he come out for blood with Hillary and Obama?

I saw his lips planted on Obama's rear end more than once, and Hilary's more than once as well. I'm not saying he never attacked their ideas, but I never once saw a single other Democratic nominee go on about how their opponent made a good point and had good ideas. Maybe I'm giving Edwards too much credit and he's simply more incompetent than I suspected?

RABicle Jun 15, 2007 02:45 AM

He might not have been specifically arsekissing, perhaps Edwards jsut doesn't fulfill the requirment that politicians have to be dickheads. Edwards just comes across as a nice guy.

Lord Styphon Jun 15, 2007 02:57 AM

By profession, Edwards is a trial lawyer; this in itself puts him into dickhead territory.

Maybe he saw Primary Colors recently.

Maico Jul 31, 2007 10:31 PM

I was really impressed by the way John Edwards handled himself in the CNN/YouTube debates (and h.e didn't look too bad either, those expensive haircuts sure do the trick), and was especially interested in what he had to say in regards to healthcare for the country, since I am going into the health-related professions myself.

That is the biggest issue deciding factor for me this next election. There are too many people without healthcare and the way Edwards is going to universalize healthcare and step up to fight against special interests and big insurance companies seems like the right thing to me and exactly what this country needs. America doesn't need to be spending millions of dollars abroad on a war when there's already turmoil at home, too many sick, poor, homeless, and insuranceless people. That's where all the money should be going, helping out our own citizens first.

My vote for the nomination goes to John Edwards.

BlueMikey Aug 1, 2007 12:51 AM

The thing about John Edwards is how realistic his plans are with regards to getting them through Congress. I still like Obama slightly more because he seems to be a little more down-to-Earth.

But I'd take either one over any one else on either side.

Bradylama Aug 1, 2007 01:13 AM

It's not as if Edwards is the only one promoting Universal Healthcare, either. The Youtube debate practically turned into a pissing match of whose plan was the MOST universal.

I'm also wary of any kind of populist message. The implication always seems to be, "We're taking away the power of these corporations, and giving it to us."

I also can't stand that twang. =/

Guru Aug 1, 2007 02:15 AM

Obama/Edwards 2008. Mark it.

Final Fantasy Phoneteen Aug 1, 2007 02:34 AM

Gingrich just came out yesterday or the day before saying that the ticket'll be Clinton/Obama.

Musharraf Aug 1, 2007 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G-Grillz (Post 482307)
Obama/Edwards 2008. Mark it.

Good lord please no!

Guru Aug 1, 2007 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Generic Badass (Post 482316)
Gingrich just came out yesterday or the day before saying that the ticket'll be Clinton/Obama.

IF Hillary can take Iowa. And, really... there's a lot of women-haters here. So... I don't know if she can get the nod or not.

Bradylama Aug 1, 2007 04:27 AM

As far as the media is concerned she already is president. When polled, Democrats liked Obama's answer for foreign policy more than Clinton's by a significant margin, but you wouldn't know it watching the talking heads yak on about how every time she brings up the "meeting with leaders" question, she wins.

Who's to say Obama would even want to be Vice President? Wouldn't that destroy his career?

Guru Aug 1, 2007 04:51 AM

The media in Iowa gushes about Obama most of the time. There's a fair share of Hillary garbage too, but she doesn't visit here nearly as much as Obama or even John Edwards. She does send out nifty little CD-ROMs with rehashes of her website on them though. That's good campaigning, I tell yas.

I think most of the hillbillies in Iowa (that beat their wives) use them as coasters or clay pigeons.

Alice Aug 1, 2007 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 482349)
As far as the media is concerned she already is president.

I get this sense, too, but I wonder how this is so when I personally don't know a single woman who supports Hillary Clinton. Maybe it's a regional thing. I'm very curious to see how successful she'll be in the end, especially since women - who apparently don't like her, at least in this part of the country - have outnumbered men as voters in every presidential election since 1964.

BlueMikey Aug 1, 2007 11:32 AM

Democrats are dumb as fuck if they nominate Hillary. I think Obama or Edwards could get enough Republican crossover, Hillary never could, not in a million years.

I don't know if being VP would destroy a career anymore. Look how powerful Cheney made the office.

Bradylama Aug 1, 2007 12:53 PM

Well yeah, sure, if he acts in a manner popularly considered not befitting a Vice President, his career won't be destroyed (in the party anyways).

If Democrats want Republican crossover they really should nominate Richardson. Obama has some appeal, but believe me that Edwards is far too populist to appeal to many sectors of the GOP, with the exception of the already confused and fragmented Religious Right.

Guru Aug 1, 2007 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 482493)
If Democrats want Republican crossover they really should nominate Richardson. Obama has some appeal, but believe me that Edwards is far too populist to appeal to many sectors of the GOP, with the exception of the already confused and fragmented Religious Right.

It would seem, considering the trends, that the Dems aren't even going to need a considerable amount of Republican crossover. The fact that Obama, Edwards and Clinton aren't from any state where gay marriage is (or was) legal is probably enough just to get him that extra ~5% of the vote it would have taken to elect Kerry over Bush. Appeasing at least a few of the otherwise fag-haters will win this election for the dems.

BlueMikey Aug 1, 2007 01:29 PM

Yeah, I tend to like Richardson too (hooray southwestern politics).

If the Republicans nominate Rudy, the Democrats are going to need some crossover just based on his name alone.

Plankton614 Aug 15, 2007 08:17 PM

I agree that Obama will be the one more likely to spur social change. Your comparison of Hilary to the "rich white men" around her is very accurate, too; I had never put it in those words, but they are quite applicable. She just seems a bit too focused on getting ahead to ever take a strong stance on any issue that I care about. It would be nice to see a woman president, just not Hilary.

Bradylama Aug 15, 2007 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMikey (Post 482509)
If the Republicans nominate Rudy, the Democrats are going to need some crossover just based on his name alone.

You know, a lot of talking heads are starting to refer to Clinton as the Incumbency Campaign by sheer name recognition.

If the Republicans nominate Rudy (which it looks like they will), would that mean that we'd practically have two incumbency campaigns?

Lord Styphon Aug 15, 2007 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama
If the Republicans nominate Rudy (which it looks like they will)

What exactly are you seeing that makes it look like the Republicans are going that way to you?

Bradylama Aug 15, 2007 08:51 PM

I think the CBS poll had him around 34%? I don't recall the specific numbers, but he was trouncing Romney.

The idea is that the majority of 24 Percenters are comprised of the Authoritarian Wing, and are looking for a strong man who will be able to push neoconservative intellectualism in the face of adversity, no matter how unmarketable it is in the general election. They need Rudy to be their Il Duce, because he's the only candidate who has the image of being tough on defense, no matter how easily deflated that image is when it comes under scrutiny.

For his part, Rudy really does understand the ideology and can pitch it effectively. The only problem is that nobody outside of the RNC is buying it.

Also the name recognition.

Lord Styphon Aug 15, 2007 09:00 PM

Looking at the poll I think you're citing (a Rasmussen national poll), Giuliani does have 24%. The problem with citing that as evidence as some kind of Giuliani juggernaut is the fact that it is a national poll, when the nomination process is decided in state caucuses and primaries. State polls show Romney leading Giuliani 32-20 in New Hampshire, and Fred Thompson leading him by less lofty margains in South Carolina and Michigan. The poll you're citing gives Giuliani a similarly unimpressive lead over Thompson, who had 20%.

Even if you see it, for right now, I don't.

Quote:

because he's the only candidate who has the image of being tough on defense
John McCain just might have something to say about that.

Bradylama Aug 15, 2007 09:29 PM

As I understand it, McCain is perceived as being more crazy on defense. That he gives off this impression of being old and a little feeble.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.