The next United States President?

[mikeo]

I'm of the opinion that Clinton wouldn't accept the VP spot on Obama's ticket. Anyone else of a similar viewpoint?

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by mikeo

I'm of the opinion that Clinton wouldn't accept the VP spot on Obama's ticket. Anyone else of a similar viewpoint?

Has anyone ever publicly turned down being a VP?? I liked her a few months ago but she has been rubbing me the wrong way as of late. She seems a bit too power hungry to turn down VP. I personally would prefer an Obama/Edwards ticket anyway.

[atr_hugo]

Yes - in history plenty have peple have turned down requests to be VPs. Most requests were made behind closed doors though (so we wouldn't know that the candidate was getting their third choice of running mate ; -).

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by atr_hugo

Yes - in history plenty have peple have turned down requests to be VPs. Most requests were made behind closed doors though (so we wouldn't know that the candidate was getting their third choice of running mate ; -).

Thanks ATR!! :biggrin:

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by E82TT6

I'm only comparing them to the old school conservatives. Compare government spending durning the Bush administration to the Clinton, or his father. These "neo-cons" are more neo, and less con. That's my point.

I have no doubt McCain or Ron Paul would be on the right track in that regard, but if someone like Romney gets the nod, I wouldn't look for too much "small government" type stuff.

Beyond that, look at policies. If W is a ruler by which to measure the neo-cons, then I don't think you can categorize anything they're for as "conservative". Our foreign policy has been absolutely radical. We invaded a sovereign nation without cause, and are now engaging in what will indubitably turn out to be one of the most protracted nation building efforts in our history. This administration's civil policies have been often scandelous in their crooked and radical nature. The number of civil liberties that have been compromised by this administration also puts them much more in the "far left", IMO.

I should say that I consider myself more of a libretarian, or construstionist than anything else, and I find the Republican parties recent movements away from conservatism to be a bit disturbing. That's where a lot of my opinions come from, and I certainly don't mean to ofend anyone. I just think a lot of Americans are getting hoodwinked into thinking that the Republican party of today, is the same as the Republican party of Abe Licoln, or TR. The "neo-con" movement has, in my opinion, butchered the meaning of conservatism, with their policies of big spending, radical social changes, and highly aggressive unjustified foreign actions.

It makes me worry for the future. You know have the possibility of someone like Huckaby, who wasn't even aware that the latest Nat'l Intelligence Estimate stated that Iran's nuclear program was non-existant, discontinued several years ago becoming the next president.

I like McCain and Ron Paul, but the rest of these guys are just way too RINO for me. You just have to watch the debates to get the feeling of it. Questions about the literal interpretation of the Bible? Constitutional Amendments to TAKE AWAY people's right (gay marriage/civil union)... This is NOT my Daddys Republican party.

That's the point I'm try to make, I appologize for typos/gramatical errors/etc, I'm home with the flu right now, and a bit cloudy headed.


PS: I know we're supposed to keep these kind of overly-opinionated posts to a minimum in this thread, so I'm sorry if I stirred up a bee-hive my long winded diatribes against modern conservatism :-p

Okay, finally I have a little bit of "free" time to get to these statements... :smile:

Firstly, I think it is very important to understand that George W Bush is not the pedestal of the conservative movement and, while successful in many things, it is most likely that history will remember him as an overall failure. Still, the problem that you will notice with the conservatives is a lack of candidates with a clear-cut position that highlights the standards of conservatives: strong on defense, low on taxes. The reason I think you are seeing so many voters (and candidates) talking about Reagan is because he was very clear on his conservative beliefs. You knew his ideology and now we have too many candidates who will say, "I am the conservative candidate," and then fail to really explain what that means.

As for W's radical social agenda, I would hardly call being against gay marriage a "shock and awe" position. The problem with W was that he really butchered his case when it came to the media and sort of "floated" the idea out without any real explanation. Anyway, we debate every single thing that Bush has done and argue whether it was or was not conservative, was or was not correct. But, again, the bottom line is that W is not the truest representation of the conservative movement. So to say that (and I am not suggesting that anyone here is) "I will not vote for a conservative because of W" is, in my opinion, a mostly uneducated argument, especially considering that, if you subscribe to that theory, the argument "I will not vote for a democrat because of the current Congress" works just as well.

Regardless of this all, however, it now becomes a scenario where you either vote for a party that is proven to lower taxes (not raise them), a party that is proven to be strong on national defense (not weak and passive), a party that at the core of its beliefs is strongly supportive of lowering governmental spending (unfortunately, I really don't see a potential candidate that would truthfully lower spending), a party that is clearly for English as the official language of the country (not against), and so it goes on.

If you ever want to really comprehend what true conservative beliefs are, listen to Newt Gingrich (he appears on Fox News quite frequently). He is very good at "bullet-pointing" conservative ideals.

The question that I have for democrats, though, is what really are you voting for here? What is Obama's selling point? Or Hillary's? When you go into the voting both and check Obama's name, what is the real reason you are making that decision?

While I am not the biggest fan of Hillary Clinton in the world, she isn't stupid and, while she would probably do some things that would irk me to high hell (*cough*spending*cough*), is smart enough to at least keep a presence in the Middle East.

Now, from my vantage point, most of Obama supporters (and, again, I am not saying anyone here necessarily falls into this category) are voting for him for one or more of these three reasons:

1. He is black. I've said before: if Barack was white, he would not be a candidate.
2. The belief that he will pull out of Iraq. (personally, I don't see any of the candidates doing that with any amount of certainty)
3. The infatuation with the word change.

With this in mind, I really struggle to understand why Obama has the support that he has. I don't see what his ideology is and, coupled with the fact that he could not answer whether or not he was for illegal immigrants obtaining driver's licenses, will most likely never have his belief system explained. Again, when you go into the voting booth, what can you hang your hat on as the main reason you, the voter, ticked the Obama box?

Personally, I still am up in the air about a candidate. At first, I was a strong Romney supporter but sometimes I wonder what exactly I am getting with him. Then other times, I see Fred Thompson as a very likeable and intelligent candidate. But he also seems to not want to win at times. Strange.

Regardless, final comment (I can't believe I waited this long to make this point): the Constitution states a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. I hate seeing candidates like Huckabee and Romney criticized for their religion when the criticizers themselves probably do not understand anything about their religion anyway. If someone is fearful that a Mormon is elected, then they really don't understand the principles that America was founded on.

[BForbes]

[quote=MPower;53191]Okay, finally I have a little bit of "free" time to get to these statements... :smile:

Firstly, I think it is very important to understand that George W Bush is not the pedestal of the conservative movement.

The question that I have for democrats, though, is what really are you voting for here? What is Obama's selling point? Or Hillary's? When you go into the voting both and check Obama's name, what is the real reason you are making that decision?

Now, from my vantage point, most of Obama supporters (and, again, I am not saying anyone here necessarily falls into this category) are voting for him for one or more of these three reasons:

1. He is black. I've said before: if Barack was white, he would not be a candidate.
2. The belief that he will pull out of Iraq. (personally, I don't see any of the candidates doing that with any amount of certainty)
3. The infatuation with the word change.

With this in mind, I really struggle to understand why Obama has the support that he has. I don't see what his ideology is and, coupled with the fact that he could not answer whether or not he was for illegal immigrants obtaining driver's licenses, will most likely never have his belief system explained. Again, when you go into the voting booth, what can you hang your hat on as the main reason you, the voter, ticked the Obama box?
quote]

Interesting thoughts. Let me chime in my thoughts as an "independent voter."First of all, I dont think you realize how many people are turned off with the Republican Party as a whole because of George W. Bush. I spoke with a young woman in her 20's that says she is almost embarrassed to say that she is a Rupublican. The person in power has a enormous influence of how society views ones political party.

There is nothing wrong with a person voting for Obama because he is black. That right there shows how far this country has come since 50 years ago. We still have a long way to go but that definitely shows change. The United States of America was a country built and founded upon slavery. To have a man named Barack Hussein Obama representing the United States says a lot to the rest of the world. If you cant understand that then I'm sorry. There is no other way I can put it. There is definitely something wrong with voting for him if the only reason is race. Just look at the age demographics of those that vote for him. The % of those 55 and over voting for Obama is very tiny.

3) Personally I believe we do not need to have a Republican in office for the next term. That party has run the U.S. for 8 years. That is the change I believe we need to make. Yes, I do have my favorites on the Republican side. I dont like them enough to cast a vote though.

4) I have listened to both Barack and Clinton speak on numerous occasions. I'm of the belief that he is just as smart as her. I'm just afraid that her emotions will get in the way. I mean she was almost brought to tears during a speech. WTF?

Btw, you dont have to build your case with parenthesis about why your not voting for the Democrats. :wink:

The majority of my friends are Republicans. They actually favor Obama out of the rest of the Democratics. They wont cross party lines and vote for him mainly because: "you just dont do that."

Obama's selling point for me:

1. He was against the Iraq War from the beginning
2. He wants to fix a broken healthcare system
3. He wants to fix an education system thats leaving children behind.
4. He acknowledges that we need to work with other countries more to revamp our standing.
5. He does not play the race card as much as would be expected
6. His youth and charisma

I can go on and on. I didnt list these so they can be disected. I just posted IMO attracts me to hang my hat up for Obama. Yes every canididate represents some sort of change but I'm of the belief that electing Barack Obama would show change on many different levels. The ones most important to me might not be alignment with others but I can respect that.

[colonel1961]

I concur that Clinton would not accept a spot on Obama's ticket. One of her memes has been his lack of experience and that would play into the GOP's hand (not that I care).

This is the most wide open Presidential election I can remember. And I'm pleased how civil the discourse has been on this thread.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by onehots2k

Interesting thoughts. Let me chime in my thoughts as an "independent voter."First of all, I dont think you realize how many people are turned off with the Republican Party as a whole because of George W. Bush. I spoke with a young woman in her 20's that says she is almost embarrassed to say that she is a Rupublican. The person in power has a enormous influence of how society views ones political party.

Unfortunately, you are mostly correct. As I said in my last post, W did a lot of good things (most of which will be overshadowed) but his main failure, in my opinion, was this division among the Republican party. It is a shame that Republicans now have to clearly separate themselves from their own President.

Originally Posted by onehots2k

There is definitely something wrong with voting for him if the only reason is race. Just look at the age demographics of those that vote for him.

That was my only point. I am by no means suggesting that voting for any black candidate is a bad thing. Surely the opposite. But, it seems that a large amount of Obama supporters (again, not pointing fingers at anyone here) are voting for him only because he is black.

Originally Posted by onehots2k

4) I have listened to both Barack and Clinton speak on numerous occasions. I'm of the belief that he is just as smart as her. I'm just afraid that her emotions will get in the way. I mean she was almost brought to tears during a speech. WTF?

I don't really want to get into the differences between Barack and Clinton, but on the one hand, some at the beginning of the campaign criticized her for being too robotic and detached. On the other hand, after she shows her emotions in one speech, she is now too emotional and too attached. Personally, I would rather have someone who is emotional to someone who isn't.

Originally Posted by onehots2k

The majority of my friends are Republicans. They actually favor Obama out of the rest of the Democratics. They wont cross party lines and vote for him mainly because: "you just dont do that."

I am supporting Obama in the Democrat Primary mainly because I don't think he would be able to beat Mitt Romney, Guiliani or McCain. While the people certainly have shown that they have a propensity for change, voters will want some sort of experience to go along with that change. Unfortunately, Obama simply doesn't have that. He won't win this one but given a couple more terms in Congress (preferably as Governor somewhere as well) will given him a boat-load more credibility.

Originally Posted by onehots2k

Obama's selling point for me:

1. He was against the Iraq War from the beginning
2. He wants to fix a broken healthcare system
3. He wants to fix an education system thats leaving children behind.
4. He acknowledges that we need to work with other countries more to revamp our standing.
5. He does not play the race card as much as would be expected
6. His youth and charisma

I can go on and on. I didnt list these so they can be disected. I just posted IMO attracts me to hang my hat up for Obama. Yes every canididate represents some sort of change but I'm of the belief that electing Barack Obama would show change on many different levels. The ones most important to me might not be alignment with others but I can respect that.

Summary of my thoughts after reading this section (I was going to dissect them until I read your request to not have them dissected... :smile:

Barack wants to do a lot of great things but has failed to show, at least to myself, how to do a lot of those great things.

[mikeo]

"I am supporting Obama in the Democrat Primary mainly because I don't think he would be able to beat Mitt Romney, Guiliani or McCain."

It would be unwise to under estimate a candidate that is beginning to show he has the capability to motivate a grassroots movement for change, ala the Kennedys.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by mikeo

"I am supporting Obama in the Democrat Primary mainly because I don't think he would be able to beat Mitt Romney, Guiliani or McCain."

It would be unwise to under estimate a candidate that is beginning to show he has the capability to motivate a grassroots movement for change, ala the Kennedys.

Perhaps, but there is no question that Barack is a more beatable candidate than Hillary is. Barack may be able to motivate voters now, he won't be able to run to the White House purely by saying words like "change" but never saying how.

[WolfsburgerMitFries]

I think they need to amend the constitution so Bush can serve a 3rd term.

[atr_hugo]

Originally Posted by WolfsburgerMitFries

I think they need to amend the constitution so Bush can serve a 3rd term.

Would he be able to serve in-place until the ammendment can become law-of-the-land? If I remember correctly a constitutional ammendment has to be offered up by the legislative branch and then passed by 2/3 of the states in a general election. He could be President for along time in that scenario.

[I was off by a bit, 2/3rds of both houses (House and Senate) of the legislature and 3/4 of the states in a general election have to approve in order for it to become an ammendment. How the hell did ammendent 18 ever make it through that process? ; -) - ed]
And I'm outta this one before the . . . :biggrin:

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by MPower

Perhaps, but there is no question that Barack is a more beatable candidate than Hillary is. Barack may be able to motivate voters now, he won't be able to run to the White House purely by saying words like "change" but never saying how.

You think so? I'm quite curious to see your response if you are indeed wrong. You seem VERY positive. :biggrin:

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by mikeo

"I am supporting Obama in the Democrat Primary mainly because I don't think he would be able to beat Mitt Romney, Guiliani or McCain."

It would be unwise to under estimate a candidate that is beginning to show he has the capability to motivate a grassroots movement for change, ala the Kennedys.

I totally agree with you Mikeo. He was under-estimated from day one. Nobody thought he would make it this far...they will continue to be in for a BIG surprise.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by onehots2k

You think so? I'm quite curious to see your response if you are indeed wrong. You seem VERY positive. :biggrin:

Anything is certainly possible and Barack has the potential to put all the pieces together and become a great Democrat candidate. However, his success in a Democrat primary says nothing about his potential success in a general election where, in my opinion, undecided voters would tend to swing towards the more experienced candidate (which favors the Republican nominee). When it comes to crunch time in a general election dealing with substantive issues, voters need to be able to stake their house on a candidate with a certain issue. Again, I just don't see that with Obama... at least as of now.

[BMWeber]

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

[BForbes]

LMAO!!! That is awesome^^^ I love Bill Clinton though. A BJ in the whitehouse?? Come on now..hehe

[E82tt6]

I'm of the opinion that he would be a better canidate.

Mitt Romney is basically a republican version of Hillary, with less intellect. He's not only a phoney like she is, but also a hollow suit.

McCain I don't think he could beat. I think Guiliani is out of the running at this point, but that's just my personal opinion.

Personally, I'm an independent and haven't even decided which primary to vote in yet, but I'm leaning towards going for Barack. Why? He strikes me as world more real and honest than Hillary. I think he'd actually try to do something to change the direction of thing in Iraq, and I think he's smart enough to surround himself with advisors based on qualifications, rather than which side of the political fence they're on.

I would be voting for McCain, as he's long been a favorite of mine, but I'm somewhat troubled by his position on the war in Iraq. I don't think he recognizes the realities of the situation there, and our situation in general.

Part of how Bush won in the first place was by vowing to be strong on defense, but not engage in pointless nation building excessises. I rememer in one of the last debates with Gore, this was a point he emphasized, noting the Clinton administrations Nation Building in africa, and eastern europe.

He then turns around and lies to the country in order to gain their support to start a pointless war that began by invading a sovereign nation, and has left us LESS SAFE now than we were beforehand. We strengthened Al Quaeda, and Islamic extremism in general with our fool-hardy actions. Unfortunately, this is a simple fact that McCain can't seem to see, which leaves me very concerned. I was one of those few people who was against the war from the begining. To me it was blatantly obvious that we would do nothing by rattle a hornet's nest. If it was that obvious to me, I would feel strange about voting for a politician that "couldn't see" it.

I don't have a phd, and I'm not paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to advice the bigshots of what's going on. Yet I easily saw that an invasion of Iraq that toppled Sedam would lead to long term civil unrest, and provided a breeding ground of Islamic Terrorists.

That's the main thing stopping me from voting the Republican primary. Barack just strikes me as worlds more honest than anyone else in the race. :-/

Additionally, the gay marriage thing is a big deal for me. I find the idea of re-writing or ammending the constitution to TAKE AWAY people's rights because of a superstition/religious belief so abhorently unamerican that I don't think I could ever vote for a canidate that was for such a thing. Huckaby is the worst, saying he wants to "rewrite the constitution, so it will be eithical in God's eyes."

The moment the Constitution is rewritten because of someone's personal religious belief, is the day I leave this country.

Simply reading the preamble to the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence should give you an idea why.

Ok, maybe I'm more of a Libertarian than a true independent, but no one's perfect ;-)

[Dave]

Originally Posted by WolfsburgerMitFries

I think they need to amend the constitution so Bush can serve a 3rd term.

plz no.


i am a rudy or mit supporter

but i can not take another bush in office.
i would rather see obama there

and thats bad.

[imported_MPower]

Originally Posted by E82TT6

He then turns around and lies to the country in order to gain their support to start a pointless war that began by invading a sovereign nation, and has left us LESS SAFE now than we were beforehand. We strengthened Al Quaeda, and Islamic extremism in general with our fool-hardy actions. Unfortunately, this is a simple fact that McCain can't seem to see, which leaves me very concerned. I was one of those few people who was against the war from the begining. To me it was blatantly obvious that we would do nothing by rattle a hornet's nest. If it was that obvious to me, I would feel strange about voting for a politician that "couldn't see" it.

Wow, it is fascinating to read this CNN argument over and over again. I can see how things can be manipulated to appear that way but you really have to look at this situation to see that not all is doom and gloom. Questions for you:

1. How did Bush lie? No credible intelligence report prior to the war disagreed with the intelligence that Bush acted on.

2. How are we, the civilians, less safe now? It was not like under Clinton, terrorists attacks in the US were non-existent. Two attempts to destroy the Twin Towers were taken under his presidency. Ever since March 2003, when the US invaded the dictator-held country of Iraq, not one terrorist attack has been successful on US soil. Therefore, I really have no idea how you can claim that we, the civilians at home, are less safe.

3. Al Quaeda strengthened? How so? Im sure there will be those that flash around numbers but it is very difficult to find reliability in numbers tracking people we really weren't attempting to track until 2003. Regardless of any numbers, the majority of Iraq enjoys freedom. Al Quaeda could not be strengthened and have this occur.

Final comment on this piece: If you honestly believe that the war was nothing more than rattling a hornet's nest than you also must believe that Al Quaeda poses (or posed, depending on your perspective) zero threat to the United States. I, personally, can not believe that a group committed to the decimation of the United States poses zero threat.

Again, I hope that I am not sounding too harsh here. It is painfully hard to elucidate tone on an internet board but I am trying to do nothing more than offer a different perspective while trying to further explore your own.

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by MPower

Wow, it is fascinating to read this CNN argument over and over again. I can see how things can be manipulated to appear that way but you really have to look at this situation to see that not all is doom and gloom. Questions for you:

1. How did Bush lie? No credible intelligence report prior to the war disagreed with the intelligence that Bush acted on.

2. How are we, the civilians, less safe now? It was not like under Clinton, terrorists attacks in the US were non-existent. Two attempts to destroy the Twin Towers were taken under his presidency. Ever since March 2003, when the US invaded the dictator-held country of Iraq, not one terrorist attack has been successful on US soil. Therefore, I really have no idea how you can claim that we, the civilians at home, are less safe.

3. Al Quaeda strengthened? How so? Im sure there will be those that flash around numbers but it is very difficult to find reliability in numbers tracking people we really weren't attempting to track until 2003. Regardless of any numbers, the majority of Iraq enjoys freedom. Al Quaeda could not be strengthened and have this occur.

Final comment on this piece: If you honestly believe that the war was nothing more than rattling a hornet's nest than you also must believe that Al Quaeda poses (or posed, depending on your perspective) zero threat to the United States. I, personally, can not believe that a group committed to the decimation of the United States poses zero threat.

Again, I hope that I am not sounding too harsh here. It is painfully hard to elucidate tone on an internet board but I am trying to do nothing more than offer a different perspective while trying to further explore your own.

I'm going to keep this short. I cant speak on behalf of Chuck but I'll try.

1.) He claimed Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction. I distinctly remember a big countdown on the news that bush gave him to disarm. Saddam needed to be out of power but it wasnt our fight at that particular time

2.) We are less safe in the regards that the rest of the world hates us even more b/c of the situation in Iraq. We went against the UN. Even poor ol Tony Blair was a blatant casualty for being Bush's door mat. Or at least thats what my buddies in the U.K. says. The perception of the U.S. is god awful in many other countries. I'll admit most of it is undeserving but I digress.

3.) I wouldnt be surprised if Al-Quada has stengthened. Yes we killed A LOT of them but someone always pops up to replace the head guy. Plus, where the hell is Bin Laden. If he isnt dead its very sad that nobody has turned on him. Its been 7yrs!

I dont believe the war was rattling a hornets nest. I believe it was a diversion. First Afghanistan and now Iraq...sheesh. Now were poking Iran. This has got to stop. We all need to get along...these are really the last days.

No worries. Your not sounding harsh man.:biggrin:

[E82tt6]

Originally Posted by MPower

Wow, it is fascinating to read this CNN argument over and over again. I can see how things can be manipulated to appear that way but you really have to look at this situation to see that not all is doom and gloom. Questions for you:

1. How did Bush lie? No credible intelligence report prior to the war disagreed with the intelligence that Bush acted on.

2. How are we, the civilians, less safe now? It was not like under Clinton, terrorists attacks in the US were non-existent. Two attempts to destroy the Twin Towers were taken under his presidency. Ever since March 2003, when the US invaded the dictator-held country of Iraq, not one terrorist attack has been successful on US soil. Therefore, I really have no idea how you can claim that we, the civilians at home, are less safe.

3. Al Quaeda strengthened? How so? Im sure there will be those that flash around numbers but it is very difficult to find reliability in numbers tracking people we really weren't attempting to track until 2003. Regardless of any numbers, the majority of Iraq enjoys freedom. Al Quaeda could not be strengthened and have this occur.

Final comment on this piece: If you honestly believe that the war was nothing more than rattling a hornet's nest than you also must believe that Al Quaeda poses (or posed, depending on your perspective) zero threat to the United States. I, personally, can not believe that a group committed to the decimation of the United States poses zero threat.

Again, I hope that I am not sounding too harsh here. It is painfully hard to elucidate tone on an internet board but I am trying to do nothing more than offer a different perspective while trying to further explore your own.

How did they lie? Do I have to pull up clips and quotes of them trying to shift responsibility for 9/11 onto Sadam? Nothing more than fabrication. I work closely with many of the families in my town that lost loved ones in that attacks, and I thought it was disgusting that the administration invoked the attacks in an attempt to sell the war.

There was 0 connection between Sadam and 9/11. 0 connection between Iraq and Islamic Terrorism. Infact, Iraq was a fairley secular state. One could find more ties, moentarily and otherwise, between the ruling families of Saudi Arabia and Islamic Terrorism than anyone of official capacity in Iraq.

As for less safe, I didn't know that was even up for arguement. That's what the past several national intelligence estimates have stated, along with the fact that our occupation has strengthened the cause of Islamic Terrorism.

As I see it, it's pretty much fact that we're worse of now than before we invaded Iraq.

It's simply indisputable that Al Quaeda is stronger now. Every credible intelligence source states as much.

That's my line and I'm sticking to it!