who do u think will win US presidential election of 08

[dream gurl]

well i hope one of the rebublican wins: john edward,mrs.clintin,obama HOW BOUT YOU:peace:

[Talha777]

well i hope one of the rebublican wins: john edward,mrs.clintin,obama HOW BOUT YOU

None of the people you mentioned are Republicans, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are all Democrats. I don't know who will win the election, its anyone's guess. It seems the Democratic Party is all fired up though and quite popular at the moment. However, their 2006 Congressional victory seems to be based on the fact that the Republican base, Evangelical Christians, withheld their vote due to corruption scandals, Pastor Haggard scandal, and of course Iraq invasion. But if the Republicans use this time to clean up their image and restore their original ideals, they will probably win back the Evangelicals, and therefore win the presidential election come 2008. I think Giulianni will most likely be the next American president. I hope he does get elected, because his hardline and anti-Islamic stance will hopefully make more Muslims realize that America is the enemy, and Evangelical Christianity is the greatest assault launched by Satan to date.

[wilberhum]

well i hope one of the rebublican wins: john edward,mrs.clintin,obama HOW BOUT YOU:peace:

As Talha777 point out they are all Democrats. But my hopes are in the sequence you listed. But I fear Talha777 is right when he said "Giulianni".

To bad he didn't pass on another hate message. The boy needs help.

[Erundur]

Too early to tell, heck the primaries really do not start for another year.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Um_ahmad]

A women. Mrs. clinton.

[YusufNoor]

well i hope one of the rebublican wins: john edward,mrs.clintin,obama HOW BOUT YOU:peace:

:? :? :?


:sl:

the Newt Gingrich/Condi Rice ticket...

unless Harold Ford gets in the race...
[man, i hope i remembered his name right...:-[ ]

:w:

[Keltoi]

Right now, which is still really early, it looks like Rudy Guilliani has the edge. His experience running New York City is an asset, and he is probably the perfect middle of the road candidate, being socially liberal and politically conservative.

Hillary Clinton might be popular with certain elements of the Democratic Party, but she is probably unelectable in a nationwide vote.

Barak Obama is idealistic, but his inexperience and the early hype by the media might take the wind out of his sails as the election and the debates grow closer.

John McCain is probably the only serious Republican challenger to Rudy at this point, but his stock has fallen dramatically with both Dems and Reps.

[Al_Imaan]

Hillary Clinton....although she might not win...

[Agnostic]

:? :? :?


:sl:

the Newt Gingrich/Condi Rice ticket...

unless Harold Ford gets in the race...
[man, i hope i remembered his name right...:-[ ]

:w:

I found this amusing;D


Gingrich admits having an affair in Clinton era
Former speaker who led impeachment push cites ‘periods of weakness’


WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."
Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.
"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."
Widely considered a mastermind of the Republican revolution that swept Congress in the 1994 elections, Gingrich remains wildly popular among many conservatives. He has repeatedly placed near the top of Republican presidential polls recently, even though he has not formed a campaign.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17527506/

[north_malaysian]

Bush would practice dictatorship... and elect himself as the "Eternal President of the USA" because he has so many thing to do.

[vpb]

[BANANA]if I would run as a candidate for president of US would anyone vote for me? :D :D :D [/BANANA]

[Bittersteel]

Billy Graham!Haha he will activate the Army of the United States and declare war on the Islamic world!

[Muslim Knight]

Doesn't matter who wins. They're all the same to me.

[united]

[BANANA]if I would run as a candidate for president of US would anyone vote for me? :D :D :D [/BANANA]

Poeple would vote for you if they ever heard about you. But unfortunately the press wil never give you a voice.
Realistically thought, who knows and who cares? Republican or Democrat? Two sides of the same coin.
Excess flag waving and cheering over a drama.

[vpb]

united, why? for ex. I could make you my secretary :D people could just tick my name :P

[ACC]

None of the people you mentioned are Republicans, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are all Democrats. I don't know who will win the election, its anyone's guess. It seems the Democratic Party is all fired up though and quite popular at the moment. However, their 2006 Congressional victory seems to be based on the fact that the Republican base, Evangelical Christians, withheld their vote due to corruption scandals, Pastor Haggard scandal, and of course Iraq invasion. But if the Republicans use this time to clean up their image and restore their original ideals, they will probably win back the Evangelicals, and therefore win the presidential election come 2008. I think Giulianni will most likely be the next American president. I hope he does get elected, because his hardline and anti-Islamic stance will hopefully make more Muslims realize that America is the enemy, and Evangelical Christianity is the greatest assault launched by Satan to date.

I dont know why you live in the West at all.

[MTAFFI]

I dont know why you live in the West at all.

he is a SATANIST, just ignore him

[ACC]

he is a SATANIST, just ignore him

He is a satanist? Not sure what that means. Do you mean the satanist church?

[KAding]

If I were an American (which I am not, so I can't vote), I would probably choose McCain. I hoped he would win in 2000, but no such luck :(.

[tomtomsmom]

None of the people you mentioned are Republicans, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are all Democrats. I don't know who will win the election, its anyone's guess. It seems the Democratic Party is all fired up though and quite popular at the moment. However, their 2006 Congressional victory seems to be based on the fact that the Republican base, Evangelical Christians, withheld their vote due to corruption scandals, Pastor Haggard scandal, and of course Iraq invasion. But if the Republicans use this time to clean up their image and restore their original ideals, they will probably win back the Evangelicals, and therefore win the presidential election come 2008. I think Giulianni will most likely be the next American president. I hope he does get elected, because his hardline and anti-Islamic stance will hopefully make more Muslims realize that America is the enemy, and Evangelical Christianity is the greatest assault launched by Satan to date.

Dude, you have a seriously twisted way of looking at things. +o( +o( +o(


As for the question this thread is for....... I have no idea who will win. It is still a long way off and people are still entering/exiting for the primaries. Time will tell............................

But if Oprah would run, she would win in a landslide vote!!!!!

[ACC]

Dude, you have a seriously twisted way of looking at things. +o( +o( +o(


As for the question this thread is for....... I have no idea who will win. It is still a long way off and people are still entering/exiting for the primaries. Time will tell............................

But if Oprah would run, she would win in a landslide vote!!!!!

As of right now, I would prefer Mcain myself. Cant see myself voting for hillary (never!), or edwards. Barak seems ok, but he definitely benefits from the unkown right now.

[united]

Talha777, u are seriously funny. you have a lot in common with the evangelicals which you so despise

[AHMED_GUREY]

David Palmer

[MTAFFI]

David Palmer

he was killed??!! Is that what you are getting at? What about Tom Lennox

[AHMED_GUREY]

what? i'm still in season 4 what happened did he die?:?

[MTAFFI]

what? i'm still in season 4 what happened did he die?:?

ohhhhh I cant tell you sorry about that, didnt mean to ruin anything for you..

[snakelegs]

who will win?
another multi-millionaire bought and paid for by the same corporate interests as his/her opponent.

[Muezzin]

Either a woman or a black man. Everybody wins. Sort of.

But forget those people, my vote goes to Jar Jar Binks.

Kinda makes you glad I don't live in the U.S., eh?

[Kittygyal]

salamualikum.
if i was in US right which wished i was :( i would vote for Mcain myself but what a piety i am i UK right now! whomever but so not W.BUSH!
ma'assalama

[Woodrow]

:w:

I believe this is probably the best time I have ever seen for a good strong Independent to win. There has gotten to be so much similarity between Dems and Republicans that the country is ready for a third party.

An Independent with a good clean background could carry the Election with little need for any party support, provided the News media and the public sees it as a National story of interest.

We do have some people that have made national news and they could attract a sizable following. Cindy Shehan for one. I would not vote for her, but she may be a better choice over what I see being offered. Of Course I doubt she would even think of running.

Where is Ross Perot when he has a chance?

[ACC]

:w:

I believe this is probably the best time I have ever seen for a good strong Independent to win. There has gotten to be so much similarity between Dems and Republicans that the country is ready for a third party.

An Independent with a good clean background could carry the Election with little need for any party support, provided the News media and the public sees it as a National story of interest.

We do have some people that have made national news and they could attract a sizable following. Cindy Shehan for one. I would not vote for her, but she may be a better choice over what I see being offered. Of Course I doubt she would even think of running.

Where is Ross Perot when he has a chance?

IMO, Sheehan would not receive much support simply because she speaks too bluntly. A good politician needs to be like a good boxer. Bob and weave, so that no one can hit you. In other words, she speaks to clearly about what she believes in, so she would be an easy target.

[Keltoi]

IMO, Sheehan would not receive much support simply because she speaks too bluntly. A good politician needs to be like a good boxer. Bob and weave, so that no one can hit you. In other words, she speaks to clearly about what she believes in, so she would be an easy target.

Not to mention the fact that her views aren't accepted by the vast majority of the country.

[ACC]

Not to mention the fact that her views aren't accepted by the vast majority of the country.

Yes, that too. This includes me as well.

[wilberhum]

What is truly amazing about this race is until 1920 women couldn’t even vote. Now we have a woman front runner.
I remember back in the early 60’s a black man was lynched because he voted. Now we have a black man running who is in second place and narrowing the gap.

How far we have come, how much further we have to go.

[Pygoscelis]

I can see two vital things that will decide the election.

First, will the democrats distinguish themselves from the republicans? They were swept into the house because people were sick of Bush and sick of his wars. But thus far the democrats have done extremely little to show that they are any different. Both Hillary and Obama are supporters of the war.
If the Democrats fail to distinguish themselves from the republicans it will be a devil-we-know beats devil-we-don't scenario and it'll be i favour of the republicans.

Second, will the Republicans transform, dump the neocons and get back to traditional conservative roots? If somebody like Juliani wins the republican nomination (doubtful but who knows) it will be a whole new party and the Democrats won't be able to play up the Bush demon as strongly.

[Pygoscelis]

Y'know who could win the election without even really campaigning?

Oprah.

Think about it.

[north_malaysian]

:w:

I believe this is probably the best time I have ever seen for a good strong Independent to win.

Like Ralph Nader? I dont think AMericans would vote an Arab to be their President.

[tomtomsmom]

Y'know who could win the election without even really campaigning?

Oprah.

Think about it.

I have been saying the same thing for years.................

[dream gurl]

I Just Hope A Rebublican Wins : Yeah Peace

[wilberhum]

I Just Hope A Rebublican Wins : Yeah Peace

The same group that brought us Iraq? :?

[Pygoscelis]

As odd as it may sound, and even though I'm as anti-Bush as they come, I don't see a Republican win in '08 as being horrific. I seriously doubt it will be remotely the same people as Bush's crew. I think during the election the party will distance itself as much as possible from that regime, given the approval poll numbers.

This isn't a president that can have one of his crew run and win the presidency after he is gone.

If it goes back to the republicans as they were pre-Reagan, it may not be bad at all. They were once a decent party.

[Keltoi]

As odd as it may sound, and even though I'm as anti-Bush as they come, I don't see a Republican win in '08 as being horrific. I seriously doubt it will be remotely the same people as Bush's crew. I think during the election the party will distance itself as much as possible from that regime, given the approval poll numbers.

This isn't a president that can have one of his crew run and win the presidency after he is gone.

If it goes back to the republicans as they were pre-Reagan, it may not be bad at all. They were once a decent party.

I could say the same about the Democrats. They used to be a decent party too. You could go a step further and say that American politics in general used to be decent. However, the political parties of today are handicapped by special interests and partisan deadlock. I think the time is ripe for a third party, but unfortunately the American people seem to fear major change until given no other choice.

[Pygoscelis]

I had hope for the Democrats, until this "nonbinding resolution" garbage. Talk about spineless. I have no faith in them now. The US needs a complete political overhaul.

[dream gurl]

The same group that brought us Iraq? :?

Expalin what u sayin dont really know what u mean PEACE

[wilberhum]

Expalin what u sayin dont really know what u mean PEACE

A Republican President with a Republican Congress and the Iraq War starts.

I want a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress.

And I want it before Bush starts war with Iran.

[dream gurl]

A Republican President with a Republican Congress and the Iraq War starts.

I want a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress.

And I want it before Bush starts war with Iran.

no i think dats wher u got wrong aint bush domocrat also clintin was b4 bush and he was a best rebublican president if im not mistaken

[wilberhum]

no i think dats wher u got wrong aint bush domocrat also clintin was b4 bush and he was a best rebublican president if im not mistaken

No, Bush Is Rebublican. Bush beat out Clinton. Clinton Is a Democrat.

Go here:
http://www.nndb.com/people/360/000022294/
http://www.nndb.com/people/427/000026349/

You live in the USA?
I hope you are not old enough to vote.

[Um_ahmad]

Anyone but bush......................

[sameer]

salamualikum.
if i was in US right which wished i was :( i would vote for Mcain myself but what a piety i am i UK right now! whomever but so not W.BUSH!
ma'assalama

SO us nationals who are outside cant vote? not even at their embassies?

[Agnostic]

SO us nationals who are outside cant vote? not even at their embassies?

Actually you can vote from anywhere if you are a US citizen, Its called an absentee ballad.

[Erundur]

salamualikum.
if i was in US right which wished i was :( i would vote for Mcain myself but what a piety i am i UK right now! whomever but so not W.BUSH!
ma'assalama

I apologize, I was not speaking with a right tone, but...why would you vote for a man who supported the Iraq war and still does? What views both Domestically and Internationally do you feel that he will do right?

[Darkseid]

None of the people you mentioned are Republicans, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are all Democrats. I don't know who will win the election, its anyone's guess. It seems the Democratic Party is all fired up though and quite popular at the moment. However, their 2006 Congressional victory seems to be based on the fact that the Republican base, Evangelical Christians, withheld their vote due to corruption scandals, Pastor Haggard scandal, and of course Iraq invasion. But if the Republicans use this time to clean up their image and restore their original ideals, they will probably win back the Evangelicals, and therefore win the presidential election come 2008. I think Giulianni will most likely be the next American president. I hope he does get elected, because his hardline and anti-Islamic stance will hopefully make more Muslims realize that America is the enemy, and Evangelical Christianity is the greatest assault launched by Satan to date.

You are aware that this whole America is the enemy thing is just paranoid insanity fueled by the Beber-Wars where Americans had attacked muslim bebers for pirating American Ships. Ever since then, most muslims (and almost all conservative muslims) have seen Americans as that same image seen by the bebers.

There is a muslim representative in the Lower Legislative Branch in the United States. Why would the United States be an enemy of Islam if it is willing to have Islam as a part of its law making?

And if someone is taking over country and not persecuting you because of your faith, then they aren't an enemy of your faith. The conquest of Jordan by Syria should be looked as the same as a conquest of Jordan a non-muslim state. If you believe people are equal before god then they will have no reason to persecute you. And without a reason, their actions will be antagonized throughout the world and so the world shall turn against them. As long you turn against those that don't seek to persecute, you will always be an enemy to the establishment of your own faith. You risk its innocence with blood and prevent the peace of god to be established by their being more blood spilled. Violence only makes more violence. And as long is there is violence, there can never be peace.

[MTAFFI]

You are aware that this whole America is the enemy thing is just paranoid insanity fueled by the Beber-Wars where Americans had attacked muslim bebers for pirating American Ships. Ever since then, most muslims (and almost all conservative muslims) have seen Americans as that same image seen by the bebers.

There is a muslim representative in the Lower Legislative Branch in the United States. Why would the United States be an enemy of Islam if it is willing to have Islam as a part of its law making?

And if someone is taking over country and not persecuting you because of your faith, then they aren't an enemy of your faith. The conquest of Jordan by Syria should be looked as the same as a conquest of Jordan a non-muslim state. If you believe people are equal before god then they will have no reason to persecute you. And without a reason, their actions will be antagonized throughout the world and so the world shall turn against them. As long you turn against those that don't seek to persecute, you will always be an enemy to the establishment of your own faith. You risk its innocence with blood and prevent the peace of god to be established by their being more blood spilled. Violence only makes more violence. And as long is there is violence, there can never be peace.

perfectly said rep for you

[Keltoi]

With John Edwards wife being diagnosed with cancer again, this will give Edwards a slight jump in the polls, and depending on what happens to Elizabeth Edwards in the future, we could see a narrowing of the margin between him and the rest of the Dem pack.

[Erundur]

With John Edwards wife being diagnosed with cancer again, this will give Edwards a slight jump in the polls, and depending on what happens to Elizabeth Edwards in the future, we could see a narrowing of the margin between him and the rest of the Dem pack.

No one should underestimate him IMO, he's done a lot at the grass roots level just like Bill Clinton in New Hampshire I believe, and Clinton came up the ranks to take the nom. I can see Edwards might get the VP nod again.

[Khan-Ghalgha]

Hmmm, sadly enough I think it doesnt really matter who will win the elections, same group will be in power, no I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I still think it's a big spectacle, and it's been that way for a long time.

watch "Money masters" - very nice documentary, the best thing about it - it only uses widely acknowledged facts and could give you food for thought.

[Pygoscelis]

Actually you can vote from anywhere if you are a US citizen, Its called an absentee ballad.

I think you mean ballot.

Absentee ballad sounds like an old country song. :D

[Darkseid]

It is funny but Southern Democrats tend to make better presidents, well in the common era of the United States. Carter and Clinton are both Southern Democrats. Carter is from Georgia and Clinton is from Arkansas. Both are southern U.S. States. (By the way isn't it funny that one of the U.S. States would have the same name as one in Eurasia near Armenia). Bush is from Texas, but that's really a western state more so than a southern State. They have cowboys and big influence on the wild wild west, that's why it is a western state. Reagon is from California and Bush Senior is from Massachusetts. None of these presidents are democrats and none of them are from the true south.

Now out of the present contenders.

: Democrats:
Biden is from Delaware, not a Southern State.
Omaba is from Illinois, not a Southern State.
Hillary is from New York, not a Southern State.
Dodd is from Connecticut, not a Southern State.
Gravel is from Alaska, not a Southern State.
Kucinich is from Ohio, not a Southern State.
Richardson is from New Mexico, though South of most states, it still isn't a true Southern State.
Clark (Possible contender) is from Illinois, not a Southern State.
Gore (Possible contender) is from D.C., a district between the South and the North.
Sharpton (Possible contender) is from New York, not a Southern State.
Edwards is from North Carolina and that is a Southern State.

Edwards is the only reliable contender for the Democratic Party out of all contenders base on how politics are run for the current era of history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Republican:

Brownback is from Kansas, not a Southern State.
Cox is from Illinois, not a Southern State.
Giuliani is from New York, not a Southern State.
Hunter is from California, not a Southern State.
McCain is from Arizona, not a Southern State like New Mexico.
Paul is from Texas, not a Southern State like Arizona and New Mexico. Texas is in the South, but it is really a Western State and not a Southern State.
Romney is from Massachusetts, not a Southern State.
Smith is from Oregon, not a Southern State.

No other contender matters because they obviously aren't and won't run for office. Especially if Giuliani and Romney where their opponents. Talk about YIKES to be a republican.

Anyways Edwards is the only most definite contender that is from the True South like Carter and Clinton before him and therefore is the only reliable contender. (Carter is gone senile due to old age by the way, but that's because he is over eighty or ninety years old). United States has to rely on true Southern Presidents to succeed in the global world or it will be brought down by future Western and Northern Presidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...uth_Modern.png

The are in Dark Red is the TRUE south of the United States. Those that are in medium red are considered to be a part of the south, but they really aren't because they have such a mix variety of people from the North and West migrating into that area. Those ares that are striped are occassionally considered to be a part of the South. But they are really a part of the North.

Texas really isn't a part of the South. It is populary called a part of the South, because it was a confederate state. But its culture is more West of a mix of New Mexico and Arizona than it is like Lousianna, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and other TRUE Southern States.

Hmmm, sadly enough I think it doesnt really matter who will win the elections, same group will be in power, no I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I still think it's a big spectacle, and it's been that way for a long time.

watch "Money masters" - very nice documentary, the best thing about it - it only uses widely acknowledged facts and could give you food for thought.

The only conspiracy in the United States besides the government being afraid of its own citizens is the wealthy keeping their fixed control over the poor. Edwards is a middle-class person. You can bet your top dollar he isn't a part of any conspiracy. Otherwise he would be paid enough to keep his mouth shut.

[Keltoi]

[QUOTE][Edwards is a middle-class person. You can bet your top dollar he isn't a part of any conspiracy. Otherwise he would be paid enough to keep his mouth shut/QUOTE]

Edwards is a multi-millionaire trial lawyer who got rich suing corporations. He is far from "middle-class".

[Cognescenti]

Anyone who believes that recent American military assertiveness is all Bush's idea is just deluding themselves. Indeed, as Bush has suffered in the polls due to the lack of progress in Iraq, he has turned more to multilateralism and negotiation (Iran, NK). His hands have been tied somewhat. If y'all think that McCain or Giuliani are going to be some kind of interantional push-overs should they be elected, you are sadly mistaken. Even Clinton, were she President would be under enormous pressure to respond to an over act of Iranian aggression, even more so, for eg., than if it were to happen under Bush's tenure. Bush has to prove he can negotiate. Clinton would have to prove she can be tough.

[England]

I don't care who wins it but I don't think I'd like the idea of Obama winning it...

[Keltoi]

As long as it isn't a Democrat. As a conservative I've had to fight the urge to projectile vomit every time George Bush makes a decision, but it is still better than a Democrat in office.

[Darkseid]

As long as it isn't a Democrat. As a conservative I've had to fight the urge to projectile vomit every time George Bush makes a decision, but it is still better than a Democrat in office.

Better than Hillary? Yes I agree. Better than Clinton or Carter? No, you are dead wrong about that.

Show me some proof that Bush is better than either Clinton or Carter?

And Bush is a neo-conservative. Neo-conservatives are former liberals and socialists. They aren't true conservatives and they run the Republican Party. McCain is a neo-conservative. Allen is a neo-conservative. Cheney is a neo-conservative. Have a neo-conservative in office and there won't be an America. There will be a civil war with al-queda, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria choosing sides. If we have another neo-conservative in office, we are going to be having a war with Iran. There is no doubt about it and the result will be gas prices going over five dollars. No middle or lower-class American (over 80% of Americans) are going to like that idea. That is enough to bring out a civil war. And do you think we can survive another Civil War with hostile outside forces coming in at the same time? And it might even go beyond just a Civil War. We might even have an actual nuclear holocaust. I know you christians really want Jesus to return to Earth. But bringing forth an actual end of days won't make him happy. You might have the return of Jesus, but he is going to be furious. And like the fury of god, you won't be going to heaven soon after. God doesn't reward those who sin.

Romney and Guiliani are your only choices and they are both not what you would have expected. Guiliani is an Italian Catholic that supports liberal ideology. He is a liberal republican. Romney is almost the same and he is a Mormon.

As a christian conservative, could you honestly say you would support having a catholic or a mormon in office that supports liberal ideology?

Forget about McCain, he was gone from the start.


The only two people besides Hagel that can get the world back on the right track is Edwards and Obama. The reason why I say Hagel is because he is the only Republican that has courage and intelligence.

I don't care who wins it but I don't think I'd like the idea of Obama winning it...

I agree if it was about Obama suddenly turning to presidency right after becoming a Senator. It seems very Anti-Christ like material in terms of gaining power. But it might just be a coincidence.

But Obama is concentrating on domestic issues and that is something America has been neglecting. No matter how you like Obama, he still is a better president for the United States than most current contenders. Edwards is the only person (besides Hagel of course) that could be a better presidential candidate and a better future president.

[Keltoi]

Better than Hillary? Yes I agree. Better than Clinton or Carter? No, you are dead wrong about that.

Show me some proof that Bush is better than either Clinton or Carter?

And Bush is a neo-conservative. Neo-conservatives are former liberals and socialists. They aren't true conservatives and they run the Republican Party. McCain is a neo-conservative. Allen is a neo-conservative. Cheney is a neo-conservative. Have a neo-conservative in office and there won't be an America. There will be a civil war with al-queda, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria choosing sides. If we have another neo-conservative in office, we are going to be having a war with Iran. There is no doubt about it and the result will be gas prices going over five dollars. No middle or lower-class American (over 80% of Americans) are going to like that idea. That is enough to bring out a civil war. And do you think we can survive another Civil War with hostile outside forces coming in at the same time? And it might even go beyond just a Civil War. We might even have an actual nuclear holocaust. I know you christians really want Jesus to return to Earth. But bringing forth an actual end of days won't make him happy. You might have the return of Jesus, but he is going to be furious. And like the fury of god, you won't be going to heaven soon after. God doesn't reward those who sin.

Romney and Guiliani are your only choices and they are both not what you would have expected. Guiliani is an Italian Catholic that supports liberal ideology. He is a liberal republican. Romney is almost the same and he is a Mormon.

As a christian conservative, could you honestly say you would support having a catholic or a mormon in office that supports liberal ideology?

Forget about McCain, he was gone from the start.


The only two people besides Hagel that can get the world back on the right track is Edwards and Obama. The reason why I say Hagel is because he is the only Republican that has courage and intelligence.



I agree if it was about Obama suddenly turning to presidency right after becoming a Senator. It seems very Anti-Christ like material in terms of gaining power. But it might just be a coincidence.

But Obama is concentrating on domestic issues and that is something America has been neglecting. No matter how you like Obama, he still is a better president for the United States than most current contenders. Edwards is the only person (besides Hagel of course) that could be a better presidential candidate and a better future president.

Actually Fred Thompson is my first choice. Guilliani being the second. As for "neo-cons", that is an overused word that has little meaning these days. Most of the true neo-conservatives in the Bush administration have already left. Douglas Fythe, Richard Pearle, David Frum, etc. My favorite neo-conservative author, Fukayama, has changed his tune on foreign policy. For all intents and purposes, the neo-conservative agenda is history.

As for being Christian, that really doesn't factor in much with my choice for president. We live in a secular republic, and I choose based on who I believe will do the best job at running and improving the republic.

[Darkseid]

Actually Fred Thompson is my first choice.

No show Thompson? Are you really going for someone that might not ever start running for office? If I were you, I'd choose Hagel. At least Hagel has the balls to stand against corruption. He is the only decent Republican that I have seen since Eisenhower.

Guilliani being the second.

You are really going to go for someone that supports the opposite side of the (liberal-conservative) political spectrum. Well aren't you quite a shifter. Or maybe you just support Republicans, even if they were liberal and socialist.

As for "neo-cons", that is an overused word that has little meaning these days.

Oh please. Present some proof for crying out loud. Everyone (all true political know-it-alls) still uses the term "Neo-Conservative" and it still has the exact same meaning as before. It means power hunger, rich spoiling, not caring about a **** thing that goes on in America, former liberal and socialist republicans.

Most of the true neo-conservatives in the Bush administration have already left.

Geez you sure like spamming out nonesense. Bush's administratrion is still full of neo-conservatives. Cheney, Bush, Condi, Rove, and Gonzales are all neo-conservatives.

Douglas Fythe, Richard Pearle, David Frum, etc. My favorite neo-conservative author, Fukayama, has changed his tune on foreign policy. For all intents and purposes, the neo-conservative agenda is history.

Whatever you say, god. Would you like to make another declaration without evidence? Come on its not like we were presenting facts anyways.

As for being Christian, that really doesn't factor in much with my choice for president.

Then you aren't an actual conservative. You are a moderate then. Because I have never seen a conservative christian take no interest in his faith. It is like a pure contradiction. That or you are lying just to change the flow of this discussion.

We live in a secular republic, and I choose based on who I believe will do the best job at running and improving the republic.

You are aware this isn't just a republic, right? And the best person to get the job done shouldn't be based on beliefs. There is an actual science as to who does the job better. And there are statistics to go along with it as well.

Statistically speaking anyone from the true south (North of Florida, South of Virginia, East of Texas) can do a super job at taking care of our country.

Statistically speaking anyone that support libertarian ideas is not suited to becoming a president.

Statistically speaking anyone that supports Reagonism (Neo-conservative idea that is still alive, my brother) shouldn't ever be a part of politics.

Statistically speaking anyone that wants to control the world should also not take a part in politics. We should just let the world take care of its self, so we can become less of a target by terrorism.

[Keltoi]

As for Hagel, yes he is a good choice. However, I've always liked Fred Thompson. To me he is a straight shooter with pragmatism. If he runs he gets my vote, if he doesn't it will probably be Guilliani, depending on the vibe I get from the debates.

As for Guilliani being a liberal socialist. Yes he leans more liberal socially, but he is a true fiscal conservative, which I believe is vitally important in this stage of our history. Like I said, it will depend on the debates. I don't vote for a Republican just because they are Republican. In fact I voted for Clinton against Bob Dole.

Now, as for neo-conservatives. Again you are using the term way too broadly. Neoconservatism means alot of things, and self-proclaimed neoconservatives argue about what the word means all the time. Some embraced a policy of complete economic and military domination after the fall of the Soviet Union, which saw the birth of neoconservatism and the backlash against 1960's liberalism. Others believed that promoting democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East, would do wonders to fix many of the problems there. It was, and to some extent is, a political think tank made up of all conservative branches with competing interests. You have the Jewish conservatives, like Perle, Fythe, Wolfowitz, etc. They are concerned with protecting Israel and stabilizing the Middle East. Then you have Christian conservatives, like Pat Robertson, Tom Delay, etc. Nationalists like Pat Buchanan. Reaganites like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Summing up the White House of George W. Bush as being "neoconservative" was probably true the first four years, but most of the self-proclaimed neo-conservatives are gone, replaced by more traditional Reagan Republicans. One could say we are dealing with a situation spawned by neoconservative foreign policy, but even neoconservatives aren't happy with many of the decisions made.

As for calling me a moderate or a liar. Yes, I am a moderate. I don't believe in theocracy and I never will. I can practice my faith fully. Am I more likely to vote for a Christian than a non-Christian? Probably, depending on what issues the candidate is running on and what they stand for.

As for your "statistics", that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

[Woodrow]

I think that no matter who the democrats nominate, it will be difficult to find any body who will not pull more votes than any republican. they are really going to have scrap the bottom of the barrel if they are going to loose this election.

[E'jaazi]

Since none of them are ruling by what Allah has ordained, what difference does it really make?

[Erundur]

:salamext:

Edit: Please Delete. Thank you.

:sl:

[Pygoscelis]

My opinion is moot as I'm not a USA citizen so won't be voting on this.

That said, I'm as liberal as they come an I'd be ok with Guliani in office. I'd actually prefer him over Hillary.

[Akil]

I would like McCain but Giulianni seems alot more likely

[Keltoi]

I would like McCain but Giulianni seems alot more likely

What happened to McCain is fairly easy to figure out. The media loved him at first because he spoke out against the Bush administration whenever he felt it necessary. They called him a "maverick". Now that he refuses to go along with the media support of a pull out, he is no longer the media darling he once was.

[Darkseid]

I think that no matter who the democrats nominate, it will be difficult to find any body who will not pull more votes than any republican. they are really going to have scrap the bottom of the barrel if they are going to loose this election.

So you are saying that though Bush is one aweful president that is very much unpopular it won't effect the outcome of votes in his political party?

I don't think most Americans follow the political line base on candidates really so much.

The people who vote for the president are the electors assigned by the political party and sometimes they swing either way.

You could have people New York all vote for Edwards or Obama and yet their electors would all vote for Romney or Guiliani. This could also go vice versa and it is why I hate presidential politics. Who cares if the person is or isn't popular, the electors are still the ones that decide.

[Keltoi]

So you are saying that though Bush is one aweful president that is very much unpopular it won't effect the outcome of votes in his political party?

I don't think most Americans follow the political line base on candidates really so much.

The people who vote for the president are the electors assigned by the political party and sometimes they swing either way.

You could have people New York all vote for Edwards or Obama and yet their electors would all vote for Romney or Guiliani. This could also go vice versa and it is why I hate presidential politics. Who cares if the person is or isn't popular, the electors are still the ones that decide.

Do you know that last time electors went against the popular vote? It was in 1876.

[Woodrow]

So you are saying that though Bush is one aweful president that is very much unpopular it won't effect the outcome of votes in his political party?

I don't think most Americans follow the political line base on candidates really so much.

The people who vote for the president are the electors assigned by the political party and sometimes they swing either way.

You could have people New York all vote for Edwards or Obama and yet their electors would all vote for Romney or Guiliani. This could also go vice versa and it is why I hate presidential politics. Who cares if the person is or isn't popular, the electors are still the ones that decide.

Bush is a Republican. that is why I said the Democrats could nominate almost anybody and win. The republican party is not very popular right now.

The people elect the electors, not the party. The Electors are not tied to any party but as a rule they will vote along with the Majority vote in the state they are elected from. It is possible for a candidate to get the majority of the popular vote but loose in the electorial votes. The states with the most electorial votes could have a small voter turn out and the candidate would win them but even if he won the smaller states with a huge majority, he would not have the electorial votes to carry the election..

If a candidate can carry the states of California, Texas, New York and Florida that would give him just about enough ectorial votes to win the Election, no matter how the rest of the Nation votes.

This link may help explain. It is a confusing system.

http://electoral-vote.com/

[Darkseid]

Do you know that last time electors went against the popular vote? It was in 1876.

Did you know that most popular votes are rigged? And there pretty much isn't a care in the world that there are rigged or a manner or proving that there were rigged, unless of course you cared enough to analyze the results like I have.

Bush is a Republican. that is why I said the Democrats could nominate almost anybody and win. The republican party is not very popular right now.

The people elect the electors, not the party. The Electors are not tied to any party but as a rule they will vote along with the Majority vote in the state they are elected from. It is possible for a candidate to get the majority of the popular vote but loose in the electorial votes. The states with the most electorial votes could have a small voter turn out and the candidate would win them but even if he won the smaller states with a huge majority, he would not have the electorial votes to carry the election..

If a candidate can carry the states of California, Texas, New York and Florida that would give him just about enough ectorial votes to win the Election, no matter how the rest of the Nation votes.

This link may help explain. It is a confusing system.

http://electoral-vote.com/

The people elect those electors associated to Bush. They have no ideas as to who thoses electors are. In sense it is like a blind ballot and therefore it is morelike the political parties selling out.

In either case, electors make a bad election.

Also about those states. Yes I agree. Florida, New York, California, and Texas should be divided into smaller states. The Metropolitan Areas of Houston (city in Texas) and New York City have been for a long time trying to secede and create their own states. California during a petition has been considered to divide up to four states because of its cultural differences amongsts these divided areas. Texas is allow to divide into as many as five smaller states. And the panhandel area of Florida as well as the Florida Keys have been trying to secede and create their own states or country. For the Florida Keys they still think of themselves as the Independent Conch Republic.

[Keltoi]

The electoral college system has worked fairly well since the Constitution was put into action. Usually it is people who are upset that their candidate lost an election that whine about the electoral system.

[Khan-Ghalgha]

Since none of them are ruling by what Allah has ordained, what difference does it really make?

completely agree, useless thread

[Cognescenti]

Since none of them are ruling by what Allah has ordained, what difference does it really make?

I actually welcome this statement, despite its overt and fully intended insult toward the other 80% of the human beings on the face of the planet. The minute the "Mulism world" stops worrying or caring about the United States will be a cause for great celebration here.


E'jaazi;

With ideas like that, perhaps you should run for something. Perhaps, if you look hard enough you can find an "Islamic" country which is not "ruling by what Allah has ordained".


!@@ ^(O#

[Cognescenti]

completely agree, useless thread

Plenty of uselessnes to go around, ace

[Khan-Ghalgha]

I actually welcome this statement, despite its overt and fully intended insult toward the other 80% of the human beings on the face of the planet. The minute the "Mulism world" stops worrying or caring about the United States will be a cause for great celebration here.

hahahahaha, the minute US stops killing muslims, gonna be a a cause for great celebration here as well.

[Cognescenti]

hahahahaha, the minute US stops killing muslims, gonna be a a cause for great celebration here as well.

Yes. Quite a funny topic. I find myself giggling uncontrolably everytime I see someone jumping 112 stories to their death rather than be incinerated. Tell you what. Have your guys stop sending nervous guys taped to their steering wheel into crowded markets and I will see what I can do.

[Khan-Ghalgha]

You very prolly cant do s**t with that situation, well... me neither tho.

Lets just say it's a deadlock and only all out war will resolve it, something like WW3, I know you guys are sure you will have an easy win with all your weapons of mass destruction, you should be confident.

[wilberhum]

You very prolly cant do s**t with that situation, well... me neither tho.

Lets just say it's a deadlock and only all out war will resolve it, something like WW3, I know you guys are sure you will have an easy win with all your weapons of mass destruction, you should be confident.

Why should we nuke some one?
Who should we nuke?
In WWIII who will be on the different side?
Why do you want war?
And last, which candidate do you think will help ensure the war?

[Khan-Ghalgha]

So many questions, it's really simple imho.

West perceives Islam as a threat(mostly cos of 9/11) and wants to pacify and control it

Muslims ain't too happy with it, getting bombed might be one of the reasons

The war is inevitable I think, well I hope I'm wrong, odds look ain't good for us

[wilberhum]

So many questions, it's really simple imho.

West perceives Islam as a threat(mostly cos of 9/11) and wants to pacify and control it

Muslims ain't too happy with it, getting bombed might be one of the reasons

The war is inevitable I think, well I hope I'm wrong, odds look ain't good for us

After 9/11, why wouldn't the West preceive Islam as a threat?
What ain't Muslims too happy with? Islam?
If those in control think like you, then I would agree. War is inevitable. :skeleton:
Well I'm going to bed now, so I don't what to get a Hate-On. :skeleton:
Sweet dreams. :D

[Khan-Ghalgha]

You too, hope my hatedness(I'm sure it's not a word) won't disturb your sleep:D

I'm gonna hate a lil bit more and go to sleep as well hope I don't dream hate dreams:D

[MTAFFI]

Why should we nuke some one?

Because we are the evil west

Who should we nuke?

Everyone one else of course, we are evil

In WWIII who will be on the different side?

See above

Why do you want war?

Because in secret he believes himself to be supreme

And last, which candidate do you think will help ensure the war?

Bush is going to pull a Hugo Chavez and re-elect himself to insure all muslims demise

All the sarcasm aside, to believe that the US is at war with Islam is not only ignorant but simple minded as well. Islam is at war with itself, instead of the majority of Muslims blaming the rest of the world for its problems perhaps Muslims should look at themselves. You never know it is something that hasnt been tried yet, rather than blowing up whoever is around at the time maybe try something crazy like not blow up whoever is around, you would be suprised the type of peace something like that can bring.:D

[wilberhum]

MTAFFI,
Maybe you should run. :D (LOL)
Then maybe some won't think this is a religious war. :thumbs_up

[MTAFFI]

MTAFFI,
Maybe you should run. :D (LOL)
Then maybe some won't think this is a religious war. :thumbs_up

LOL

I am afraid it wouldnt work, I am a white Christian (sort of Christian at least) so I would automatically be labeled as a crusader who is ruled by scandals and money and warmongering. Although i could convert to Islam and instate Shariah Law (however I would still be ruled by scandals money and warmongering, I would just be praised on this forum)

[dream gurl]

just 4 that i wish i could run.....................but in da other hand im not form here:cry:

[Keltoi]

LOL

I am afraid it wouldnt work, I am a white Christian (sort of Christian at least) so I would automatically be labeled as a crusader who is ruled by scandals and money and warmongering. Although i could convert to Islam and instate Shariah Law (however I would still be ruled by scandals money and warmongering, I would just be praised on this forum)

You're a white Christian? C'mon, don't insult yourself like that...:D

[Khan-Ghalgha]

Because in secret he believes himself to be supreme

The difference is you believe in your supremacy openly?

All the sarcasm aside, to believe that the US is at war with Islam is not only ignorant but simple minded as well. Islam is at war with itself, instead of the majority of Muslims blaming the rest of the world for its problems perhaps Muslims should look at themselves. You never know it is something that hasnt been tried yet, rather than blowing up whoever is around at the time maybe try something crazy like not blow up whoever is around, you would be suprised the type of peace something like that can bring.

I agree, if muslims were united the only war you could have on us is a WW, nothing less. It has been this way throughout human history, strongest imposes it's will on weakest, muslims have never been as weak and useless as of now, and there is no one to blame but ourselves. If you put yourself in a position of a prey, there would be a predator to hunt on you, that's just the way life is, no matter in which form a predator comes, if not the west, it would be China or Russia or whatever, you don't blame lion for killing it's prey, it's just what lion does.

If mu

[Darkseid]

The electoral college system has worked fairly well since the Constitution was put into action. Usually it is people who are upset that their candidate lost an election that whine about the electoral system.

Got proof? No? Thought so. There is no proof that electorial colleges actually work as well as an institution could work without one.

Because we are the evil west

Everyone one else of course, we are evil

See above

Because in secret he believes himself to be supreme

Bush is going to pull a Hugo Chavez and re-elect himself to insure all muslims demise

All the sarcasm aside, to believe that the US is at war with Islam is not only ignorant but simple minded as well. Islam is at war with itself, instead of the majority of Muslims blaming the rest of the world for its problems perhaps Muslims should look at themselves. You never know it is something that hasnt been tried yet, rather than blowing up whoever is around at the time maybe try something crazy like not blow up whoever is around, you would be suprised the type of peace something like that can bring.:D

You really of yourself as being evil? Aww... I don't think of you as being evil.

[Keltoi]

Got proof? No? Thought so. There is no proof that electorial colleges actually work as well as an institution could work without one.

Proof? You are asking me to supply proof when it was your accusation that the electoral college doesn't work that should be "proven". The U.S. has had a peaceful transfer of power since the first election, that should proof enough that the system is working. You might not like the representative power, however limited, that low population zones still have. While our system isn't perfect, an election based on pure popular vote would give slanted power to states like California and New York, which I'm sure would make you happy, but would widen the rift we already have in this country.

[north_malaysian]

[BANANA]WHOSOEVER WINS THIS SEASON AMERICAN IDOL... WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT!!!!![/BANANA]

:okay:

[Keltoi]

[BANANA]WHOSOEVER WINS THIS SEASON AMERICAN IDOL... WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT!!!!![/BANANA]

:okay:

Unfortunately that is about as seriously as many people take voting.

[MTAFFI]

The difference is you believe in your supremacy openly?

I only consider myself to be supreme when challenged, otherwise I am just a man trying to live peacefully

I agree, if muslims were united the only war you could have on us is a WW, nothing less. It has been this way throughout human history, strongest imposes it's will on weakest, muslims have never been as weak and useless as of now, and there is no one to blame but ourselves. If you put yourself in a position of a prey, there would be a predator to hunt on you, that's just the way life is, no matter in which form a predator comes, if not the west, it would be China or Russia or whatever, you don't blame lion for killing it's prey, it's just what lion does.

But who would want this? If you think of yourself as the prey then of course there is always a predator, if you think of yourself as a human you are at the top of the food chain and you have no predators. The US, China, Russia, they are not out to get Muslims, it is Muslims who are out to get them. The world doesnt put itself against Muslims, Muslims put themselves against the world and it will backfire and sadly Muslims may find themselves to be nonexistent because of this one day.

[Keltoi]

The only way there would be a world war with Muslims being on one side is if a Muslim country rises with somewhat equal economic and military footing as the U.S. and the U.K. Right now China is the only country getting close to that criteria, and even their military capability is often overstated in my opinion.

[Cognescenti]

The difference is you believe in your supremacy openly?



I agree, if muslims were united the only war you could have on us is a WW, nothing less. It has been this way throughout human history, strongest imposes it's will on weakest, muslims have never been as weak and useless as of now, and there is no one to blame but ourselves. If you put yourself in a position of a prey, there would be a predator to hunt on you, that's just the way life is, no matter in which form a predator comes, if not the west, it would be China or Russia or whatever, you don't blame lion for killing it's prey, it's just what lion does.

If mu

And if they "prey" incinerates several thousand "predators" on live television?

I would say a more appropriate analogy might be lions and hyenas.

[Woodrow]

I must be in the wrong thread. I thought this was a thread about "Who was going to win the 2008 Election"

[Cognescenti]

I must be in the wrong thread. I thought this was a thread about "Who was going to win the 2008 Election"

Oh, it still is. The Dems are the Hyenas and the Republicans the Lions. :)

[MTAFFI]

Oh, it still is. The Dems are the Hyenas and the Republicans the Lions. :)

LOL what an analogy! :D

[Keltoi]

Oh, it still is. The Dems are the Hyenas and the Republicans the Lions. :)

What an insult to hyenas everywhere.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

well i hope one of the rebublican wins: john edward,mrs.clintin,obama HOW BOUT YOU:peace:

LOL!!

i thought you said Osama!

haha ;D


well im not sure who will wil, i hope its someone who wont attack people for oil though :) inshaAllah :D

[MTAFFI]

What an insult to hyenas everywhere.

lol

you guys are cracking me up today:D

[Muezzin]

And if they "prey" incinerates several thousand "predators" on live television?

Give it a rest. He's actually agreeing with your position.