who do u think will win US presidential election of 08

[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.

 

[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