Guiliani in 2008
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
Originally Posted by Raoul
PONY_DRIVER, your arguments have convinced me, so do not consider your efforts wasted here.
I shall find a candidate without a (R) or (D) to vote for and please believe that will not pain me at all.
If I am unsuccessful in finding such a candidate, (which well could happen because I will no longer support the lesser of two (or two hundred) evils), I will support the candidate that has received the majority in every single Presidential election in my lifetime.
Since registered voter turn out averages 55% split between R and D, the consensus choice is 'nobody' which owned a solid 45%.
Realistically, it takes me out of the game but, I've parted with reality before.
Label me, Idealist.
I shall find a candidate without a (R) or (D) to vote for and please believe that will not pain me at all.
If I am unsuccessful in finding such a candidate, (which well could happen because I will no longer support the lesser of two (or two hundred) evils), I will support the candidate that has received the majority in every single Presidential election in my lifetime.
Since registered voter turn out averages 55% split between R and D, the consensus choice is 'nobody' which owned a solid 45%.
Realistically, it takes me out of the game but, I've parted with reality before.
Label me, Idealist.
Nobody 2
Giuliani 4
We are already behind.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 0
From: VA
Originally Posted by 89Lariat
I agreee with ya there. I think the problem is they spend too much time focusing on the wrong things and end up creating even more problems. Way I look at it now is the best government is the one that stays the hell outta my daily life and keeps its fingers away from my paycheck. (they need some money for the essentials, but I dont want to be supporting those gas huffing pieces of crap I drive past everyday with my wage)
Amen
Raoul,
Vote for your goat.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
If you Americans could have somebody who people can relate to, comes off as a real leader, and obviously had the finances, the results would probably be a lot better than Perot got in '92.
I could never see anyone voting for Trump to be president. But, who would have though the terminator could have been governor.
I could never see anyone voting for Trump to be president. But, who would have though the terminator could have been governor.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
I think it's way too early to decide who I'm going to vote for.
Who knows, if keep hearing how we can't win, that we are the enemy, and that we are complete failures, I might vote for someone in the Defeatist party.
Who knows, if keep hearing how we can't win, that we are the enemy, and that we are complete failures, I might vote for someone in the Defeatist party.
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Originally Posted by wittom
...keep hearing how we can't win, that we are the enemy, and that we are complete failures, I might vote for someone in the Defeatist party.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
I heard Barney Frank say last week that the President hasn't made one correct decision in regards to the war since he's been in office. Everything the President has done in Iraq has been criticized to death before it even hits the ground. No one can be productive under those circumstances. Many of the problems in Iraq stem from the problems and politics at home. Not all of them; but, most.
I watched Flags of Our Fathers last week and it occured to me that every successsful conflict we've ever been in, was accompanied with National heroes to bolster public support. Remember Stormin' Norman from Bush Senior's foray into Iraq? How about Colin Powell? The only PR this war has received is bad PR from the word go.
Too bad for you that your guy Gore didn't win in 2000; but, is it wise to sabotage the interests of the United States to regain power and to destroy the man who has gained you enmity? A lot of us are fighting mad about the way the dems have behaved during the Presidency of Bush II. If things continue on their current path, is a real civil war in this country likely? Neither party represents the best interests of the people anymore.
I watched Flags of Our Fathers last week and it occured to me that every successsful conflict we've ever been in, was accompanied with National heroes to bolster public support. Remember Stormin' Norman from Bush Senior's foray into Iraq? How about Colin Powell? The only PR this war has received is bad PR from the word go.
Too bad for you that your guy Gore didn't win in 2000; but, is it wise to sabotage the interests of the United States to regain power and to destroy the man who has gained you enmity? A lot of us are fighting mad about the way the dems have behaved during the Presidency of Bush II. If things continue on their current path, is a real civil war in this country likely? Neither party represents the best interests of the people anymore.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
Except for entering Iraq......EVERYONE (almost literally) was all for it.
And the majority was for that, too. A lot of people in Congress were all for it and had the same info the President had. WMDs should not have been anyone's sole reason for supporting the action in Iraq; and, 9/11 wasn't an Iraqi attack on the US. It was a wake up call that inaction in the Middle east was going to be more dangerous down the road than doing something now. Iraq was the obvious place to begin. Their leader had been defying the world for 12 years and had not been living up to his end of a cease fire agreement with us. Saddam had been very publicly threatening to bring down the US for years, and was trying to position himself as not only the Iraqi leader, but as the Arab Muslim leader. With the atrocities he had committed against his people, unreported by news agencies imbedded in Iraq at the time for fear of being kicked out of Iraq, added in with the strategic positioning geographically of Iraq, it should be easy to see why Iraq was a good place to begin the war on terror.
Last edited by Odin's Wrath; Feb 18, 2007 at 01:31 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,165
Likes: 3
From: Cabot, AR
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
And the majority was for that, too. A lot of people in Congress were all for it and had the same info the President had. WMDs were should not have been anyone's sole reason for supporting the action in Iraq; and, 9/11 wasn't an Iraqi attack on the US. It was a wake up call that inaction in the Middle east was going to be more dangerous down the road than doing something now. Iraq was the obvious place to begin. Their leader had been defying the world for 12 years and had not been living up to it's end of a cease fire agreement with us. Saddam had been very publicly threatening to bring down the US for years and was trying position himself as not only the Iraqi leader but as the Arab Muslim leader. With the atrocities he had committed against his people, unreported by news agencies imbedded in Iraq at the time for fear of being kicked out of Iraq, added in with the strategic positioning geographically of Iraq, it should be easy to see why Iraq was a good place to begin the war on terror.