Conquer Club

Meh. Right now for the Dem's it's basically Clinton, Obama, and Edwards IMO.

Rep's got Guiliani and McCain.

Those are just the biggest names but any of the others could quickly gain a rep and become a frontrunner. Right now I don't think Obama has enough experience. Relative to the others he's a newb. If he tries again in a few years he will have a much better chance. Edwardsseemed to use his wife's condition as sort of a political springboard for empathy but I don't think he has enough distinct political bases to win it. Many people are against Clinton but I think she has the best chance of winning the primary.

I don't know too much about the republican's but it seemed McCain shot himself in the foot in the last election. Being from New York I can attest that Guiliani didn't burn down the city and if he did a good job here I have confidence he'd handle the presidency well too.

If it comes down to Guiliani and someone else, Guiliani would have my vote for a few reasons: He's a pro-choice republican catholic. That shows he has very flexible ideals. Many of the republicans stick to the same cut and dry conservative views and Dems stick to liberal views, conversely. The U.S. government is based on flexibility (The constitution can be amended indefinitely among other things) so I think a President who has varied stances would be better than one which is across the board liberal or conservative. Also, even though he has varied political stances he has shown that he can stand behind his views strongly. The Pope threatened excommunication if Guiliani remained pro-choice yet Guiliani stayed behind his standpoints. We need a president who doesn't flip-flop constantly.

Bottom line: Guiliani has my vote.


Wait.


I can't vote yet.


BAH!

... McCain is in trouble.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arc ... decima.php

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... _work.html

...

I was just going to mention that bit about McCain. He doesn't have a shot, he's run against the base too many times, such as campaign finance reform, and the amnesty bill.

After reading Nephilim's post, it almost sounds like the Republicans would simply be going out to the polls simply to vote "against" Hillary. I say this assuming she would get the nomination. If that happens, it would be a shame. In general, I believe people should vote "for" a candidate because they support positions held...not voting simply to block someone else from holding office.

To Kyle: I think the point DangerBoy was trying to make was that it would be a shame if people didn't vote for Mitt Romney simply for his Mormon beliefs. If he has made bad policy decisions, then that's another matter.

luns101 wrote: I think the point DangerBoy was trying to make was that it would be a shame if people didn't vote for Mitt Romney simply for his Mormon beliefs. If he has made bad policy decisions, then that's another matter.

... But, Luns, Mormons are filthy and fascist animals. If you are not Mormon, they believe, you deserve no freedom... and no soft drinks.

...

Thanks, Neph. The thing I like about Hillary (again, I'd prefer if a more liberal Dem got the nomination, but seeing as how it's her and Obama, and then Edwards too, I guess I won't be disappointed if/when she gets it) is this: she's already been through the right-wing smear machine, and frankly, she's somebody pretty much everybody has an opinion on. In other words, there isn't much of anybody where the Reps can run ads saying "Hilary is a ..." and your families not already going to have a well-formed opinion of her.

She had eight years as First Lady and a well-known senator for 6 1/2; she's not like Kerry (or really, the other candidates this year) where if somebody runs an ad saying "Obama's a Black Panther", people will be shocked and change their vote.

Again, I'm not really in the Clinton camp (still holding out for the Richardson comeback), but she's charismatic, intelligent, and the voters opinion of her won't be changed much by the election season, the effects of which almost invariably benefit Republicans: they're just better politicians than us.

spurgistan wrote:Thanks, Neph. The thing I like about Hillary (again, I'd prefer if a more liberal Dem got the nomination, but seeing as how it's her and Obama, and then Edwards too, I guess I won't be disappointed if/when she gets it) is this: she's already been through the right-wing smear machine, and frankly, she's somebody pretty much everybody has an opinion on. In other words, there isn't much of anybody where the Reps can run ads saying "Hilary is a ..." and your families not already going to have a well-formed opinion of her.

She had eight years as First Lady and a well-known senator for 6 1/2; she's not like Kerry (or really, the other candidates this year) where if somebody runs an ad saying "Obama's a Black Panther", people will be shocked and change their vote.

Again, I'm not really in the Clinton camp (still holding out for the Richardson comeback), but she's charismatic, intelligent, and the voters opinion of her won't be changed much by the election season, the effects of which almost invariably benefit Republicans: they're just better politicians than us.

while i think your post holds some validity, let me run this by you. in a previous post you said the GOP seems to be going overboard to hand this election to the dems. i agree. therefore, don't you think it would be an atrocious political strategy to run the most hated woman in the USA as your candidate in this situation? running hilary will have almost the same effect as if the dems ran barney frank; shitloads of red state citizens will come out to vote against her.

i don't think her polarizing nature is a plus here, homey. it will work out to be a huge negative. this is why guiliani, romney, etc. would be terrible choices for the GOP. all they have to do is run the comfortable, religious-sounding good ole boy (fred thompson), and they have it sewed up. like you said, spurg, it's like the dems have no concept of political strategy......

Nephilim,

While this is a big generalization, would you say that both major political parties are looking to point the finger at the other and play the blame game rather than set their own political agenda?

It just seems to me that the Democrats try to bring down the Republicans with political scandal accusations 24/7. Some of those scandals are justified. But nobody can stand negative accusations forever...people get sick of it.

The Republicans seem to be playing the game that, "hey, at least we're not liberals. Do you really trust the liberals?" That can only work for so long.

Neither party seems to be advancing what they stand for, but rather why the other party is terrible.

luns101 wrote:Nephilim,

While this is a big generalization, would you say that both major political parties are looking to point the finger at the other and play the blame game rather than set their own political agenda?

It just seems to me that the Democrats try to bring down the Republicans with political scandal accusations 24/7. Some of those scandals are justified. But nobody can stand negative accusations forever...people get sick of it.

The Republicans seem to be playing the game that, "hey, at least we're not liberals. Do you really trust the liberals?" That can only work for so long.

Neither party seems to be advancing what they stand for, but rather why the other party is terrible.

well, i'm pretty sure i can't answer this with much objectivity. but here's what i think.

the GOP has better political strategy than the dems. possibly the most important part of this is the propaganda machine. rush, hannity, o'reilly, savage, and many others have turned "liberal" into a dirty word for millions of americans. the GOP have hooked this word up with abortion, gay rights, and astonishingly, hatred of christianity. thus, a ton of red staters connect dems w/ liberalism, and then liberalism with all these issues that get their blood boiling. so, all the GOP has to do is throw out "liberal," and they've already struck a major rhetorical blow. people lose their ability to think critically when they hear that word. thus, we had someone earlier in this thread who could not fathom the idea that there are politicians more "liberal" than hilary. she is a hated democrat, therefore she must be the most "liberal" person out there.

the dems will always be fighting from behind until they can reclaim the word "liberal" as something respectable.....

i don't think the dems are nearly as active in negative rhetoric than the GOP. they don't have a voice out there anywhere close to the same league as the GOP machine (talk radio, fox news, etc). and i don't think they try to use scandals too much. in fact, the biggest domestic scandals lately have been democratic ones (william jefferson in louisiana, several dems in ohio and new jersey).

the dems do harp on the war constantly, but why shouldn't they? the bush admin/GOP has made one of the biggest blunders in US history, imo. we're basically fucked. why wouldn't the dems constantly mention this? it's an unpopular war on the order of vietnam, so it's only natural and logical for this to used politically by the dems.

ok, way too long here. all in all, i'd say there's actually a balance of negativity between parties. there are just a lot of polarizing issues with the 2 parties taking opposite stances, so there is bound to be a lot of us vs them mentality.

anyone interested in opening things up to other parties yet? our only hope, imo......

jay_a2j wrote:

unriggable wrote:"Feminist power hungry"?

Brainwashed a bit?

You really should read up on the Clinton's, back as far as their Arkansas days.

You should read a bit on the people you voted for in 2000 and 2004.

Thanks, Neph, that's what I've been getting at, re the whole Hilary running thing.

A lot of people (jay, for example) have what I would term a somewhat irrational hatred of her. However, there are also a lot of people who like her a lot. There are not a lot of people who have any sort of indecision regarding whether to vote for Hilary or not. So when the inevitable Swift Boating happens, it won't sway the election as much as it will with a more unknown entity; the people who hate her will hate her, and the people who love her will still love her. Yeah, she's polarizing, but she polarizes some people to her too. (Also, she's a fund-raising dynamo. With the best fund-raiser ever as her prospective First Dude)

spurgistan wrote:Thanks, Neph, that's what I've been getting at, re the whole Hilary running thing.

A lot of people (jay, for example) have what I would term a somewhat irrational hatred of her. However, there are also a lot of people who like her a lot. There are not a lot of people who have any sort of indecision regarding whether to vote for Hilary or not. So when the inevitable Swift Boating happens, it won't sway the election as much as it will with a more unknown entity; the people who hate her will hate her, and the people who love her will still love her. Yeah, she's polarizing, but she polarizes some people to her too. (Also, she's a fund-raising dynamo. With the best fund-raiser ever as her prospective First Dude)

maybe you're rite, but i'm just thinking the group in bold above will come out in droves to vote against her. a lot of those folks might normally stay home, but hilary will bring them to the polls. very bad idea to run her, methinks.....

lol..I saw this and had to post it for you all to see. Taryn Southern, a minor celeb who appeared on "American Idol" in 2004. Its a love song to Hillary. Enjoy!

HILLARY LOVE SONG

Nephilim wrote:[we had someone earlier in this thread who could not fathom the idea that there are politicians more "liberal" than hilary. she is a hated democrat, therefore she must be the most "liberal" person out there.

I think this may be referring to me. I said I couldn't believe that people think of Hillary as being conservative. I know there are more liberal dems, look at Gravel and Kucinich. I'd say both are more liberal. The only thing I was saying was that Hillary imo isn't 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination.

Serbia wrote:

Nephilim wrote:[we had someone earlier in this thread who could not fathom the idea that there are politicians more "liberal" than hilary. she is a hated democrat, therefore she must be the most "liberal" person out there.

I think this may be referring to me. I said I couldn't believe that people think of Hillary as being conservative. I know there are more liberal dems, look at Gravel and Kucinich. I'd say both are more liberal. The only thing I was saying was that Hillary imo isn't 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination.

rite, didn't mean to misrepresent you. it's just that "conservative" and "liberal" are relative terms. so it doesn't take much of a stretch to call hilary "conservative" in relation to, say, obama. you might actually hear someone say, "hilary is more conservative than obama." this is more likely than "less liberal."

but anyways, it's academic, just an argument for the hell of it.

would anyone like to describe their reasons for hating hilary so much?

Serbia wrote:

Nephilim wrote:[we had someone earlier in this thread who could not fathom the idea that there are politicians more "liberal" than hilary. she is a hated democrat, therefore she must be the most "liberal" person out there.

I think this may be referring to me. I said I couldn't believe that people think of Hillary as being conservative. I know there are more liberal dems, look at Gravel and Kucinich. I'd say both are more liberal. The only thing I was saying was that Hillary imo isn't 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination.

She does approve the banning of violent video game, pretty conservative to me.

I am not an American citizen. What is the best way for me to donate £50 ($100) to the Democratic Party presidential campaign?

I wouldn't want to donate to any of the individual Democratic candidates in the primaries. It'd be for the presidential campaign proper.

i was thinking tom brady or manny ramirez but fred thompson was cool on law and order....to bad i cant vote

Stopper wrote:I am not an American citizen. What is the best way for me to donate £50 ($100) to the Democratic Party presidential campaign?

I wouldn't want to donate to any of the individual Democratic candidates in the primaries. It'd be for the presidential campaign proper.

try http://www.democrats.org

you should find some kind of link there.

lalaland wrote:

Stopper wrote:I am not an American citizen. What is the best way for me to donate £50 ($100) to the Democratic Party presidential campaign?

I wouldn't want to donate to any of the individual Democratic candidates in the primaries. It'd be for the presidential campaign proper.

try http://www.democrats.org

you should find some kind of link there.

I dont believe it is legal for a foreign national to donate to an American political party. If it is legal, it shouldnt be. Keep your money!

I'm not that impressed with any of the current candidates, this race started much to early. Given that, at the end of this year when the field of candidates narrows i believe newt Gingrich will declare his candidacy and i would vote for that guy. He is the only one i trust to do put his country ahead of politics.

ksslemp wrote:

lalaland wrote:

Stopper wrote:I am not an American citizen. What is the best way for me to donate £50 ($100) to the Democratic Party presidential campaign?

I wouldn't want to donate to any of the individual Democratic candidates in the primaries. It'd be for the presidential campaign proper.

try http://www.democrats.org

you should find some kind of link there.

I dont believe it is legal for a foreign national to donate to an American political party. If it is legal, it shouldnt be. Keep your money!

I'm not that impressed with any of the current candidates, this race started much to early. Given that, at the end of this year when the field of candidates narrows i believe newt Gingrich will declare his candidacy and i would vote for that guy. He is the only one i trust to do put his country ahead of politics.

I'm not sure it's legal, either, but if you want, Stopper, I will be your go-between.

btownmeggy wrote:

ksslemp wrote:

lalaland wrote:

Stopper wrote:I am not an American citizen. What is the best way for me to donate £50 ($100) to the Democratic Party presidential campaign?

I wouldn't want to donate to any of the individual Democratic candidates in the primaries. It'd be for the presidential campaign proper.

try http://www.democrats.org

you should find some kind of link there.

I dont believe it is legal for a foreign national to donate to an American political party. If it is legal, it shouldnt be. Keep your money!

I'm not that impressed with any of the current candidates, this race started much to early. Given that, at the end of this year when the field of candidates narrows i believe newt Gingrich will declare his candidacy and i would vote for that guy. He is the only one i trust to do put his country ahead of politics.

I'm not sure it's legal, either, but if you want, Stopper, I will be your go-between.

You're not an American, You're a Dirt-Bag!

To paraphrase in a Cockney accent, ksslemp and btownmeggy wrote:Wot? That can't be legal, that can't.

No, it's illegal, and I think possibly it was ruled unconstitutional as well, but don't quote me on the latter. That's why I was asking for the best way to finance the Democrats in a round-about way. I donated to the NAACP last election, (I was drunk), but it seems a terribly inefficient way to do it. Plus I've been getting invitations to join the Black Socialist Society and I think it was because of that. It's a bit embarrassing.

ksslemp wrote:I dont believe it is legal for a foreign national to donate to an American political party. If it is legal, it shouldnt be. Keep your money!

Why? What's wrong, in principle, with foreigners donating to political parties? The US government doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with it.

There are many issues which the USA has a great deal of power over, and affect non-Americans as much as Americans - climate change, the "war on terror" (or whatever it is now), Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on and so forth, so why shouldn't non-Americans have some kind of say in who gets elected President?

btownmeggy wrote:if you want, Stopper, I will be your go-between.

That's a lovely offer. Can you take a cheque denominated in sterling?

Stopper wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:if you want, Stopper, I will be your go-between.

That's a lovely offer. Can you take a cheque denominated in sterling?

Sure. Or Paypal.

But, my inquiries indicate that if you want to make sure that your money is going to the Presidential candidate, you should wait until after the primaries so you can just donate directly to that person. If you donate to the DNC (Democratic National Committee), the money will mostly go towards party-building and congressional and state legislature campaigns in very close races. If you donate to the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) it'll go only to congressional campaigns. If you're not interested in such rubbish, you'll have to wait until next year.