Next US president???

[Jal]

Who could it be, I mean, it's not going to be Bush (hopefully), but who could present?
So if you were to choose a president, who would it be? It can be a fictionnal character too, like Austin Power(he can't, he was born English) yoda, or kirby. Just tell me who do you think would make a good one, for a change.

[Gun-Mage]

I hope its bush again, hes done so much for this country, and whats even greater, he ignores kids who tease those in power for cheap laughs

[karasz]

dean wins the democratic nomination...

but loses to bush in the general 52% to 47%...

the hard question is who will be the VP for dean?

[lapslf]

I would not be to sure about Bush losing the elections. It depends on the stupidity of the American people. I mean, he doesn't have much support right now with Iraq and everything, but when he pulls back the troops before the elections he can say "I've liberated them from Saddam, and you all said we had to send our troops home, so I've done what you wanted" and the people of the US might be stupid enough to believe him and get that primate re-elected. Or he just steals the elections again, like he did last time.

[JMHX]

It goes like this:

-- If President Bush holds on to all of the states he won in 2000, because of population expansion, he will beat any Democrat by a total of 7 electoral votes. This does not count for a Democrat losing a previously held state.

-- If President Bush loses a state in the Rust Belt because of his dropping the steel tariff, such as West Virginia, he will still manage a win by five electoral votes. Since the Rust Belt is incredibly spiky towards Bush lately, and losing Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia would ruin the cushion, Bush is focusing extra time on them.

-- The steel consuming states, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and to some extent historically Republican Indiana, are also shaky over the tariff being dropped. Worst case scenario, 2 million manufacturing jobas lost, so Bush is, as expected, fighting to hold them.

Dean has managed to alienate a decent chunk of southern voters, as well as more conservative Democrats who don't believe in a Canada-esque health care system and the rights of same-sex couples to marry. He's got war veterans against him with his comments on Vietnam, and current soldiers because of his civilian brother receiving a full military burial on return to the United States from his place of death in Vietnam. It would be exceptionally hard for a Democrat to beat President Bush in 2004, but, as we've said down at the Indiana DNC, it's a lose to win situation. If we lose in 2004, in 2008 an unknown Republican will have to square off with Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Democrats, who still control a majority of the D.N.C. and have a decent chance of turning sway states Democratic as was the case in 92 and 96.

It's a big if leaning towards Georgie.

[Jal]

At 12/3/03 09:45 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: I would not be to sure about Bush losing the elections. It depends on the stupidity of the American people. I mean, he doesn't have much support right now with Iraq and everything, but when he pulls back the troops before the elections he can say "I've liberated them from Saddam, and you all said we had to send our troops home, so I've done what you wanted" and the people of the US might be stupid enough to believe him and get that primate re-elected. Or he just steals the elections again, like he did last time.

Yeah ok, but I don't remember reading anywhere that either Sadam or Osama got caught, so that's what I call a hit in the water. I don't believe the americans are stupid enough to do the same mistake twice, are they?

[Jal]

At 12/3/03 09:00 AM, The-Mage wrote: I hope its bush again, hes done so much for this country, and whats even greater, he ignores kids who tease those in power for cheap laughs

And he's done so much against world peace, enviroment preservation, etc. etc. etc.
I'm not saying he didn't do good things for the US, but this is the era of globalisation, and being a very united country is beautifull, but being a very "closed to the rest of the world country" is very dumb, and that's what he's doing, going solo...and taking you with him. An empire doesn't have friend, it has vasals, and one day, the vasals build their own empire all toghether and the old empire sinks...Get it?

[RedSkunk]

At 12/3/03 09:53 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Dean has managed to alienate a decent chunk of southern voters, as well as more conservative Democrats who don't believe in a Canada-esque health care system and the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

Bah, Dean doesn't support anything close to a Canadian-esque healthcare system either. He just wants to expand medicare more.

What I don't see is: why can't the democrats tap into the south / midwest. The republicans are obviously the party of the rich, of big business, and a looney religious right. But you have all of these poor - middle class southerners / midwesterners - why don't the democrats point out how the republicans are stiffing them?

It seems to me that stuff like free trade agreements, job security, and healthcare would be bigger issues than gay marriage!

And another point - why don't poor southerners embrace a national single-payer healthcare system? From a non-partisan perspective, it seems like it'd be a lot better deal than currently in use: people without healthcare, people who can't afford their prescription drugs.

bleh..

[stonedpimp69]

At 12/3/03 09:58 AM, Jal wrote:

At 12/3/03 09:45 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: I would not be to sure about Bush losing the elections. It depends on the stupidity of the American people. I mean, he doesn't have much support right now with Iraq and everything, but when he pulls back the troops before the elections he can say "I've liberated them from Saddam, and you all said we had to send our troops home, so I've done what you wanted" and the people of the US might be stupid enough to believe him and get that primate re-elected. Or he just steals the elections again, like he did last time.

Yeah ok, but I don't remember reading anywhere that either Sadam or Osama got caught, so that's what I call a hit in the water. I don't believe the americans are stupid enough to do the same mistake twice, are they?

Wait. a hit in the water?? Saddam is not in power any more. That alone justifies any war we might be going through. Withdrawing from Iraq?? Dumbest thing ever. Let's look at what will happen.
First the Shiites will wipe out all sunnites. Then the shiites will most likely wipe out all kurds. then the shiites will set up a radically muslim government(think Iran).
So in retrospect, I would say withdrawing from Iraq would not be a good idea.
Back to "a hit in the water".
Youre gona come with "we haven't found any weapons of Mass destruction" aren't you. well guess what.
I DON"T GIVE A SHIT.
The sole fact that saddam was in power, justificated an invasion. The Taliban simply openly supported Osama. Sooo, we made sure afghanistan doesn't support Osama anymore. true we haven't found him. But we overthrew Hussein, and we weakend the Alquaida network. True there are about 1000 casualties. Is that really so much?As I have stated numerous times earlier: we are fighting a war, and therefore should axpect casualties, and accept them as something inevitable. I'd say we have really low casualties. True we have killed innocent bystanders, but oce again it's a war, we have weapons that do a lot of damage, and mistakes happen.
In short I hope to hell Bush wins this election, and I hope to hell the "unknown republican" beats hillarys ass in the next election.

[JMHX]

At 12/3/03 10:25 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote:

Withdrawing from Iraq?? Dumbest thing ever.

Bush has set the time for the U.S. to be gone by mid March or April 2004. Just a few months. We're leaving with the reconstruction half done. Dumbest thing ever, agreed.

[Chaoslight]

Jeb Bartlet for President.

Better yet, John Sheridan for president!

[Jal]

At 12/3/03 10:25 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote:

Wait. a hit in the water?? Saddam is not in power any more. That alone justifies any war we might be going through. Withdrawing from Iraq?? Dumbest thing ever. Let's look at what will happen.
First the Shiites will wipe out all sunnites. Then the shiites will most likely wipe out all kurds. then the shiites will set up a radically muslim government(think Iran).
So in retrospect, I would say withdrawing from Iraq would not be a good idea.
Back to "a hit in the water".
Youre gona come with "we haven't found any weapons of Mass destruction" aren't you. well guess what.
I DON"T GIVE A SHIT.
The sole fact that saddam was in power, justificated an invasion. The Taliban simply openly supported Osama. Sooo, we made sure afghanistan doesn't support Osama anymore. true we haven't found him. But we overthrew Hussein, and we weakend the Alquaida network. True there are about 1000 casualties. Is that really so much?As I have stated numerous times earlier: we are fighting a war, and therefore should axpect casualties, and accept them as something inevitable. I'd say we have really low casualties. True we have killed innocent bystanders, but oce again it's a war, we have weapons that do a lot of damage, and mistakes happen.
In short I hope to hell Bush wins this election, and I hope to hell the "unknown republican" beats hillarys ass in the next election.

You just said it man, it was an INVASION, alquaida network has been weakened at all, it just runs deeper, I'm not saying it's not a good thing sadam's not in charge anymore, but then why didn't they take him out last time.... I mean they could have. it is a hit in the water because the US tropps arent gonna be around forever and once they leave, the country's gonn be one its own, and what you describe will probably happened, and that the US's fault as well, they underestimated the problem, and now they are going into some deep shit...

[JoS]

At 12/3/03 11:47 PM, Chaoslight wrote: Better yet, John Sheridan for president!

Better yet, John Stewart for president.

[mrpopenfresh]

I think mr. monopoly would be the perfect coandidate for the republicans.

[blueloa13]

Im going for Carol Moseley-Braun, but its probably not going to happen

[JMHX]

At 12/4/03 04:44 PM, blueloa13 wrote: Im going for Carol Moseley-Braun, but its probably not going to happen

She cheated her mother out of social security, among other shady things. I don't think she'll be seeing the White House.