CurlTalk

2008 Presidential Candidates

=~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
I realize the elections are three years away but politics never end and opinions are always timely. It is clear to those who are politically savvy that some potential candidates for the presidency in 2008 are already jockeying for position.

Does anyone support any potential candidate already? Is there someone(s) you would like to see in the race? Do you have a Pres.-VP candidate preference? If you have no favorites or preferences yet, who does your gutt tell you will run from the political parties? Similarly, is there someone that you would not like to see as a candidate for either P or VP?

The field is already shaping up nicely in my opinion. It looks to be a very spirited race with qualified, likeable candidates who could win a nice percentage of cross-over votes.
.jpg
Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
Failed to load the poll.
Failed to load the poll.
«1

Comments

  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    I am an idependent and my sole ideology is objectivity.

    I hope that John McCain will run and Hillary Clinton. I have others but my guess is that a two man race between Clinton/McCain will be toe-to-toe down to the last vote counted. A real nail biter and a good one is long overdue---no nail-biting since Perot jumped into the '92. (Yes 2000 was a nail-biter, but in a different sense but not because the candidates were equally matched; let's just be honest about that. 2000 was only a nail-biter because of the FL debacle.)
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • NetGNetG Posts: 8,116Registered Users
    I'd love a McCain/Gore ticket and either Edwards or Dean/Napolitano for the Dems.


    I actually need to research Elizabeth Gore more, but from everything I know I really like her. And I think the Dems are more likely to have a female VP candidate if the Republicans do.

    I liked Edwards a lot when he was running in the primaries, because I really agreed with the majority of his platform, though I didn't like him as much as a VP candidate, because he had to be Kerry's guy instead of himself. Dean is a bit of a hothead, but so's McCain-and with either one, we'll see where they really stand, instead of the posturing we tend to get.

    I absolutely love Janet Napolitano, and would love to see her in Washington, even though I really appreciate her as governor. I'm not sure who I would vote for with the above tickets, but would be thrilled to get to pick between tickets I like.

    I have a hard time thinking of any way I would ever vote for Hillary. I absolutely do not trust that woman, and have had a hard time figuring out why, until I spoke with some women far more politically savvy than I. She has always projected herself as the great feminist, but her voting record is definitely not. There are other examples of hypocrisy on her part, but the fact she has so much political love for her supposed feminism and her voting record showing it's not real is the easiest way I can articulate that.


    I don't know a whole lot about Guiliani, but there's been talk of him, too. From what I know about him, I think I'd like him. There are thoughts that McCain is too old, and if so maybe Guiliani instead?
    The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
    -Speckla

    But at least the pews never attend yoga!
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    Not American, but I want to see Barack Obama as a Democratic presidenet!
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    There's no one in particular I like or trust. We'll see how this next one goes.
  • wild~hairwild~hair Posts: 9,890Registered Users
    I want Hillary to win, but I don't think she can. She was so vilified when she was First Lady. :roll:

    If she were to run against McCain, I think McCain would win in a heartbeat. More swing voters'll go for him than Hillary, for starters. I also think people will gravitate toward a male president as long as they've got that 9/11 fear in them.
  • mundoazulmundoazul Posts: 18Registered Users
    My personal favorites are Obama and Clinton (it would be sooo great to have a Clinton in the White House again *drools*). But McCain has the best chance against both of them. I'm technically a dem, but I would looooove it if the republicans pick McCain. Hopefully they will be willing to put aside their fear of liberalism and pick McCain. Everyone wins: the rep. get to keep their party in power (though this is not necessarily a good thing), and America doesn't get quite so screwed (and the fundamentalists will be forced to cool off). McCain is really not that bad at all. He is probably one of the few politicians out there that truly has bi-partisan tendencies.

    Wes Clark would also be good.

    But hey, I'm not even old enough to vote.
    Previously omnigirl

    Password: curl lover (don't forget to type the space!)

    Hair type that defies description...3.5 B maybe? Or 2 D? Looser 4B? *scream*

    Was it where they lost me that I finally found myself? - Pablo Neruda
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    NetG wrote:
    I don't know a whole lot about Guiliani, but there's been talk of him, too. From what I know about him, I think I'd like him. There are thoughts that McCain is too old, and if so maybe Guiliani instead?
    Guiliani :evil: for me is a big fat NO! If republicans put him up they will never be able to hide behind a clock of morals again. The hypocrasy will be clear and too ripe to stand. Guiliani is a known adulterer and one who brought his lover to his bed while still married, in the mayor's mansion and with his underage children down the hall.

    The hypocrasy of Repbulicans even putting him up as one of the faces of the party makes me sick. :fuming:fuming.gif This is one of the many instances where Republicans think their isht doesn't stink. Call Clinton an adulterer and worse for oral sex but gives Guiliani and the countless others passes and positions as the poster pinups for the party. Just dumb. It makes people like me have to despise two parties at once. Can't get a decent, honest party in this craphole.

    Guilani can't be trusted and many of his other follies other than intercourse adultery in the manner mentioned is only the start. Yuck! The reminder of the transparent hypocrasy makes me barf. On the other hand, if they put Guiliani up for P or VP in '08, it will force me to vote a straight democratic ticket for the first time in my life.
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    The hypocrisy aside, why do people even care what politicians are doing behind closed doors? If they are not breaking the law, let them screw whomever they wish... or can get.

    If we (general public) concerned ourselves more with job performance, we'd all be better off.
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    Cherish wrote:
    The hypocrisy aside, why do people even care what politicians are doing behind closed doors? If they are not breaking the law, let them screw whomever they wish... or can get.

    If we (general public) concerned ourselves more with job performance, we'd all be better off.
    Unfortunately, hypocrisy cannot be put aside because one party in particular makes their platform almost sole morality. It is not difficult to see the connection.

    In a perfect world or an honest political system, it would not matter but seeing as how it mattered so *&#@ much in 1998 and with the continued "morality" issues, the world is clearly not perfect.

    I also think that if people worried more about job performance instead of "trust", the world might be better off. "Trust" is a morality based virtue; that is just definition.

    Have you had enough job performance concern for anyone in particular that would lead you to address the original post? In your view as someone who is only concerned with job performance, has anyone performed well enough at their job that you have noticed enough to state your preference for candidacy or at least a statement acknowledging his/her good job performance?
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    I hope that we can keep this thread on the topic of presidential candidates and postings concerning the OP or a specific presidential candidate as mentioned by a member. This will avoid much confusion and avoid getting off track with useless diatribe and conjectures. Thanks.
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    ohura wrote:
    Cherish wrote:
    The hypocrisy aside, why do people even care what politicians are doing behind closed doors? If they are not breaking the law, let them screw whomever they wish... or can get.

    If we (general public) concerned ourselves more with job performance, we'd all be better off.
    Unfortunately, hypocrisy cannot be put aside because one party in particular makes their platform almost sole morality. It is not difficult to see the connection.

    In a perfect world or an honest political system, it would not matter but seeing as how it mattered so *&#@ much in 1998 and with the continued "morality" issues, the world is clearly not perfect.

    My point is, just because it mattered to a bunch of politicians and the media, does not mean it should matter to us. I'm saying, rise about the BS.
    I also think that if people worried more about job performance instead of "trust", the world might be better off. "Trust" is a morality based virtue; that is just definition.

    Have you had enough job performance concern for anyone in particular that would lead you to address the original post? In your view as someone who is only concerned with job performance, has anyone performed well enough at their job that you have noticed enough to state your preference for candidacy or at least a statement acknowledging his/her good job performance?

    I already addressed the original post and voted in your poll as *I* saw fit.
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    ohura wrote:
    I hope that we can keep this thread on the topic of presidential candidates and postings concerning the OP or a specific presidential candidate as mentioned by a member. This will avoid much confusion and avoid getting off track with useless diatribe and conjectures. Thanks.

    For a while there, I thought you were a regular poster using an alias. From the above I guess you're a newbie here so I'll share this:
    You can get pissy all you want, but you cannot control the way in which people choose to respond to your threads - assuming you can hold their attention to begin with.
  • ShrekLoverShrekLover Posts: 2,551Registered Users
    I thought you were a regular poster using an alias.

    You're not the only one.
  • SigiSigi Posts: 2,379Registered Users
    I could not participate in the poll.

    I am registered as Undeclared. I tend to vote Democrat, but for some reason I won't commit to that on my voter's registration card.
  • alguma pessoaalguma pessoa Posts: 619Registered Users
    Sigi wrote:
    I could not participate in the poll.

    I am registered as Undeclared. I tend to vote Democrat, but for some reason I won't commit to that on my voter's registration card.

    I used to be like that when I registered to vote at 18 but by the next election I realized how important it was to vote in the Primaries especially for my local government.

    I still consider myself undeclared because I do not believe in the exact politics of any party. But in order to exercise my right to vote on all levels of the voting process I had to officially register with a one of the larger parties.
    We're all born mad. Some remain so.

    br-flag1.gif
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    Cherish wrote:
    My point is, just because it mattered to a bunch of politicians and the media, does not mean it should matter to us. I'm saying, rise about the BS..

    Then the corresponding point is that just because you are not concerned with morality doesn't mean that noone else should be. The appropriate phrase for discounting integrity would be lowering nor rising. The BS is right because hypocrisy is nothing but BS and you and others are full of it.
    Cherish wrote:
    I already addressed the original post and voted in your poll as *I* saw fit
    .
    So the point is clear that you know nothing but you want to say something. Since you don't know anything about the topic, then you will talk out of your butt off topic. Good, I will expect the "BS" that you fling to continue from this point on.
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    Cherish wrote:
    ohura wrote:
    I hope that we can keep this thread on the topic of presidential candidates and postings concerning the OP or a specific presidential candidate as mentioned by a member. This will avoid much confusion and avoid getting off track with useless diatribe and conjectures. Thanks.

    For a while there, I thought you were a regular poster using an alias. From the above I guess you're a newbie here so I'll share this:
    You can get pissy all you want, but you cannot control the way in which people choose to respond to your threads - assuming you can hold their attention to begin with.
    And you can get pissy and speak off topic BS as much as you want but in case you are new to America (your "Black Brit" picture and profile just popped up after your first post in this topic), morals matter and hypocrisy is an issue. We are a bit more prudish in this country, get used to it or get out.

    I expect your BS to continue so please oblige. Your lack of knowledge of the topic is entertaining. Your need to say anything even when irrelevant is more entertaining. The fact that if you really are "Black Brit", you are not eligible to vote in this country and your "response to [this] thread" means as much as all the BS you said before---this is most entertaining and hilarious on top. :lol:
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • SystemSystem Posts: 39,059 Administrator
    Please refrain from attacking each other, and return to the topic at hand.
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    Sigi wrote:
    I could not participate in the poll.

    I am registered as Undeclared. I tend to vote Democrat, but for some reason I won't commit to that on my voter's registration card.
    Hi, Sigi,

    Sorry about the poll. I was using "independent" as synonymous with undeclared.

    Cute picture!
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    Please refrain from attacking each other, and return to the topic at hand.
    Thank you moderator. That is what I respectfully requested last week so I hope that you get a better response than I did.
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • alguma pessoaalguma pessoa Posts: 619Registered Users
    ohura wrote:
    Please refrain from attacking each other, and return to the topic at hand.
    Thank you moderator. That is what I respectfully requested last week so I hope that you get a better response than I did.

    I am not trying to be a “swooper” but I think Webbie was talking to you, ohura. :wink:

    You said some pretty harsh (and ridiculous) things to Cherish below. Also, what you wrote is very xenophobic and offensive to immigrants in the US. I know you are new and a "zealous" citizen but come on…….

    ohura wrote:
    And you can get pissy and speak off topic BS as much as you want but in case you are new to America (your "Black Brit" picture and profile just popped up after your first post in this topic), morals matter and hypocrisy is an issue. We are a bit more prudish in this country, get used to it or get out. :shock:

    I expect your BS to continue so please oblige. Your lack of knowledge of the topic is entertaining. Your need to say anything even when irrelevant is more entertaining. The fact that if you really are "Black Brit", you are not eligible to vote in this country and your "response to [this] thread" means as much as all the BS you said before---this is most entertaining and hilarious on top. :lol:
    We're all born mad. Some remain so.

    br-flag1.gif
  • CherishCherish Posts: 1,847Registered Users
    ohura wrote:
    I am an idependent and my sole ideology is objectivity.
    ohura wrote:
    morals matter and hypocrisy is an issue. We are a bit more prudish in this country, get used to it or get out.

    :lol:
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    Cehua wrote:
    Please refrain from attacking each other, and return to the topic at hand.
    I am not trying to be a “swooper” but I think Webbie was talking to you, ohura. :wink:

    You said some pretty harsh (and ridiculous) things to Cherish below. Also, what you wrote is very xenophobic and offensive to immigrants in the US. I know you are new and a "zealous" citizen but come on…….
    1. For supposedly not attempting "swooping", Cehua, you did a good job of it. :wink: I think that the moderator was referring to us both and it is clear from your post above that you chose to ignore her suggestion just as cherish chose to ignore mine. :P Try sticking to the "topic at hand"... and because you did not, you can add yourself to the list of irrelevant jibberish the moderator spoke of; now that makes three of us. :wink:

    2. What you think about my comments are immaterial, just a pixel on the screen clearly wanting attention. I can see for the veterans that it is more important to see your ID on the screen than to contribute to the "topic at hand". There must be some reward for having many posts or the most posts. Is there some sort of ranking system for people with the most posts because it would explain this need to "swoop" or say something even when it is just fodder? If not, I would like to propose a reward for the person with the least going on in real life and therefore the most posts or the most "zealous" desire to post irrelevancies. :lol: Harsh, if you wish, but there are two life lessons about my words for "zealous" high post-count seekers: "The truth hurts." and "The truth shall set you free." :wink:

    3. Too bad this is like 3rd grade: "You can't say that to my friend. I don't care what she said to you. No, I can't read what she said because my nose is too far up her butt but I still don't like you giving back to her like she tries to give. Besides I want everyone else on the playground to see that we are the chicks in charge and I want them to see us telling you off so that we can feel like we rule the schoolyard anyways. This is third grade and you can't talk to my friend that way! She can't stick up for herself so we will try to intimidate you because you are new. Don't talk to us like we talk to you, newbie! Sure, we could have minded our business but that would have required smarts and maturity so instead we do this. We are the oldest on this playground and therefore you are wrong because we say so. We will TRY to gang up on you because we have not realized that it won't work with you like it must work on all other newbies. Whaaa. Whaaa. Whaaa. (We will continue avoiding the "topic at hand" in lieu of useless diatribe---next we will have more of our other third grade friends join in with useless diatriable---so that our post counts can continue to rise. Yes, that's right newbie, nothing counts too so just sit back and watch our post count rise because we have alot of nothing to say. Yippee!!!" :lol: Cry me a river already!
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    From Non-hair discussion forum
    Subject: "has this place picked up a bit, lately?"
    Quote1: Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:17 pm
    Quote2: Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:33 pm
    Cherish wrote:
    Well, I'm just trying retain my rank (162) when I get too busy to post so much. I would hate to drop out of the Top 200 Posters :D
    Cherish wrote:
    My new rank is 151 :lol:

    :roll: Well, well, well. These explain alot. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • dia99dia99 Posts: 1,998Registered Users
    :shock: :shock: :shock: Wow!!!! This thread would be HUGE on the nonhair board! :shock:

    I am a registered Democrat. I too appreciate objectivity, but I am not very objective in my voting.

    I vote Democrat because they "stand" for more issues that are of social concern to me. I can take care of my own morals, and want others to have that same right, and think it is the job of the Church to evangelize the way the Bible set forth instead of attempting to get morals legislated into American schools, government, etc. Unfortunately, Republicans have become somewhat synonymous with religious zealotry, self-declared moral superiority, and general intolerance. I know that every member of the party is not that way, but that is the bulk of what I perceive from the darlings of the media. So, as the only issues I have in common with most Republicans I've seen or heard talk are religious, I choose to do that work through the church and attempt to use government to help the poor (something that Christians should be big on, but don't hold the bar on) and allow people the right to listen to me or not about my religious views/ideologies.

    I don't think either party is perfect, and neither party has a lock on God's values. So, I can understand why good Christians, and good people, would choose either party.
    People rise to the standard expected of them. GC
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    That was an intersting post, dia99.
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    After this week's events, I have decided that Lindsay Graham may make a run for it in '08 or '12.
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
  • starfishbluesstarfishblues Posts: 49Registered Users
    well, i guess a lot of people are basically forecasting that hillary clinton will be running in 2008. at first i wasn't sure if i could bring myself to vote for her, but she's kinda growing on me a little. it all really depends on who her running mate is and who she's running against. personally, i adore bill clinton and i think hillary would probably do a comparable job as president.

    as far as republicans go, i guess john mccain is still saying that he won't run in 2008. i was him on the tonight show a couple of months ago, and when jay asked him about running in 2008, he said, "jay, in 2008 i will BE 2008." :) i would love it if he ran, though. he was a write-in for a bunch of my friends last time, and i have a tremendous amount of respect for the man. people are also saying that sen. bill frist (TN) may run, but who's to say for sure?!?!
    3b/c, very fine, low porosity, average density
    co-wash: suave naturals or nature's gate
    shampoo: nature's gate 1x a week
    conditioner: pantene relaxed and natural or pantene nature's fusion
    leave-in: suave humectant
    styler: just a touch of fantasia IC sparklites gel

    hair loves honey, almond oil, jojoba oil, mayonaise treatments
  • LucilleLucille Posts: 588Registered Users
    One doesn't register for a party in my state (Georgia). Here, you show up the day of the primary and vote in whichever party's primary you want. Depending on the election, I may decide to vote in either primary.

    Of the Republicans, I like Guilliani, McCain and Rice. I would probably be most happy with Guilliani on politics, McCain on "presence" and Rice for historical reasons, and because she is just as much of a hawk as the other two. But I don't know her social politics and doubt I would care for them.
    Dems, I like Obama and Lieberman. Obama is too young to get the nomination, and Lieberman isn't electable.
  • =~ohura~==~ohura~= Posts: 255Registered Users
    Lucille wrote:
    Of the Republicans, I like Guilliani, McCain and Rice. I would probably be most happy with Guilliani on politics, McCain on "presence" and Rice for historical reasons, and because she is just as much of a hawk as the other two. But I don't know her social politics and doubt I would care for them. Dems, I like Obama and Lieberman. Obama is too young to get the nomination, and Lieberman isn't electable.

    What historical reasons?
    .jpg
    Do a better job of covering your stinky aliass.
«1

Leave a Comment