Do You Favor Any of the '08 "Big Six?"

[ZEE]

i have one word for you people. just ONE word:

Algore.
thank you and piece

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Hmmm... interesting that the top 2 D cadidates and the top 2 R candidates anre now tied in combined votes.

Sounds promising coming from a lefty site....

(I know this isn't a lefty site, but it is more left leaning than right)

Well right now they seem to be in three tiers:

1. Giuliani and Obama
2. Clinton and McCain
3. Romney and Edwards

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by AAHZ
i have one word for you people. just ONE word:

Algore.
thank you and piece

You and your militant Islamic fundamentalists!
Let me guess, next you'll be suggesting al-Sharpton!

Oh, and

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Why's that?

Paul and Kucinich are the resident lunatics of either party. The fact you like both of them indicates some lunacy of your own .

[Alexander I]

"Law and Order's" Sam Waterston thinks both major parties are crap.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516144437AAXeV90

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Alexander I
Do you guys think Ron Paul has what it takes to beat out the big names in terms of recognition and funding though?

of course not. however as a non-american, i don't have to think about the practicalities of it all.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


This provokes some thought.

Agreed 2004 was some of the worst drek EVAR...

2000 - W v. Gore Just slightly better than 2004 but still far behind the 2008 field

1996 - Dole v. Clinton - Pretty poor choices. Clinton the obvious choice is offset by the lack of a second choice still puts it behind the 2008 field.

1992 - Bush Sr. v. Clinton - Probably the best set of choices that rivals and beats the 2008 field.


So tale of the tape says that one needs to go all the way back to 1992 to find a comparable set of candidates from both parties (or at least both parties being ably represented)

2000 would have been great if McCain and Bradley had won. 2000-McCain was a good candidate.

2004 was interesting in its utter crappiness across the board. Kerry? Edwards? Clark? Kucinich? Dean? Jesus, what a sucky group.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Jaguar

2000 would have been great if McCain and Bradley had won. 2000-McCain was a good candidate.

2004 was interesting in its utter crappiness across the board. Kerry? Edwards? Clark? Kucinich? Dean? Jesus, what a sucky group.

Dean was the Democratic equivalent of Krusty the Clown.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Paul and Kucinich are the resident lunatics of either party. The fact you like both of them indicates some lunacy of your own .

They aren't as phony and focus grouped as the mainstream candidates, they both have fresh ideas and aren't afraid to speak their minds, they are both principled candidates (an exceedingly rare trait for anyone in politics), I have more trust in either of them to run an honest, clean government than anyone else the two parties have put up, both of them were against the war from the beginning and wouldn't get us into unnecessary wars, both are firm against the Patriot Act and would appoint justices who would protect our civil liberties, neither are in the pocket of any special interest.

Besides the fact that the media pans them both, neither are lunatics like you claim. They are both radical compared to the other candidates, sure, but they'd have a mainstream congress to keep them in line. But unlike the phony, scripted candidates in the lead they could actually articulate a vision for this country to shoot for. The actual policies would be tempered and realistic based on what Congress would go for, so you shouldn't be too worried about any truly bizarre policies.

Kucinich & Paul

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Besides the fact that the media pans them both, neither are lunatics like you claim.

http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/Articles/arts142.html

That's all that needs to be said about Kucinich.

[OzzyKP]

He has a flowerly poetic style to be sure. And the first few paragraphs were kinda out there, but from an atheist's perspective anything religious people believe is equally out there. We are just more used to mainstream "out-thereness".

Overall though, nothing lunatic about it.

The Department of Peace concept, at least as I understand it from that paper, is instead of just locking people up when they do something wrong, we should be proactive in trying to move society away from using violence as a means of solving disputes. Something any Christian or compassionate person of any faith should support.

Whether the specifics are practical or not, I don't know, but it is a worthy goal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Besides the fact that the media pans them both, neither are lunatics like you claim. They are both radical compared to the other candidates, sure, but they'd have a mainstream congress to keep them in line. But unlike the phony, scripted candidates in the lead they could actually articulate a vision for this country to shoot for. The actual policies would be tempered and realistic based on what Congress would go for, so you shouldn't be too worried about any truly bizarre policies.

They are both extremely radical, with many policies that are completely loony in our day and age. Sorry, but a candidate who basically thinks everything should be decided by the states, abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments, and the Federal Reserve (ie, Paul) is loony in the current political climate. As is a candidate who wants to immediately withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA, sounds like a New Age 70s hippie (DD's link), wants to end the H1B and L1 visas (ie, Kucinich) is loony in the current political climate.

Neither has a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything... and that's because 90% (I'm being conservative) of the voters look at their positions and go "what the Hell?!"

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Neither has a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything... and that's because 90% (I'm being conservative) of the voters look at their positions and go "what the Hell?!"

That's certainly true enough.

Having opponents with high name recognition + being considered a fringe or "extremist" candidate = not being elected president in 2008.

[Alexander I]

So it looks like Rudy "Right Wing" Giuliani and Barack "Charisma Alone" Obama are the two lead candidates. Interesting choices.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


They are both radical compared to the other candidates, sure, but they'd have a mainstream congress to keep them in line.

In the fantasy world where one of them could win, why couldnt they bring in a simiarly minded congress?