Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on June 12, 2004, 08:16:17 PM
-
Just want a record so I can say nanny nanny boo boo come November. Who will it be?
I say: Bush (close race)
-
Edit: found somone better....Gents we have a winner
Mr. Jackson Kirk Grimes
(http://www.vote-smart.org/img_common/photos/B/BZZ91748.JPG)
Current Office: Challenger
Office Seeking: President
Party: United Fascist Union
Background Information
Gender: Male
Family: Single.
Birthdate: 09/09/1950
Birthplace: Tampa, FL
Home City: Elkton, MD
Religion: Pagan
Education:
Attended, N.Y.C. School of Drama & Arts Rockefeller Plaza Branch
GED.
Professional Experience:
Stock Broker, Certified, Hibbard & Brown, 1997-1998
Corporal, United States Army, 1968-1972
Actor, Shakespearan off-Broadway productions.
Political Experience:
Candidate for United States President, United Facist Union, 2000
Director & Chief Executive Officer, United Fascist Union, 1996-2003
Storm Trooper, Facist Freedom Front, 1967.
Organizations:
Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 2000-2003
Member, Eagles of Lackawanna County, 1999-2001
Member, Screen Actors Guild, 1991-1996.
-
Bush: Not as close as last time.
Even if fence sitters disaprove of him - they know him. Im betting Kerry tries to run on a ghost ticket and people wont vote for an unknown candidate unless he runs against a reincarnated Nixon.
-
Kerry.
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Even if fence sitters disaprove of him - they know him.
Apparently fence sitters have historically tended to vote for new guy. I imagine that thats because they know the old guy.
-
Because as bad as he is, he is not as scummy as Kerry.
I think the closer we get to Nov, the more clear just how scummy kerry is will be.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I think the closer we get to Nov, the more clear just how scummy kerry is will be.
I doubt it. The Bush team already shot its load in trying to paint Kerry as a bad choice. The "flip-flopper" and the whole Vietnam thing.
It was smart to do it early, but Kerry weathered it. In fact, the more people that DO know about what's actually behind the "flip-flopping" and just how hypocritical an attack it is, the better for Kerry. Vagueness and hyperbole are friends to the Bush team. The more that's actually known, the less effective they become.
How can it get "more clear just how scummy Kerry is"? What else is there to use?
-
I still think Bush will win by a large margin, and righfully so.
-
Bush. There you have it...
:)
The possible selections are....
A. Bush
B. Kerry
C. Too close to call (albiet perceived a little like fence setting)
D. Don't reply
This is a good thread if people just lay it on the line and say which one will win as opposed to political commentary.
Comment with regard to "C. Too close to call". My gut feeling tells me it's gonna be close.
-
The reasons Bush will win:
Strong economy, low unemployment, low interest rates, success in Iraq, strong leadership.
Bush does exactly what he says he will do.
Kerry is seen as a joke, a liar, a slimy wet fish flopping back in forth in the boat, willing to do or say anything to become President.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Kerry is seen as a joke, a liar...
Seen by whom?
If that's true, yet more Americans find Kerry to be a better choice, what does that say about how they see Bush's character?
-
Too early for me to call. Way too much rough road ahead for either bandwagon.
-
John Kerry
Pass Me The Ketchup!
-
(http://i.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/salvadorquake/landslide.jpg)(http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/bush/bushgallery/image/liberty1-398h.jpg)
-
Mudslide Boosch!
:)
Good one Eagler tho. :aok
-
I think bush is gonna take it but it's gonna be close and the librals are gonna be like "HE STOLE ANOTHER ELECTION"
-
Originally posted by Nash
I doubt it. The Bush team already shot its load in trying to paint Kerry as a bad choice. The "flip-flopper" and the whole Vietnam thing.
LOL best part of that whole deal was that Bush didnt have to "do" much of anything. Kerry did most of the work himself.
Im not REAL impressed with either . Bush is ok but leans a bit too far to the right for me. And The Dems typically lean too far to the left
That being said I think Bush will win out over Kerry.
I just dont "see" Kerry as Pres.
He just doesnt have .."it"
I really think Kerry is the Dems sacrificial lamb for this election and what they really want it Hillary in '08( a thought that really scares me) inasmuch as the Reps really dont have anyone in the wings.
what Bush needs to do is dump Cheney and have Condolisa(sp?) Rice as his running mate so she can run against Hillary
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL best part of that whole deal was that Bush didnt have to "do" much of anything.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
-
Isn't it ironic how everyone's personal choice for president seems to mirror who they think will win? I guess everyone likes to vote for a winner.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://i.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/salvadorquake/landslide.jpg)(http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/bush/bushgallery/image/liberty1-398h.jpg)
:lol I got it. :D
Lets, see it depends really on what all happens in the time till Election, I don't want neither, but I'd say Bush would do better because he's allready in Office, and uh, kinda knows, how things work. But, I'd say Bush (Close Race) or Kerry (Landslide), either way it's not gonna be Kerry and close or Bush and a landslide.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://i.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/salvadorquake/landslide.jpg)(http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/bush/bushgallery/image/liberty1-398h.jpg)
I totally agree. Bush has been a disaster.
-
Kerry, and hopefully by a big enough margin that the courts can't get away with appointing Bush again.
-
Eagler I'm confused, are you saying that the gentleman on the right is involved in the slinging of the substance on the left?:confused:
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Just want a record so I can say nanny nanny boo boo come November. Who will it be?
I say: Bush (close race)
I think this is one instance of a race where we find many of the voters extremely unhappy with both (ignoring the 3rd guy) candidates.
Therefore, I believe the candidate for VP is going to be extremely important. If Bush ditched Cheney and convinced McCain to run as his VP, then yes, I believe Bush would win by a large margin. But Bush isn't ditching Cheney ... Maybe Bush can convince Cheney to fake a heart attack. :)
If Kerry makes a so-so choice for VP, then Bush will win in a close race. If Kerry chooses someone like Edwards, I think Kerry will win a close race. Too bad McCain turned Kerry down ... it would have been Kerry by a large margin then.
curly
-
McCain issue does beg the question......if you are asked to be VP what do you put first political belief's or do you owe your country service?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
McCain issue does beg the question......if you are asked to be VP what do you put first political belief's or do you owe your country service?
When Ron Reagan ran, he chose a republican with an extremely liberal reputation as his running partner -- George Bush, Sr. I recall with great humor Bush referring to Reagan's economic ideas as "voodoo economics." Of course, after Bush became his running mate, that quickly changed. Bush Sr. is a pretty straight guy, so I like to think he believed in country service.
The last serious politician that I recall switching parties was Andersen (long time ago.) He switched from Republican to Independent.
Doesn't happen often, does it? How about England? The first name that comes to mind is Winston Churchill. He switched parties twice, right?
curly
-
guess RR was not a "serious politician" as he switch from dem to Republican when he saw the Demacrats become a hand out robin hood social service
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Strong economy, low unemployment, low interest rates, success in Iraq, strong leadership.
and terrorism has been supressed .. sure sure
-
I don't care.
The O'Club will be just as retarded, arguing about who won and how the President didn't do everything Jesus would have with hindsite.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
I don't care.
The O'Club will be just as retarded, arguing about who won and how the President didn't do everything Jesus would have with hindsite.
lol but oh so true!
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
When Ron Reagan ran, he chose a republican with an extremely liberal reputation as his running partner -- George Bush, Sr. I recall with great humor Bush referring to Reagan's economic ideas as "voodoo economics." Of course, after Bush became his running mate, that quickly changed. Bush Sr. is a pretty straight guy, so I like to think he believed in country service.
The last serious politician that I recall switching parties was Andersen (long time ago.) He switched from Republican to Independent.
Doesn't happen often, does it? How about England? The first name that comes to mind is Winston Churchill. He switched parties twice, right?
curly
Quite a few local politicians either manage to piss off the party or get pissed off by the party and stand as independants - for instance the Mayor of London "Red Ken" Livingstone threatened to stand for Mayor, was warned not to, got kicked out of the Labour party, stood anyway, won by a huge margin, then the Labour party invited him back into the party since then they could say they won London - anyway he nearly lost this time around because he was a member of Labour.
On the whole British politics is more a party thing where American politics seems to be more about the individual - Tony Blair can go tomorrow and it won't make a bit of difference - Labour Gov will still be in charge till the enxt election.
-
On the whole British politics is more a party thing
No one cares.
Not to discount your point, but just saying.
-
Originally posted by lada
and terrorism has been supressed .. sure sure
Sheesh, I hope not. Might have to take a pay cut.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
Kerry, and hopefully by a big enough margin that the courts can't get away with appointing Bush again.
You guys need to get over this.
One of the brightest spots of that election was that it WAS resolved in the courts.
In other countries, tanks would have settled the issue.
I suppose it's normal for the losers to either state outright or imply that the "judges were crooked" but that type of statement suggests that you think our whole system is crooked.
I find it hard to imagine you really believe that. Would you prefer the "tank solution" or do you still prefer having 9 respected jurists wrangle it out.
Put it this way: Had the SC decided for Gore, what would you say to Bush supporters still crying about it like you are now?
-
"I suppose it's normal for the losers to either state outright or imply that the "judges were crooked" but that type of statement suggests that you think our whole system is crooked." - Toad
Lemme see if I have this strait...
You decide which presidential candidate you'll vote for based almost solely on what types of Judges the prez will nominate for the Supreme Court, in order that it sway the decisions towards reflecting your own values.
How can you then say but that in the Bush/Gore instance, political bias just up and fled?
Either it's there or it's not. If it's not, maybe you should find an alternative to your election criteria.
-
Nash, anyone with half a brain realizes the SC is "the power" in this land. As Presidents appoint new members, the "flavor" of the Court will naturally vary and change. It's supposed to be that way.
Yeah, I usually vote for the Prez that will put people on the SC that don't try to change the Founders' intent with respect to the Constitution.
Now, to you, this means "political bias" or "reflecting my own values".
Not really. I want SC justices that read the Constitution and apply what's there. I don't want the ones that invent new meanings with leaps of logic or situational ethics.
I guess if the Constitution as written is "my own values" you might have a point. Because I like our Constitution; I like the way the old guys set up the system. I think they did really, really well.
And, I can honestly say that had the SC decided for Gore, I would be absolutely at peace with that. You wouldn't hear me crying about it. The SC worked the way it's supposed to work; it decided and the issue was resolved without any real problems.
-
BTW, as an aside, "political bias" doesn't necessarily equal "crooked".
For example, if the every State sent two Democratic Senators to the Senate, the Senate would be clearly "biased" towards the Democratic agenda.
However, if that's what the voters wanted it certainly isn't "crooked". It's the "will of the people".
-
But you were the only one who said anything about crooked.
Boil someone's argument down to "you think they are crooked", then argue that they are not. Okay...
-
Originally posted by Nash
But you were the only one who said anything about crooked.
No, I don't think so.
What do these words suggest to you? Why do you think Apathy chose this particular way of expressing his view?
Originally posted by capt. apathy
Kerry, and hopefully by a big enough margin that the courts can't get away with appointing Bush again.
Suggests that they "got away" with something right? What's the implication of "got away with"?
-
That they would be unable to exercise their inherent political bias in the electoral process. No Star Chamber scenario here.
-
LOL.
I think you're dancing.
What's the usual connotation of "got away with"?
As in "the bank robbers got away with millions". As in "the defensive end got away with a little holding on that play". As in "he got away with claiming his dog as his dependent on his income tax".
Let's wait for Apathy to explain his remark then. Of course, he's got a "heads up" now and he'll probably be able to "get away with" some other explanation of what he meant.
:lol
-
If he DID get away with some other explanation, would that make him crooked?
Or would it be using his own faculties to influence the outcome of an, in this case, argument... so that it most closely aligns with his agenda?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nash, anyone with half a brain realizes the SC is "the power" in this land. As Presidents appoint new members, the "flavor" of the Court will naturally vary and change. It's supposed to be that way.
Yeah, I usually vote for the Prez that will put people on the SC that don't try to change the Founders' intent with respect to the Constitution.
To me, the interesting part of this is the utter unpredictability of a SC justice. Earl Warren, a conservative governor, VP candidate with Thomas Dewey and appointed by Dwight Eisenhower (middle of the road republican) turned out to have liberal, humanist values.
There's no predicting the SC appointees. They really can't be recalled (in practice) and it's a lifetime appointment. They have bullet-proof political insulation.
curly
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, I don't think so.
What do these words suggest to you? Why do you think Apathy chose this particular way of expressing his view?
Suggests that they "got away" with something right? What's the implication of "got away with"?
the got away with over stepping their bounds.
we have 2 months between election and turn-over of gov't. it was enough time to conduct elections in much more technologically backward times so it is more than ample now. we could have easily redone the Florida election or even the whole damn thing.
either of these 2 scenarios would have been better than having appointed officials appoint a president. they are very likely to appoint the guy from the team that appointed them. and big surprise thats exactly what each and every one of them did. Dem and Rep alike. a reasonably perceptive 6 year old could have seen that coming.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the got away with over stepping their bounds.
we have 2 months between election and turn-over of gov't. it was enough time to conduct elections in much more technologically backward times so it is more than ample now. we could have easily redone the Florida election or even the whole damn thing.
either of these 2 scenarios would have been better than having appointed officials appoint a president. they are very likely to appoint the guy from the team that appointed them. and big surprise thats exactly what each and every one of them did. Dem and Rep alike. a reasonably perceptive 6 year old could have seen that coming.
Who called in the big guns anyhow? Wasn't it the democrats?
-
First, Apathy, would you please help Nash and I out here?
When you say "got away with" just what exactly are you saying? Do you believe what was done was legal and correct or are you implying something less than legal and correct? Are you implying some sort of incorrect behavior?
Now then, how do you figure they "overstepped their bounds"? They are, after all, the Court of final appeal.
In your instance, I would view a "redo" as clearly overstepping their bounds. There's no "redo". Correct votes are counted, incorrect votes are not. That is the system.
If ANYTHING, they could have recounted Florida yet again. Of course, you're aware that in every recount conducted and in every investigation of recounts to date, Bush still would have won, right?
But "redo"? That's not part of the system. Never has been AFAIK.
In my view the system worked exactly as it should. You apparently believe that each and every justice voted on "party lines" instead of impartially on the Constitutional grounds. I suppose that's much easier than explaining where the judges disregarded the Constitution. I mean, after all, what do you and I really know about Constitutional Law at that level?
Maybe some voted "party"; surely some did not.
Again, my question to you is this:
If Gore had be awarded the election, would you still make the same complaints? What would you be saying right now to the crying Bush supporters that just couldn't let it go nearly four years later?
-
Hey, what happened to the bet thread?
I put my money on Kerry. Bush might pull it out as he has a bigger financial warchest.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Hey, what happened to the bet thread?
I put my money on Kerry. Bush might pull it out as he has a bigger financial warchest.
Dunno, give it a punt. I might take some o' yer money. ;)
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/powell_terror_report
-
Indeed....
If nobody's gonna put their money where their mouth is, there's no point.
Unless that betting thread sees life, it's dead afaic.
-
I'm only asking for a little bragging rights in this thread. Will you deny us that?
-
You wanna brag if Bush wins?
That would be a nifty peice of fortune telling but isn't it a damned if ya do, damned if ya don't kind of thing?
"Yay Bush won see I told ya's!!!!"
"....er.... Bush won....."
"I'm going home."
-
If ya vote for Kerry while knowing and stating that Bush will win you can at least sit around here looking resigned and wise. ;) (Yes, I am assuming that Bush will win)
-
Originally posted by Toad
You guys need to get over this.
One of the brightest spots of that election was that it WAS resolved in the courts.
Not only that but But recounts showed.including one headed by Jessie Jackson that Bush won Fla
-
I think that both these guys are a terrible choice.... but... who do I THINK is gonna win....?
I'll say Kerry based off of the short term history against Bush.
1. His Dad won the first Iraq war and still lost the election.
2. The only time Bush's approval rating was good was during the call to arms after 9/11 and the call to arms to invade Iraq. Americans have had a habit of doing this. Remember before 9/11, Bush was struggling and now after we took Iraq he is struggling.
3. My original thought was that Bush would win, and I'm always wrong. :)
How's THAT for a logical and rational thought process? :D
-
Originally posted by mosgood
3. My original thought was that Bush would win, and I'm always wrong. :)
How's THAT for a logical and rational thought process? :D
I was sure that GHWB would beat Clinton. Still puzzled over that one.
-
Heck, I bailed out of a good career in the AF because I figured Carter was going to beat Reagan. Just couldn't face four more years with him as CIC.
Missed that one by a mile.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Just want a record so I can say nanny nanny boo boo come November. Who will it be?
I say: Bush (close race)
Team sports are fun!!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I was sure that GHWB would beat Clinton. Still puzzled over that one.
So did anyone see the Belmont? tough break, that Smarty Jones guy...:(
-
JELLO BIAFRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton Lied, People Sighed
Bush Lied, People Died
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I was sure that GHWB would beat Clinton. Still puzzled over that one.
Thank Mr. Ross Perot for that one. Alot of people who would have voted for Bush voted for him instead.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thank Mr. Ross Perot for that one. Alot of people who would have voted for Bush voted for him instead.
lol, that's like blaming Nader for Gore's loss
-
Perot got about 19% of the vote IRC, and that probably gave Clinton the election.
Clinton won each of his elections below 46% ( 43% 1st time IRC) of vote. Hardly a popular president with actual voters.
Clinton was lucky that Perot split the vote.
-
Analyses by political scientists following the 1992 election show conclusively that Perot did not change the outcome of the election. He drew just about even support from liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans alike. Those who voted for Perot tended to express greater dissatisfaction with national politics than those who did not, and those expressing this dissatisfaction belonged to both major parties.
In a pairwise election between just Clinton and George H.W. Bush, Clinton would have won.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I knew a lot of people that didn't vote for Perot (but wanted too) because they didnt think he had a chance, and voted for Clinton.
-
the women , blacks, gays, teachers who are firghtened of vouchers and wussy city dwellers will vote for kerry no matter what ... if there are enough of em he will win.
lazs
-
According to this recent poll, most college students prefer Kerry over Bush. Except for the Math/Science (smarter?) majors.
http://www.panettainstitute.org/lib/04/survey.pdf
Excerpt:
______________Kerry %___Bush %___Kerry Advantage +/-
All Students_____42_______30_____ __+12
Social Sciences___46______ 28_______ +18
Humanities______55______ 24_______ +31
Science/math____31_______35________-4
Business________40_______36__ ______+4
Computer Science_42_______25________+17