Debate thoughts

[MrTotality]

I am curious if anyone else has any thoughts following the earliest rounds of the debates? I have to say I think the only guy who has improved his stock thus far has been Biden, although he stands no chance. I also think that there are 3 candidates who have not announced anything yet, that might make a big splasg:
A.Gore
M. Bloomberg and
F. Thompson

Thoughts?

 

[anabolicrhino]

The most impressive democrat is Mike Gravel. He is anti war anti income tax and pro drugs !!!
http://newworldrhinos.blogspot.com/2007/06/mike-gravel-continues-to-roll.html

The least impressive democrat is Obama. He just smiles and stammers with no clear description of his agenda.

The most impressive republican by far is Ron Paul. He just speaks plain truth about regaining our republic through the constitution. He is very clear on the rights of the individual being greater then the rights of the state.
http://newworldrhinos.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-republican-debate-on-june-5th.html

The least impressive republican is Giuliani. He comes off very creepy and the terrorism thing is so 2004 !

 

[zbtboy]

The most impressive democrat is Mike Gravel. He is anti war anti income tax and pro drugs !!!
http://newworldrhinos.blogspot.com/2007/06/mike-gravel-continues-to-roll.html

The least impressive democrat is Obama. He just smiles and stammers with no clear description of his agenda.

The most impressive republican by far is Ron Paul. He just speaks plain truth about regaining our republic through the constitution. He is very clear on the rights of the individual being greater then the rights of the state.
http://newworldrhinos.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-republican-debate-on-june-5th.html

The least impressive republican is Giuliani. He comes off very creepy and the terrorism thing is so 2004 !

I agree with everything but Gravel. The guy just seems to sinister for my liking and the Reagan Dems are all but long gone these days (voters that is). While people have their opinions already set on Hillary, I think she's done a very good job thusfar. Though she needs to get away from "I gave him authority thinking he'd go the diplomatic route" crap. The dems need to stand up and taking responsibilty for their actions back then. They were so afraid of being anti-american, un-patriotic, you name it, that they gave away the farm to the Bushies.

Ron Paul is very interesting, and Rudy is just a parrot that only says "terrorism" cause he has nothing else. I'm very dissapointed in his campaign thusfar. Huckabee has really been the most impressive to me and like Dodd on the other side I wish they would give him more time in these debates.

 

[anabolicrhino]

I agree with everything but Gravel. The guy just seems to sinister for my liking and the Reagan Dems are all but long gone these days (voters that is). While people have their opinions already set on Hillary, I think she's done a very good job thusfar. Though she needs to get away from "I gave him authority thinking he'd go the diplomatic route" crap. The dems need to stand up and taking responsibilty for their actions back then. They were so afraid of being anti-american, un-patriotic, you name it, that they gave away the farm to the Bushies.

Ron Paul is very interesting, and Rudy is just a parrot that only says "terrorism" cause he has nothing else. I'm very dissapointed in his campaign thusfar. Huckabee has really been the most impressive to me and like Dodd on the other side I wish they would give him more time in these debates.

I am fascinated by Gravel because he just says what he wants. The reporter interviewing him compares him to "Howard Beal" from the movie NETWORK.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I think that is a perfect call,
although I hope Gravel does not suffer a similar demise!

 

[MrTotality]

I have to say I have liked Biden thus far. Thought he has been well spoken and very clear in his responses. I dont think he stands a chance, but he is certainly is different than the other dems.

IMO best case scenario is Paul v. Biden

 

[Nullifidian]

I have to say I have liked Biden thus far. Thought he has been well spoken and very clear in his responses. I dont think he stands a chance, but he is certainly is different than the other dems.

IMO best case scenario is Paul v. Biden

Biden??! You mean Mr. "Prohormone are teh deveeeeeeeel!"
One of the guys who came up with the AAS Control Act of 2004?! The guy who put through legislation to change the "individual dose" of AAS to be 1 pill or 0.5cc so that if you get with a single vial of AAS or half a bottle of pills you get convicted of "Posession with intent to distribute"? I would NEVER, EVER, EVER in a MILLION YEARS, consider that guy anything other than SCUM.

 

[joecski]

Biden??! You mean Mr. "Prohormone are teh deveeeeeeeel!"
One of the guys who came up with the anabolic steroids Control Act of 2004?! The guy who put through legislation to change the "individual dose" of AAS to be 1 pill or 0.5cc so that if you get with a single vial of AAS or half a bottle of pills you get convicted of "Posession with intent to distribute"? I would NEVER, EVER, EVER in a MILLION YEARS, consider that guy anything other than SCUM.

As anti-bush as America seems, I really feel the next president will be a republican. The only two who would seem to have a shot have not announed their candidacy yet, Thompson and Bloomberg. If Thompson runs, and I think he will, he will get the nod and defeat any democrat. Bloomberg is interesting thoug, the man that can't be bought and all that good stuff, but beig the mayor of NYC isn't enough, ask Giuliani. The reason he stump on terrorism is that is all the people know him for, if he talked about the dfact that he was oppressively anit-gun in NYC then voters would reject him out of hand, as the conservative base has already done.

 

[MrTotality]

Biden??! You mean Mr. "Prohormone are teh deveeeeeeeel!"
One of the guys who came up with the anabolic steroids Control Act of 2004?! The guy who put through legislation to change the "individual dose" of AAS to be 1 pill or 0.5cc so that if you get with a single vial of AAS or half a bottle of pills you get convicted of "Posession with intent to distribute"? I would NEVER, EVER, EVER in a MILLION YEARS, consider that guy anything other than SCUM.

gotta tell you with the issues that presently face the world right now, prohormones and steroid use are not a big concern of mine. So if he is against them, but could be a step up in terms of executive leadership I am all for it.

 

[MrTotality]

As anti-bush as America seems, I really feel the next president will be a republican. The only two who would seem to have a shot have not announed their candidacy yet, Thompson and Bloomberg. If Thompson runs, and I think he will, he will get the nod and defeat any democrat. Bloomberg is interesting thoug, the man that can't be bought and all that good stuff, but beig the mayor of NYC isn't enough, ask Giuliani. The reason he stump on terrorism is that is all the people know him for, if he talked about the dfact that he was oppressively anit-gun in NYC then voters would reject him out of hand, as the conservative base has already done.

conservatives wont go near Rudy. I think it will be intersting however, if Bloomberg comes in as an independant which is rumored and Gore and Thompson come in. Could be very interesting. I would be surprised however if a repub gets the nod.

 

[Nullifidian]

Thompson could win the entire election easily. People would vote for him just cause they know him from Law and Order. Yes the American public does vote based on stupid crap like that. Heck, Bush got voted in the first time because of the "who would you rather have a few beers with?" question. Plus, not only is Thompson a familiar actor, he plays an authority figure above respute on a TV show! And yes, people are stupid enough to think the role an actor plays on a TV show makes them like that in real life.

Hillary Clinton is going to get the nom from the Dems.

I think this actually may hinge on Ron Paul. A lot of folks have said Ron Paul may run as an independent when he doesn't ge tthe Republican nom (I say "when" cus there's no way in fuzzark he is going to get the nom). If he runs as a third party, the dems will win, hands down. None of the other Republican candidates are "small government". All of the fiscal conservatives, or at least a HUGE number, and all Libertarians, would vote for Ron Paul. Most Libertarians actually vote Republican. Those would basically be lost Republican votes.

Essentially it would be a replay of the 1992 election where Bush Sr. lost because Ross Perot stole votes from him.


In all honesty, I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul no matter what. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's the closest I've ever seen in a Presidential candidate in terms of what I want as a President. If it comes down to it, I'm going to write his name in.

 

[joecski]

Thompson could win the entire election easily. People would vote for him just cause they know him from Law and Order. Yes the American public does vote based on stupid crap like that. Heck, Bush got voted in the first time because of the "who would you rather have a few beers with?" question. Plus, not only is Thompson a familiar actor, he plays an authority figure above respute on a TV show! And yes, people are stupid enough to think the role an actor plays on a TV show makes them like that in real life.

I agree with everything you say here, Thompson is a friend to the conservative base, and the rest of America KNOWS him.

If Hillary gets the Dem nod, she will practically ensure a republican victory. People either love her or hate her, and not enough people love her to get her elected. I'm an undecided voter, and I won't vote for Hillary. She supposedly has the female vote, but moy wife said she prefers Edwards. The big reason - he looks like a president - don't be surprised how many people think and vote this way.

My son is pushing Ron Paul on me, being that he's a twenty one year old college student I would assume this is where our youth movement is at. Bloomberg is teh real wild card, Ron Paul might have the agenda, but Bloomberg has the cash, enough to mount a Perot-like candidacy. It's still to early to tell, but I bet all those candidates that jumped into the race early are kickigthemselves for nto sitting tight for a few more months, when these guys get in they will have more funds to spend at crunch time.

 

[MrTotality]

If only Thompson enters, I think it is Thompson v. Edwards. Edwards it the least offensive of all the dems, and has a tremendous appeal to a certain type of woman. If it comes down to those 2 Edwards will take it. IMO. I do agree with the previous 2 posters, people vote for a variety of reasons

 

[Nullifidian]

If only Thompson enters, I think it is Thompson v. Edwards. Edwards it the least offensive of all the dems, and has a tremendous appeal to a certain type of woman. If it comes down to those 2 Edwards will take it. IMO. I do agree with the previous 2 posters, people vote for a variety of reasons

Edwards is way behind in the primary race. He'd get slaughtered in the main event though; he's a TRIAL LAWYER. Worse he's an ambulence chaser. They guy did personal injury and malpractice cases. In fact, one of his cases had a tremendous impact on raising insurance rates across the boards. He, all by himself, actually has managed to make the healthcare system a lot worse through his actions.

No he could never win and will never win.

Current standings among Dems:

1) Hillary
2) Obama
3) Edwards

In terms of likeability among the Dems:

1) Obama
2) Edwards
3) Hillary

Among the Republicans, standings are:

1) Romney
2) Giuliani
3) McCaine

Likeability:

1) Romney
2) Giuliani
3) McCaine

If Thompson enters the race soon enough, he'll beat all of the current republicans easily in both normal standings and in likability. If he waits too long, he won't get enough states to win the primary.

Here are my predictions, one of three outcomes will happen:

Hillary vs Romney, Hillary wins
Hillary vs Thompson, Thompson wins
Hillary vs Thompson vs Paul, Hillary wins


Actually I think it'd be kinda funny if Hillary won. That would mean the last president would have been:

Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton

lmao

 

[MrTotality]

I disagree, he is still the least objectionable considering what Hillary and Obama bring to race

 

[Nullifidian]

I disagree, he is still the least objectionable considering what Hillary and Obama bring to race

What's wrong with Obama? I think he's a good guy.

And while you may think Edwards is ok, America disagrees with you. A lot.

 

[MrTotality]

What's wrong with Obama? I think he's a good guy.

And while you may think Edwards is ok, America disagrees with you. A lot.

I think the info in Obama's autobio will come back to haunt him, and also keep in mind, and I hate to say this but his skin color will play a role. Additionally, if you have watched the debates he has looked overmatched at times

At the end of the day, Edwards will beat out Hillary based on her gender.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Actually I think it'd be kinda funny if Hillary won. That would mean the last president would have been:

Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton

lmao

Its funny and scary at the same time because it will mean that the Bush mafia starting with Reagan in 1980 right though Hillary in 2012 will have been the ruling party for 30+ years !!!

Did somebody say plutocracy ?

yikes !!!

 

[Nullifidian]

I think the info in Obama's autobio will come back to haunt him, and also keep in mind, and I hate to say this but his skin color will play a role. Additionally, if you have watched the debates he has looked overmatched at times

At the end of the day, Edwards will beat out Hillary based on her gender.

No he won't. Historically, Republicans are the party with gender issues.

Dude, Hillary isn't just in the lead, and Edwards isn't in third by a small margin. Edwards has near single digit support. Hillary has like 40%. It's not even remotely close. We're talking landslide here.

Obama can't win because of his name. Not becuase he's black but because of his name. Hillary has already hosed him with that by hiring reporters to spread a rumor that he went to a radical Islamic school when he was a kid. The truth is he went to a public school that didn't teach any religion at all. I think it was 60 minutes that uncovered the BS on that one.

It won't matter though. In this day and age of hysteria and madness where "terrorist" is a magic word, no one will elect a guy named "Barack Hussein Obama." Poor guy, he's not even Muslim. He does have some good ideas though and he seems about as genuine as it gets. I'd say honestly he appears as genuine in his beliefs as Ron Paul. He's just not as seasoned and experienced. And of course his beliefs are completely different. But he doesn't sway whichever the the money goes.


Hehe, I'm reminded though of a poll recently done asking people who they'd be willing to vote for. They listed various religions, and listed other demographic points like would they vote for a person if they were gay, a woman, black, asian, etc.

Atheists ranked the absolute lowest. People would be less likely to vote for an atheist than a gay person.

Though funny enough, Georgia just elected an atheist to the House of Reps. I bet they didn't even realise it. The guy is a Buddhist and all Buddhists are atheists. Same with Hawaii; they elected a Buddhist as well. First 2 Buddhists elected to positions in Congress.

 

[MrTotality]

No he won't. Historically, Republicans are the party with gender issues.

Dude, Hillary isn't just in the lead, and Edwards isn't in third by a small margin. Edwards has near single digit support. Hillary has like 40%. It's not even remotely close. We're talking landslide here.

Way too early to tell yet IMO.

Obama can't win because of his name. Not becuase he's black but because of his name. Hillary has already hosed him with that by hiring reporters to spread a rumor that he went to a radical Islamic school when he was a kid. The truth is he went to a public school that didn't teach any religion at all. I think it was 60 minutes that uncovered the BS on that one.

It won't matter though. In this day and age of hysteria and madness where "terrorist" is a magic word, no one will elect a guy named "Barack Hussein Obama." Poor guy, he's not even Muslim. He does have some good ideas though and he seems about as genuine as it gets. I'd say honestly he appears as genuine in his beliefs as Ron Paul. He's just not as seasoned and experienced. And of course his beliefs are completely different. But he doesn't sway whichever the the money goes.

I agree he hasnt got a chance, for a variety of reasons. However I think that at the end of the day we are still a racially and gender biased country. If Gore doesnt run for the dems, I think that Edwards will pull ahead. Hillary is still too polarizing

Hehe, I'm reminded though of a poll recently done asking people who they'd be willing to vote for. They listed various religions, and listed other demographic points like would they vote for a person if they were gay, a woman, black, asian, etc.

Atheists ranked the absolute lowest. People would be less likely to vote for an atheist than a gay person.

Though funny enough, Georgia just elected an atheist to the House of Reps. I bet they didn't even realise it. The guy is a Buddhist and all Buddhists are atheists. Same with Hawaii; they elected a Buddhist as well. First 2 Buddhists elected to positions in Congress.

As a buddhist I can say its about time :head:

 

[Nullifidian]

Way too early to tell yet IMO.

Not as early as you might think. The primaries are all earlier this year.

I agree he hasnt got a chance, for a variety of reasons. However I think that at the end of the day we are still a racially and gender biased country. If Gore doesnt run for the dems, I think that Edwards will pull ahead. Hillary is still too polarizing

Her spin machine is doing a good job of getting rid of some of the polarization. Many people don't like her simply because of spin from the other side of the aisle. She's been fighting that by propping up her experience and it's working very very well.

As a buddhist I can say its about time :head:

I agree wholeheartedly. Though I'm not a Buddhist. We need more Buddhists in government. As it is currently, we have like 2 or 3 Jewish guys, 2 Buddhists, and the rest of Christians of some form or another. Not exactly fair representation.

 

[MrTotality]

I agree wholeheartedly. Though I'm not a Buddhist. We need more Buddhists in government. As it is currently, we have like 2 or 3 Jewish guys, 2 Buddhists, and the rest of Christians of some form or another. Not exactly fair representation.

Preach on brother:goodpost:

 

[Nullifidian]

Preach on brother:goodpost:

In truth, I've been looking into the Theravada philosophy lately. Was also hoping to get my wife to check it out too. I figured it would be a good guide to help with inner reflection and universal contemplation when I meditate. My wife doesn't meditate currently, but I think she might enjoy it. been having a tough time explaining it to her though; she kinda has ADD.

 

[MrTotality]

In truth, I've been looking into the Theravada philosophy lately. Was also hoping to get my wife to check it out too. I figured it would be a good guide to help with inner reflection and universal contemplation when I meditate. My wife doesn't meditate currently, but I think she might enjoy it. been having a tough time explaining it to her though; she kinda has ADD.

It is a difficult process to begin, the mindless aspect always seems to confuse and bother people. However, once the individual trusts themselves enough to sort of let it all go, it is very rewarding.

I am glad to see you looking into Theraveda, although I never label myself either way. I just agree with the inner reflection and the importance on the focus on oneself.

I tried to get the wife into it, however that was a dead move from the beginning.