PDA

View Full Version : The Silly Season of Politics


LutherCalvin
11-23-2007, 12:41 PM
In case you hadn't noticed, there's a presidential campaign underway in the United States. On November 4, 2008 our country is scheduled to have the 55th consecutive quadrennial election to elect the most powerful leader in the free world.

The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" (child of U.S. citizens) citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

Some new qualifications may be that you have to have a massive ego and a huge bank account, This country is not lacking for candidates in the former, but not many can raise the huge amounts of money necessary to "get your message" (Vote For Me) out.

Another recent qualification to run for POTUS (President of the United States) is that you have to have the surname of Bush or Clinton. That's been the rule since 1980.

Here's my take on the current candidates of the major parties:

Hillary Clinton, Democrat: The most qualified of all the candidates as she has the surname qualifier and has been running for the office since high school. Her claim to fame is that she is a senator from New York and the former first lady who was married to a serial sex offender president nicknamed "Bubba."

Barack Obama, Democrat, senator from Illinois and a charismatic new face in politics with the interesting middle name of Hussein. He made a great speech at the last Democratic convention about "one America" and has been running on the fumes since then. He skipped 80% of the votes in the U.S. Senate to run for president. His favorite word in the predidential debates is "Look..."

John Edwards, Democrat: Not the guy who talks with the dead, but the former senator from South Carolina who ran as second bananna with John Kerry four years ago. Edwards, the son-of-a-millworker, is known for his expensive haircuts, and "two Americas" speeches.

Joe Biden, current senator, foreign policy wonk, and former plagiarist, who is running for Secretary of State in the next Democratic administration.

Christopher Odd, er..I mean Dodd, a senator who can stop on a dime and give you nine cents change. The guy is a windbag who can talk for hours.

Bill Richardson, the current governor of New Mexico, who prides himself on being the only Hispanic in the race. He is running to be Hillary's Vice President (Although I thought Bill Clinton would be a better selection for that post.)

Dennis Kucinich, representative from Ohio, who looks like a space alien, and has policies to match. His only claim to fame is that he has the hottest looking spouse in the race.

Not to be outdone, the Republicans are offering up their candidates:

Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New Yawk, who has been married three times, supports abortion and gay rights. He's not running on the social issues (I wonder why?) but on keeping our country safe from the nasty terroists.

Mitt Romney, former governor of that most liberal of states, Massachusetts, who is a successful businessman and organizer of the Olympics. He just happens to be a Mormon.
He looks like a president sent from central casting in Hollywood.

Fred Thompson, former senator and Hollywood actor. The rap on Fred is that he lacks the "fire in the belly" to be president. I think that's a good trait.

Mike Huckabee, governor from Arkansas and a baptist minister. He exudes sincerity which plays well with the religious right.

John McCain, powerful senator from Arizona and former P.O.W., who's right on the war, but wrong on immigration.

Duncan Hunter, congressman from California who's devoid of charisma, but right on all the issues.

Tom Tancredo, congressman from Colorado. He's a one trick pony, anti-illegal immigration.

Ron Paul, kooky congressman from Texas, who's an isolationist and actually a Libertarian. He's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republicans, and the candidate for conspiracyologists.

The Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for January 3rd and the New Hampshire Primary is scheduled five days later. Other primaries are scheduled in January and February. Vote for the candidate of your choice. One will become the next President of the United States.

46zilzal
11-23-2007, 12:47 PM
Iowa is hardly representative of the overall population. Not even close.

LutherCalvin
11-23-2007, 12:56 PM
New Hampshire is also not representative of the nation. That's why I favor four regional primaries to be rotated every four years. And federal funding of presidential elections to level the playing field.

Being first to cast votes gives too much influence to Iowa and New Hampshire.

46zilzal
11-23-2007, 12:58 PM
New Hampshire is also not representative of the nation. That's why I favor four regional primaries to be rotated every four years. And federal funding of presidential elections to level the playing field.


A very sound idea.

Sailwolf
11-23-2007, 01:01 PM
New Hampshire is also not representative of the nation. That's why I favor four regional primaries to be rotated every four years. And federal funding of presidential elections to level the playing field.

Being first to cast votes gives too much influence to Iowa and New Hampshire.

I second the idea:ThmbUp:

kenwoodallpromos
11-23-2007, 01:52 PM
Sorry, I do not vote the New World Order party(ies). I always vote for the loser (3rd party).

Tom
11-23-2007, 03:02 PM
How about this - a national primary - 40% dems 40% repubs and 20% indepedant - maximum 40 names in all. Every registered voter ( verified citizens w/SS numbers) gets to vote for 5 people.

The top three get on the national ballot. you could have 3 dems, 3 repubs, or 3 indies in the extreme. This might ensure that the finalists were able to convince enough people nationally that they deserve a shot at the office.
Int he national election, president and vice president are the top two vote getters. Third guy gets a copy of our home game.

Nothing strikes as more ridiculous than the way we do it now. The Hawkeye Cacii serve no national purpose.
And who the hell cares what Vermont thinks? Bottle your syrup and shut up already!:rolleyes:;)

Marshall Bennett
11-23-2007, 03:12 PM
In case you hadn't noticed, there's a presidential campaign underway in the United States. On November 4, 2008 our country is scheduled to have the 55th consecutive quadrennial election to elect the most powerful leader in the free world.

The Constitution requires that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" (child of U.S. citizens) citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.

Some new qualifications may be that you have to have a massive ego and a huge bank account, This country is not lacking for candidates in the former, but not many can raise the huge amounts of money necessary to "get your message" (Vote For Me) out.

Another recent qualification to run for POTUS (President of the United States) is that you have to have the surname of Bush or Clinton. That's been the rule since 1980.

Here's my take on the current candidates of the major parties:

Hillary Clinton, Democrat: The most qualified of all the candidates as she has the surname qualifier and has been running for the office since high school. Her claim to fame is that she is a senator from New York and the former first lady who was married to a serial sex offender president nicknamed "Bubba."

Barack Obama, Democrat, senator from Illinois and a charismatic new face in politics with the interesting middle name of Hussein. He made a great speech at the last Democratic convention about "one America" and has been running on the fumes since then. He skipped 80% of the votes in the U.S. Senate to run for president. His favorite word in the predidential debates is "Look..."

John Edwards, Democrat: Not the guy who talks with the dead, but the former senator from South Carolina who ran as second bananna with John Kerry four years ago. Edwards, the son-of-a-millworker, is known for his expensive haircuts, and "two Americas" speeches.

Joe Biden, current senator, foreign policy wonk, and former plagiarist, who is running for Secretary of State in the next Democratic administration.

Christopher Odd, er..I mean Dodd, a senator who can stop on a dime and give you nine cents change. The guy is a windbag who can talk for hours.

Bill Richardson, the current governor of New Mexico, who prides himself on being the only Hispanic in the race. He is running to be Hillary's Vice President (Although I thought Bill Clinton would be a better selection for that post.)

Dennis Kucinich, representative from Ohio, who looks like a space alien, and has policies to match. His only claim to fame is that he has the hottest looking spouse in the race.

Not to be outdone, the Republicans are offering up their candidates:

Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New Yawk, who has been married three times, supports abortion and gay rights. He's not running on the social issues (I wonder why?) but on keeping our country safe from the nasty terroists.

Mitt Romney, former governor of that most liberal of states, Massachusetts, who is a successful businessman and organizer of the Olympics. He just happens to be a Mormon.
He looks like a president sent from central casting in Hollywood.

Fred Thompson, former senator and Hollywood actor. The rap on Fred is that he lacks the "fire in the belly" to be president. I think that's a good trait.

Mike Huckabee, governor from Arkansas and a baptist minister. He exudes sincerity which plays well with the religious right.

John McCain, powerful senator from Arizona and former P.O.W., who's right on the war, but wrong on immigration.

Duncan Hunter, congressman from California who's devoid of charisma, but right on all the issues.

Tom Tancredo, congressman from Colorado. He's a one trick pony, anti-illegal immigration.

Ron Paul, kooky congressman from Texas, who's an isolationist and actually a Libertarian. He's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republicans, and the candidate for conspiracyologists.

The Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for January 3rd and the New Hampshire Primary is scheduled five days later. Other primaries are scheduled in January and February. Vote for the candidate of your choice. One will become the next President of the United States.
What a pathetic group of contenders !!! Only McCain might qualify , but being a spokesman for Bush's war campaign , he's hardly electable . Hillary is a JOKE , but sadly an electable one . That one word sums up what next year's election is destined to be . I'll vote for one of these candidates , but at this point, if ya put a gun to my head and asked " who " , I'd likely go speechless and get shot !!

JustRalph
11-23-2007, 03:34 PM
Iowa is hardly representative of the overall population. Not even close.

spoken from the Hinterlands of the Socialist Country of Canada...Amazing :bang:

46zilzal
11-23-2007, 03:55 PM
spoken from the Hinterlands of the Socialist Country of Canada...Amazing
Spoken by someone who sounds like he knows NOTHING of the "regionalism" of Canadian politics.

Tom
11-23-2007, 04:47 PM
I can guarantee you one thing....if Hillary gets the nomination, old white men will come of the woodwork to vote in 2008! :eek:

Marshall Bennett
11-23-2007, 08:15 PM
I can guarantee you one thing....if Hillary gets the nomination, old white men will come of the woodwork to vote in 2008! :eek:
I'm afraid the old white women may do the same , Tom !!

doophus
11-23-2007, 08:27 PM
2 old white women and 1 old white man in this house--anyone but HILLARY!!!

Marshall Bennett
11-23-2007, 09:58 PM
and thank the good Lord old dogs can't vote ...........

Tom
11-23-2007, 11:17 PM
:lol::lol::lol:

PaceAdvantage
11-23-2007, 11:51 PM
but being a spokesman for Bush's war campaign , he's hardly electable .You'd be surprised how much things can change in one year's time. A couple of pro-Iraq war candidates have been picking up major steam on the Republican side lately....you'd think that kind of position would be certain death if we are to believe everything the left tells us....

Then again, Hillary is kinda pro-Iraq war....she voted for it, and she likes to sound tough....so who knows?

Marshall Bennett
11-24-2007, 11:01 AM
You'd be surprised how much things can change in one year's time. A couple of pro-Iraq war candidates have been picking up major steam on the Republican side lately....you'd think that kind of position would be certain death if we are to believe everything the left tells us....

Then again, Hillary is kinda pro-Iraq war....she voted for it, and she likes to sound tough....so who knows?
Bush has made mistakes , most of them in dealing with his explaination , or lack of , his basic intentions in Iraq . I do support his plan however , and his toughness against terrorism . This being said , I only hope whoever wins the white house will bring this toughness with them !! The democrats control congress , they're military soft . Add a president with a simular attitude ... we're dead !!

ddog
11-24-2007, 12:07 PM
Bush has made mistakes , most of them in dealing with his explaination , or lack of , his basic intentions in Iraq . I do support his plan however , and his toughness against terrorism . This being said , I only hope whoever wins the white house will bring this toughness with them !! The democrats control congress , they're military soft . Add a president with a simular attitude ... we're dead !!

relax, we are not dead if that happens.
in this context, events have a way of defining the parameters of actions you can take.

Marshall Bennett
11-24-2007, 12:34 PM
relax, we are not dead if that happens.
in this context, events have a way of defining the parameters of actions you can take.
Didn't mean " dead " literally , but in the larger scheme of military matters , particularly where the middle east & terrorism is concerned . I suppose " dead "
was a poor choise of words .... my bad .

ddog
11-24-2007, 12:38 PM
Didn't mean " dead " literally , but in the larger scheme of military matters , particularly where the middle east & terrorism is concerned . I suppose " dead "
was a poor choise of words .... my bad .

naw , i was just funnin' a little on the dead part.
all hyper for the KU-MU game tonight.
i take your meaning.

Marshall Bennett
11-24-2007, 03:22 PM
naw , i was just funnin' a little on the dead part.
all hyper for the KU-MU game tonight.
i take your meaning.
LOL ... and who would have dreamed when the season started that the game would mean anything ? Still in a state of shock of what Arkansas did to LSU .
In fact I'm in shock over the whole season ... who's next ?