*DAMN R6 Forum

I was gonna respond to cookie in the other topic but I think that this deserves its own place. Obviously there is currently a pileup of Democratic candidates. Here is all of them for those of you not following politics:

Joe Lieberman (senator)
Bob Kerrey (Senator)
Dick Gephardt (congressman)
John Edwards (lawyer)
Howard Dean (former governor of Vermont)
Al Sharpton (reverend, rights activist)
Dennis Kucinich (congressman)
Carol Mosely-Braun (congresswoman)

And to complicate things even more, Gary Hart, Joseph Biden, and Bob Graham have all stated they are considering a bid (I think Graham may have decided against it by now though).

If you are a Democrat, which of these candidates would you support for a presidential run? Which of these candidates do you think has the best chance of winning?

I support Howard Dean. Although he is not a favorite of the Democratic establishment, he is the most forward thinking of the candidates [not most radical, just most forward thinking]. Things I like about him include his support of a universal healthcare system, his support of publicly funded elections, and his support for the rights of homosexuals. He has already gained support with Iowa Democrats [at least my state is important for one reason first primaries what!!!], and I know he has been to Iowa City and Des Moines several times [I saw him speak last week].

John Edwards is actually a Senator from North Carolina who also happens to be a prick.

Although I am not a Democrat, the race will boil down to Edwards, Lieberman, and Kerrey - with Edwards likely getting the nod sice the other two are too liberal for the public's liking.

The only candidate I know much about right now is Edwards, as he's from Raleigh, as am I.

However, why did you list him as a "lawyer" while listing Lieberman and Kerrey as Senators?  Edwards is a senator as well.  Also, I presume you meant "representative" by congress(wo)man, as senators are also congresspeople.

Anyway, I'm not thrilled about the coming election.  None of the democrats impress me, the third parties fail to galvanize me, and I'd sooner renounce my citizenship than vote for Bush.  Fortunately, I'm underage anyway, so the 2004 election will be beyond my control.  And when our beloved dictator retains power, it will affect my initial job market prospects, my potential draft status, and my individual privacies and freedoms.

Great job, opposition. . .

My bad on Edwards. I didn't mean to belittle his position in the senate, I just see him referenced in news articles as a lawyer all the time. Didn't even know he was in the senate. Sin, I don't think you can say Lieberman is too liberal for the public's liking, since he is pro-war, pro-Israel, and pro-censorship. He's probably the most centrist of the candidates out there.

I won't be voting because I'll be in Canada by then.

But I don't really know enough about the different ones to choose.  Whichever one will beat bush is my choice.  Although I don't like Lieberman because of his pro-censorship stance when it comes to video games.

bondo, you can vote by absentee ballot, thats what ive been doing. you just have to request it somhow (i think at the DMV).

as for the democrats: what a pathetic bunch of losers they are serving up on the buffet for 2004. saddest part is that its mostly leftovers from the last presidential election. lets see what we have:

liebermann- if i wanted a rabbi in the white house, id vote for mine. he just makes himself look like an ass everytime he starts with the morality crap.....makes him sound kinda, well, republican, imo. especially all the stuff with censure of the music industry in which he was very prominent. he might as well be a republican....

edwards- well, at least hes got the look. too bad hes a dimwit with almost no government experience.

gephart- mhhhhh, i dont think so. hes never had a real shot before, but with all these deadbeats around him, he might actually stand a slim chance.

bob kerrey (?)- i thought he was a republican and retired from senate.

john kerry (?)- is that who youre thinking of, tasty? he does have quite a bit of FP experience and hes from my state (mass). currently hes the only one id consider supporting.

howard dean- dont know much about him, but he sounds too much like a bleeding heart liberal to me. i guess theres nothing wrong with that in of itself, but i don't think we need a sissy in the white house. im talking out of my ass here though since i know little about him, except that hes big on social spending and against the war.

Al Sharpton- ROFL, yea right.....who in their right mind would vote for him? hes enough of a joke without running for president.

the last two i have absolutely no clue about. when the primaries were happening last time i was a big fan of Bill Bradley, so im really hoping somone of his caliber will step in and save the democrats' bid.

facts i have wrong: It's John and not Bob Kerry.

other stuff: leftovers of last campaign? when gore and bradley were the only major candidates? some of these guys have ran before but not in 2000 (besides Lieberman obviously).

Edwards is not a "dimwit". From articles I read he is supposed to be the most intellectual of the candidates.

saying things like a sissy in the white house and using terminology like "bleeding heart liberal" makes you sound silly. perhaps the candidates should have a bench press contest so they can  prove how manly they are.

Well, I suppose technically I could vote in 2004...but that would take registering and thinking I could make one difference in this republican state.  I figure I'm moving to Canada to escape the US political mess, why go out of my way to be involved in it.  by 2008 I'll be a Canadian and not a US citizen so by then it will be a moot point.  As for non-Presidential/local elections, not only do republicans win most everything in Colorado that is state-wide, I live in an extremely republican city, and a republican district in that city so no positions that I'd be able to vote for will go anything but for the republicans.

bah,

i guess i need to clarify what i meant by "sissy": he seems a bit to dovish on foreign policy. my opinion is that if we have a guy like that formulating our foreign policy, our interests will not be adequately protected and will get trampled on. there, thats what i meant by "sissy in the white house", which i think most people have an easier time interpreting than what i said above. i know, your against bush's iraq policy.....blah, blah, blah

maybe dimwit is a little strong for edwards.....he's not as knowledgable on certain very important topics (i.e foreign policy) as I would want my president to be. then again, neither is bush, but i never voted for him (and never will, no matter how shitty the democratic ticket).

i don't like the term bleeding heart liberal that much either, but it had the connotation i was looking for in this situation. i myself qualify as one (by most ppls standards) so don't take offense......and if you do, well, sod off.

finally, when i was talking about leftovers, i was referring to Liebermann, kerry and gephardt mostly.....theyre are not exactly fresh material. edwards is a noob (does saying that make me sound silly too?) and sharpton is a clown (this isnt his first bid either). i guess well have to wait for the primaries to see how these guys stand up against one another and, more importantly, against bush. anyways, i was just throughing out my thoughts on these candidates in a very raw and crude manner, so i don't really give a shit if you think i sound silly.......

Found another name for the list in my newspaper.

Carol Moseley-Braun...former senator from Illinois
She was the first black female senator
She says she is a "peace dove and budget hawk"

She would be helped and hurt with her gender and race in the election.  I think to some degree having a female president could hurt foreign relations with some countries as not everyone in the world has as much gender equality as we do.

Bondo that would be great accept we all know that there are too many racists and too many sexists and you put them together and well she simply wouldnt have a chance. Thats what counts out Al Sharpton as well. Though Al and Modeley Braun would be good for the world the Democratic party must put up a white male if they want a chance of ousting the encombent. We have to be able to sacrifice greatness and get a less knowledgable candidate rather then basically surrender the country to Bush for another four years.

I'm not actually a very big Al Sharpton detractor. I think he's generally a good guy. The problem with both him and Moseley-Braun is that they have been involved in past scandals. Combine that with Southern racism and you have a bad combination for winning the election. Also I thought you guys might be interested in seeing some poll numbers on who democratic voters are favoring, so here is a link to polls of both Iowa and New Hampshire voters: Democratic Polling Data (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&ArticleID=73096)

I would also like to pre-apologize to everyone for the apparent popularity of Gephardt in Iowa. Really, I don't know what they fuck they are thinking. It appears the universal favorite right now is Kerrey.

By far the funniest thing I've heard Abe say yet.  LMAO.


They day he is sworn in as President of the United States of America is the day that I not only move back to Canada, but I'll even move in with Bondo.  That just about covers my feelings on that topic.   :o

Only if you'll pay me good money to babysit and indoctrinate your child with liberal viewpoints. ;D
The good news is BC is one of the less liberal provinces...it gets more liberal in the East.

We really have had shit for candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush was re-elected considering the crap that the democratic party has to offer (but i hope it doesn't happen). What would be nice is if Giuliani ran as a candidate. He seems like a decent guy with the right views.

Since there is a movie about Giuliani coming out soon, showing him in a very heroic light I've read, I wouldn't count him out of running yet, it's still early.

I imagine it really depends on his health.

As for bringing the wife (by then) and kid, I'd probably chose to abort both of them, saving them the anguish of watching America really go down in flames.  :o

What is with all the lionization of Giuliani after September 11. I'm sorry, but he was a douche bag before and the fact that he happened to be the mayor of New York when it happened doesn't change a thing. I personally don't think his leadership after 9/11 was any different from what any other mayor worth their salt would have done. Michael Bloomberg appears to be doing a much better job overall as mayor of NYC (besides the whole massive funding removal from the public schools there).

Also, what's wrong with Al Sharpton? I know the Dems think he's a disaster and I know there is a lot of popular sentiment against him, but I'd like to know why people dislike him so.

No zaitsev, what counts all sharpton out is the fact that nobody takes him seriously. and for good reason, imo: he just hops on the bandwagon of any ridiculous cause or protest that he thinks will get him publicity, no matter how outlandishly dumb it really is. kind of like you, zaitzev, imo.
and tasty, it's not that I dispise Al Sharpton, but i think hes just a publicity-hungry profiteer. besides, if youre looking for a noob, al sharpton is your man: the only government experience he has is getting arrested.

oh, and py: last time i checked, guiliani was a republican. are you suggesting he take over the republican ticket from bush or that we have two republicans running for the white house? because i dont think itll fly either way.

and btw, i agree with you on benito guiliani, tasty. he was a fascist before 9/11 and i doubt thats changed any bit.

Likewise, what's with all the edification of Bush after 9/11 as well?  Sure, he did finally make a speech without a verbal miscue, but I didn't really find his leadership very rousing.  And stolidly placing the US into a war while scaring the populace into a pseudo-patriotic fervor hardly seems like good leadership to me.  He acted very strongly after the attacks, but I continue to think that the stronger his actions = the worse for the country.

hahaha
dont get all your hopes up too high...
most of the american majority (60% as of august - NBC) still approve of bush, more would if there weren't so many damn "democrat-or-death" people. you make me sick how you can take ANYthing a republican does, and twist it to make it look evil - whether or not in reality it was/n't good.  what especially made me sick was tasty's comment on guiliani, which only further proves my point. you guys are dumb.

I don't have the energy to get into another heated debate, so I'll just give a very short version.  He's a racist jackass.  Just as bad as any other racist jackass.  And anyone that uses the defense (that he himself has used) that a black man can't be racist doesn't understand the word.  He's also a dumbass in my opinion.

I have nothing against a black man in office either.  I think Powell would do a good job (and for you Democrats, remember that it was a long close race as to which party he was going to join.  Both wanted him).  I don't think it matters at all what race the person in office is.  But we don't need the narrow mind of a racist in there.

They're obviously making the comments because Giuliani would run on the Republican ticket. What I think is funny is when you ask a democrat why they hate the rupblican party....their answer is "Because they're stupid."

I hate it when morons qoute some random polling number like "%60 of all americans approve of Bush!!"
That is bullshit. I am a voting American and I dont remember anyone asking my fucking opinion for that poll. Don't forget that Bush did not receive a majority of the popular vote{meaning that most Americans actually wanted Gore to be president}, and the only reason that he won was because of some major voting clusterfuck in Florida. Kinda curious considering how his brother is governer...  I HATE REPUBLICANS AND I HOPE THEY ALL DIE ARRRGHHHHH!!! >:( >:( ::) :P :-[
Well, not really but you get the point. This country is incredibly screwed up. I really just hate ignorant people who talk out of their assholes....  you people elect idiots like george bush  to office and then wonder why euros bash the hell out of our country and hate us....

BTW i live in Illinois where carol moseley braun was senator and she did a horrible job. She is also kind of stupid lol. I think it would be cool to have a black or woman president but it definately won't be her ;D

If anything, Bush should have won Florida by a wider margin, but the exit poll watchers had declared Gore the winner hours before the polls closed - probably leaving the Republican heavy western part of the state to stay home. Anyway, this doesn't matter whatsoever because after the elections, numerous independent companies/media outlets performed their own recount and showed that Bush actually won by a wider margin than was officially recorded....also don't blame the Butterfly ballots as a Republican conspiracy because a Democrat made them.

Let's not get back into this debate, because it can be twisted either way - but most people agree with what I just wrote above.

If any minority is going to be President in the near future, it is Colin Powell - but his wife doesn't want him to run fearing some racist will assassinate him.

As for the polling number...it isn't random. He told where it came from (NBC probably partnered with another independent firm) and they took a fair sampling that is scientifically correct down to probably +/- 4%. But then again, his timeframe is a little strange considering he quoted August's numbers.

I can only imagine where you get your information from Hollenhund. You like games dont you? Well it looks to me like one of the dems wants to bring them down. The beloved jew...Lieberman. See? I could say the same stuff you say about the Republican party. Its all bullshit. Vote for who you think is the best candidate (if you're old enough...and i know you're not), and see what happens. That's all you can do.

Sin...good stuff.

Approval rating has no real bearing on voting.  There is a huge difference between the question do you approve or disapprove of Bush and would you vote for Bush.  Many people who would prefer another candidate may still say they approve of the job Bush has done.  On the other hand, I doubt someone who disapproves of Bush would vote for him.  So approval rating is almost assuredly higher than the % of voters that would vote for him.  So his having a 60% approval rating means that he probably is 50-50 on being voted for.  This of course depends on who else runs.

Py, if you base your view of democrats on a few other dumb people then you are a dumbass.  I don't say the Republican party is stupid (mind you I'm not a democrat but the point still is valid).  I would say I don't like the Republican party because they in general support cutting social programs, increase defense spending, have more Christian influenced motives, etc.  There are many policy issues that I choose as why I don't like the Republican party.  It isn't just because they are stupid.

As for Gulliani.  I personally think he is a good guy.  Would I vote for him as a Republican...probably not, but I'd rather have him than Bush.  I think discrediting Bush's rise in popularity because of 9/11 is more valid than discrediting Gulliani's.

What I really hate about American politics is that religion is always fucking there. I can't stand that crap.

<sarcasm>Yes, all democrats would do is call a republican dumb</sarcasm>. I haven't seen anyone resort to calling someone else "dumb" without evidence why until this person's post. And he's a Republican saying that Democrats are dumb. And he doesn't give a damn bit of evidence to back up why Guiliani is good. Not to mention I didn't smear him, I just asked why everybody thinks he's so great. Which no one has answered.
 I would just like to point out the flagrant hypocrisy. Also, when have I twisted things republicans have said to make them look evil? I'd like to see you find an example of that. I don't even see how that's relevant either, since this topic was about democratic hopefuls and not things republicans ahve said.

sin, i will make a post later about why i think the Florida elections were wrong. right now i'm just too fucking hungover.

Hmm... I dont think I've ever met you...But I can assure you that I was old enough to vote in the last presidential election. I think my message might have come across the wrong way. I'm mostly just angry about Bush's policies and actions than republicans in general. I am actually a non partisan voter and have voted in the past for a few republicans (simply because they were the best candidate ;)). Assassin you are probably right when you say that Bush would have won FlA. I'm more pissed at the American electoral system than anything else. I think we can all agree that the last election was total bullshit and the system needs drastic reform. And PY im not sure exactly what you were talking about with that whole Liebermann thing...

Btw I think Powell would make an awesome president. ;D

Reform I'll agree with, and have.  But I don't agree it was bullshit.  I've said it before, I don't understand why it's bullshit now, but everyone of us learned that it could happen back in school.  Every class I ever had that talked about elections brought up the electoral college and how, because of it, we could have a president that didn't win the popular vote.  The math always told us how easy it is, and it didn't even need to be this close.  Gore could won the states he won with landslides, and it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

So, the ecectoral college has sucked for a long time.  But I see no reason for being outraged just because it finally failed like we knew it would.  It's like being outraged at a tire that goes flat in the middle of a trip, even though you saw the nail in it long before, many times, but didn't bother to fix it when you had the chance.  

I agree its stupid and yes a black can be racist against whites but honestly i dunno much on the topic wheres the proof hes racist>?

I think there is much confusion on the definitions of these words. The definition of racism in America that we were given in my race relations class is:

"a system of advantage based on race that benefits those defined as white"

The definition of racism relates specifically to the oppression of a minority race by the most powerful race. Black people can discriminate racially against white people, but they cannot be racist against them because racism is both an institutionalized system and an attitude. This does not mean that black people are justified in exhibiting racial prejudice against white people. It simply means that if they did, it wouldn't be racism.

rac?ism ?? (?P?)??Pronunciation Key??(rszm)
n.

1.   The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others


I most definetly think a black can be racist against whites. In the world there are more blacks then whites anyway.

A black man can certainly be a racist, it can even go so far as to a black man being a racist against his own kind like here in Sweden (a black nazi killed a cop here a year ago).

Btw, I'm not so sure there are more black than white people in the world.

Zaitsev, a black person can be racist against a white person, just not in America. Perhaps if you went to Uganda you would experience racism against you.

Perhaps if he came to Detroit or Chicago he could experience it to.  (considering that the whites are quite the minority in Detroit).  According to your definition, even in Uganda they can't be racist against him, since they aren't white.

Tasty, racism has nothing to do with who's in power.  It just has to do with basing arguments on race.  So I disagree completely with your race relations class, and instead chose to use the dictionary to define it.  You class chose to redefine it.  Tell us what it would be called when a black man or native american discriminate racially against whites?  What's the right term according to your class?  And tell us who're the racists in South Africa (whites, blacks or both)?

So, while you may have 'defined for the purpose of this class' the word racism, that class doesn't define it for the rest of America.

And Zaitsev, Sharpton has a show on television here locally.  I don't know if you can catch it where you live.  But you should watch it if you get the chance.  The word oppertunist doesn't do him justice.  Look how many film crews he had follow him to the spot of the shootings in Ohio.  Listen to what he said when he visited Africa last year.  I'm not going to give you the soundbites, I'll just point you were to look for examples to make up your own mind.