Who WILL win?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Not who you are hoping for but who you seriously think is going to win.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Not who you are hoping for but who you seriously think is going to win.

Does it make any difference? They're all crooks and liars and thieves.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Not who you are hoping for but who you seriously think is going to win.

Does it make any difference? They're all crooks and liars and thieves.

The purpose of this thread is purely politics as a spectator sport. But, since I cannot avoid the bait, do you think the results of the 2000 presidential election made no difference as to the path the world has taken these last seven years?

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not who you are hoping for but who you seriously think is going to win.

Does it make any difference? They're all crooks and liars and thieves.

The purpose of this thread is purely politics as a spectator sport. But, since I cannot avoid the bait, do you think the results of the 2000 presidential election made no difference as to the path the world has taken these last seven years?

Duh. I was in Florida at the time. Your vote DOES NOT COUNT anymore. The powers that be.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Amazon 7]

Lts make sure Huckabee wins.. so we can bring on Armegeddon in the Middle East... hell he beleives he will be miracled out before then anyway

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Duh. I was in Florida at the time. Your vote DOES NOT COUNT anymore. The powers that be.

Yes, but who do you think will win?

[cumplidor 0]

Funny how the two 'Top Candidates' here are the same top two heavily supported by Israel. It also should not be surprising at all that Ron Paul is not listed as a 'Friend of Israel' nor even worth a mention. Look here

Who do I believe will win? I believe Ron Paul will win. As his message reaches more and more people, they will wake and demand change by electing change, starting at the top. Truth and Justice will prevail.

After all isn't that what founded this country? A bunch of pissed off settlers, too far away to keep tightly under their thumb, having 'terrorist' ideas of 'Freedom, God-Given Rights, and self-governance' they tossed millions of dollars of their beloved tea into the ocean.

Well, Ron Paul supporters are tossing millions of dollars of their rapidly devaluing currency to a person that represents the change most of us bitch there needs to be. But if suppose too that if too many start supporting him, they may claim that Ron Paul was trying to 'Evoke Social Change' and arrest him as a homegrown terrorist...

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I believe Ron Paul will win.

Unless there is a drastic change soon, it doesn't look like he'll even come close to winning the primaries.

Right now, it's looking like Clinton and Giuliani will be the two main candidates in November. And if that's the case, I think there are enough Hillary-haters to push the vote to Giuliani. So that's my guess.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not who you are hoping for but who you seriously think is going to win.

Does it make any difference? They're all crooks and liars and thieves.

The purpose of this thread is purely politics as a spectator sport. But, since I cannot avoid the bait, do you think the results of the 2000 presidential election made no difference as to the path the world has taken these last seven years?

A very good point. I used to be a cynic to the point of saying it does not matter. After this administration, I now believe who is President strongly influences the flavor of the fucking mess we have to endure.

I'm not a lefty either, actually rather conservative in my leanings. The category I fit in best is Libertarian - but I don't even like that label all that much.

For the record I prefer a more centrist mess and will never vote for a Republican unless they can put up a candidate that is not claiming to get their direction from God, or astrology, or any other supernatural nonsense. I think the only thing keeping us from being the laughing stock of the political world is the fact that about 3/4 of the US now realizes what a huge fucking mistake we made electing this silver-spoon, Bible thumping (the jury is still out on Evolution - you've got to be fucking kidding!), war-mongering (how many years ago did he claim "Mission accomplished" while yucking it up in a photo op on a carrier deck?), fake cowboy (raised in Massachusetts & went to Harvard, but puts on the cute cowpolk act).

It does make me feel special to know I am living in a historically significant time - during what will probably go down as one of the goofiest Presidents we ever elected.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Right now, it's looking like Clinton and Giuliani will be the two main candidates in November. And if that's the case, I think there are enough Hillary-haters to push the vote to Giuliani. So that's my guess.

The Hillary-haters REALLY hate her, but the depth of their hatred still only amounts to one vote, so I'm not so sure.

[Shotgun 1]

So what's your guess on who will win?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Clinton

[AdamLanes 1]

If the names Giuliani, Clinton, and Ron Paul all appear on the ballot next November, then I definately think Ron Paul will win!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The purpose of this thread is purely politics as a spectator sport. But, since I cannot avoid the bait, do you think the results of the 2000 presidential election made no difference as to the path the world has taken these last seven years?

The difference is probably less than you think.

NYC still gets bombed. US still goes into Afghanistan. Very likely we take military action against Iraq, though perhaps not at the same level of involvement. Highly likely that civil liberties would be infringed with a Patriot Act (See Clinton/Reno/Feinstein during the 90s)

I certainly don't see Gore doing any worse, but how much better? Probably a one term Presidency, like Bush following Reagan.

I think it's way too early to call for this year. Someone will pull a Gary Hart or make a smaller gaffe that will start to thin out the herd.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I don't see Gore in Iraq. I see a lot more US presence in Afghanistan as a result. Who knows what that does to Pakistan.
The big tax cuts don't happen with all their short term and long term implications.
Congress wouldn't have ratified Kyoto but more policy would have swung toward reaching the targets anyway.
I think it would have mattered a lot.

[billvon 3,154]

> I don't see Gore in Iraq.

I do. He was one of the biggest hawks in the Clinton administration. We would likely still have invaded, although we would have made up a much smaller part of a UN coalition.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

> I don't see Gore in Iraq.

I do. He was one of the biggest hawks in the Clinton administration. We would likely still have invaded, although we would have made up a much smaller part of a UN coalition.

UN coalition wasn't going to happen.

[billvon 3,154]

>UN coalition wasn't going to happen.

After Blix's last report, both Germany and France were willing to sign on to an eight week deadline. We weren't willing to wait, so we gave them a hearty "fuck you" and invaded. Needless to say, a little more patience and a little less "fuck you" would have resulted in UN support.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Would the "evidence" still have been there with a Gore White House?
Was the current administration completely "taken" by the (we know now) false evidence of WMDs?
Without that smoking gun Germany and France never would have even entertained the notion.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Would the "evidence" still have been there with a Gore White House?
Was the current administration completely "taken" by the (we know now) false evidence of WMDs?

You should recall that Clinton bombed Iraq on several occasions, taking GOP heat for doing so. But Clinton or Bush, Saddam was always a US target. 9/11 gave the government the political capital to get a real invasion, and Gore would have used it. How would he have sold it? Probably differently from the yellow cake fun, but it really didn't matter given Saddam's history and bad faith behavior. The American public was ready to take on all enemies at the time.

I'm sure France would still have been a holdout. They were making more money from the status quo. So I'm not sure I agree that Gore would have gotten a coalition.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Right now, it's looking like Clinton and Giuliani will be the two main candidates in November. And if that's the case, I think there are enough Hillary-haters to push the vote to Giuliani. So that's my guess.

Well it looks like my guess was wrong...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_25