American Presidential Canidates

by **Tyr** on Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:32 pm

the benefits out weigh the downsides

by **Arbustos** on Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:36 pm

Tyr wrote:the benefits out weigh the downsides

"Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones. All men mean well."

-G. B. Shaw

:wink:

by **Serbia** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:11 am

I'd vote for any team of two out of the top 3 candidates, Guiliani, Thompson, and Romney.

by **Tyr** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:13 pm

thompson isnt a front runner hes not even a canidate yet

by **Malkithe** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:27 pm

Watching the Republicans try and hash out a candidate this time around is like watching a bunch of blind kids trying to cross the street and not get run over... and they've usually got organization on their side.

This is going to be a wierd election.

by **Serbia** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:21 pm

Tyr wrote:thompson isnt a front runner hes not even a canidate yet

Yes, he is a front runner, as he's polling second in most all major polls, in spite of not being a candidate yet. And rumours are that he'll declare anytime between this week and December sometime. I'm betting sooner rather than later.

by **jay_a2j** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:47 pm

Serbia wrote:
Tyr wrote:thompson isnt a front runner hes not even a canidate yet

Yes, he is a front runner, as he's polling second in most all major polls, in spite of not being a candidate yet. And rumours are that he'll declare anytime between this week and December sometime. I'm betting sooner rather than later.

How's THIS for sooner rather than later? :wink:

by **Serbia** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:10 pm

Thanks Jay, I thought I had read that story back on Thursday, but didn't take the time to go find it to make sure. So I win my bet (assuming he does declare next week!)

by **Tyr** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:39 pm

fred thompson wont win

by **Arbustos** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:40 pm

Tyr wrote:fred thompson wont win

Way to make a well-supported argument :wink:

by **Serbia** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:41 pm

Tyr wrote:fred thompson wont win

Hillary Clinton won't win.

Both comments are pure opinion, and baseless, unless you want to post something to back your opinion up with. So, do you have anything else to add, other than your personal prefrence or gut feeling?

by **muy_thaiguy** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:49 pm

Serbia wrote:
Tyr wrote:fred thompson wont win

Hillary Clinton won't win.

Both comments are pure opinion, and baseless, unless you want to post something to back your opinion up with. So, do you have anything else to add, other than your personal prefrence or gut feeling?

I HOPE Hillary Clinton won't win. Better?

by **Serbia** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:50 pm

muy_thaiguy wrote:
Serbia wrote:
Tyr wrote:fred thompson wont win

Hillary Clinton won't win.

Both comments are pure opinion, and baseless, unless you want to post something to back your opinion up with. So, do you have anything else to add, other than your personal prefrence or gut feeling?
I HOPE Hillary Clinton won't win. Better?

Has the same meaning as Tyr's brilliant comment, but comes across easier, if you understand me.

by **Arbustos** on Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:03 pm

muy_thaiguy wrote:
Serbia wrote:
Tyr wrote:fred thompson wont win

Hillary Clinton won't win.

Both comments are pure opinion, and baseless, unless you want to post something to back your opinion up with. So, do you have anything else to add, other than your personal prefrence or gut feeling?
I HOPE Hillary Clinton won't win. Better?

by **Malkithe** on Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:23 am

Apperantly Fred Thompson's a huge man whore :wink:

by **Tyr** on Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:06 am

actually i meant fred thompson wont win because he i hardly different fromt he other canidates. except ron paul that is

by **Serbia** on Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:42 pm

I'll admit to not knowing much about Ron Paul, but from what I do understand, isn't he supposed to be the most liberal, left leaning candidate on the Republican side? As such, he has zero chance. Republicans are looking for the next Reagan, not someone who's more left of McCain (another candidate who's done nationally).

by **Tyr** on Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:49 pm

he actullay ran once as a libretarian. he calls him slef a constitutinalist

by **comic boy** on Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:43 pm

Do you really think it matters,all these guys have to make deals and promises to those who bankroll them. If they ever get elected then payback comes way ahead of actually working towards the greater good.
Its impossible to get anywhere in American politics without massive amounts of financial support,give every candidate a fixed amount from public funds and you will end up with a far less corrupt system.

by **Tyr** on Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:17 pm

i think that in an age where we can debate like this on the einternent normal politics becomes almost oblsolete

by **Tyr** on Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:47 am

this died too fast

by **spurgistan** on Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:26 pm

Hey. Thompson's running. Whoopee.

My call? As he's the most charismatic and drink-a-beer-with...able ( my ex-Romney easily beats him for best looking , but come on, that only counts for like 30-40% of electability :cry:

) Thompson'll probably get nominated, and then get run over by Obama / Clinton / Edwards, unless the Dems really screw things up.

Dammit. President Thompson. I can see it now.

by **muy_thaiguy** on Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:29 pm

Well, Edwards has pretty well srewed himself over with his docter thing. And Clinton is losing support from her fellow Dems, at this rate, it is only a matter of time before Obama does something like the last two.

by **spurgistan** on Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:45 pm

Wait, what doctor thing?

by **muy_thaiguy** on Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:52 pm

Where people would have to go see the doctor whether they liked it or not.

American Presidential Canidates

Whos the best republican canidate

Who is online