The Next DIMPOTUS!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

(Sung to the tune of "The Girl That I marry")

The next DIMPOTUS will have to be
kind and lovely like Hill-a-ry

Her marxist ideas we'll soon come to know
Then the US to hell in a basket will go.


Well, folks, just who will be that person?...and why?

[Scott D]

william favor


congrats.


oh wait, you didn't say all caps using dimwit...nevermind :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

william favor


congrats.


oh wait, you didn't say all caps using dimwit...nevermind :DAnd I thank you for your input.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm outraged at the lack of outrage!

[OUstudent4life]

Speaking as a democrat...

I think she'd be a bad choice.

I'd rather an elected official who would be able to unite the country and stand for the middle, the true majority.

But that's just me.

[Hatfield]

rabble rabble rabble.


(please don't nominate her)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

rabble rabble rabble.


(please don't nominate her)Who do you want, Kerry? algore?

[GDC]

Who do you want, Kerry? algore?

Kerry is going to try it again.

[Hatfield]

Who do you want, Kerry? algore?

I liked what Kerry had to say, however I understand why people were turned off by how dry he is. I would prefer a Kerry or Gore nomination over a Billary nomination. Haven't really thought about a specific up and comer that I would want....to busy making protest signs about how much i hate america and all. ;)

[JohnnyMack]

I like the idea of someone like Mark Warner from VA. running. I like the idea of accomplished Governors running more than I do Senators running.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Kerry is going to try it again.The Swift Boat guys will be back in full force, and Kerry will have his sound bytes saying the US Army guys in Iraq are "terrorists, raiding homes of Iraquis in the middle of the night". He's got his work cut out for him. But, you know, I would rather have Kerry as DIMPOTUS than Hillary(and her guiding hand, Mr. Bill)

[JohnnyMack]

Hillary running makes my head hurt. Seeing recent Gallup polls asking who Democrats would vote for also makes my head hurt. The Democrats just don't get it. Here's hoping that in the next two years they figure something out.

I hope the GOP puts up someone like Romney or Pataki.

[BoomerJack]

A lot of folks think that the next Democratic pres hasn't been born yet.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hillary running makes my head hurt. Seeing recent Gallup polls asking who Democrats would vote for also makes my head hurt. The Democrats just don't get it. Here's hoping that in the next two years they figure something out.

I hope the GOP puts up someone like Romney or Pataki.If the GOP puts up a "moderate", they are toast. Repubs only win when they have a perceived conservative as nominee. Romney will catch absolute hell, because he's Mormon.

[Scott D]

A lot of folks think that the next Democratic pres hasn't been born yet.

Barack Obama has been alive for quite a while now.

[mdklatt]

(Sung to the tune of "The Girl That I marry")



I'm not familiar with show tune melodies. NTTAWWT.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Barack Obama has been alive for quite a while now.I don't even think he's old enough to run.

[Scott D]

I don't even think he's old enough to run.


Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, in Hawaii to Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham.


In the United States a person must be at least 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Congressperson, as specified in the U.S. Constitution.

how's that crow?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not familiar with show tune melodies. NTTAWWT.Well then, sing it to the tune of "the Cowboy Song" , by Thin Lizzy, or create a tune of your own.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

how's that crow?FRIGHTENENG! From what I've seen of him, I'd just as soon have her highness, the smartest woman in the world.

[Scott D]

FRIGHTENENG! From what I've seen of him, I'd just as soon have her highness, the smartest woman in the world.

yeah, why would you want a guy with ethics to have the most powerful position in the world where he could make Washington oh...I don't know...accountable and cut the balls off the lobbying bs as well.

[sooneron]

I really do not relish the thought of Billary.

I don't see Obama running til '12.
I need to read up on Warner. Pataki plays a good game, but I think he's dropped the ball too much- once being the transit strike - which was a big one.

[sooneron]

yeah, why would you want a guy with ethics to have the most powerful position in the world where he could make Washington oh...I don't know...accountable and cut the balls off the lobbying bs as well.
Shhhh! Soft money RGOP'sFO!!!

[JohnnyMack]

yeah, why would you want a guy with ethics to have the most powerful position in the world where he could make Washington oh...I don't know...accountable and cut the balls off the lobbying bs as well.

I don't the guy's anywhere near qualified for the position right now. 2012 maybe. 2016 prolly.

[mdklatt]

yeah, why would you want a guy with ethics to have the most powerful position in the world where he could make Washington oh...I don't know...accountable and cut the balls off the lobbying bs as well.

What makes you think he's any more ethical than the rest of 'em? Something about "Chicago Democrat" doesn't scream "ethical" to me. :D

[sooneron]

I don't the guy's anywhere near qualified for the position right now. 2012 maybe. 2016 prolly.
Maybe he should let his daddy buy him some businesses, he can run them into the ground! Then, he can run for governor of a state where the gov's office is pretty much a figure head position, followed by, running for Pres.

[sooneron]

Are there any good Independent candidates out there?

[mdklatt]

Are there any good Independent candidates out there?

Good? Maybe. Viable? Certainly not. :mad: :(

[Scott D]

What makes you think he's any more ethical than the rest of 'em? Something about "Chicago Democrat" doesn't scream "ethical" to me. :D

Because that's been the one constant that's been said about the guy in terms of political circiles. He ran a clean campaign in his bid for the Senate while his opponent tried the smear campaign. My only question is how long can he avoid being a pure party figurehead.

[Scott D]

Are there any good Independent candidates out there?

I keep hoping for an independant McCain/Lieberman campaign.

[mdklatt]

I keep hoping for an independant McCain/Lieberman campaign.

Hmmmm...that would be very interesting indeed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I keep hoping for an independant McCain/Lieberman campaign.Does that mean you want them to win, or to monkey wrench the repubs, and have the dims win ala '92 and '96

[critical_phil]

I keep hoping for an independant Lieberman/McCain campaign.



Does that mean you want them to win, or to monkey wrench the repubs, and have the dims win ala '92.



fixed and fixed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

fixed and fixed.What, you don't think Perot had an impact in '96?

[sooneron]

He marginalized himself in 96 with the whole "plot to destroy he and his family" thing.

[critical_phil]

What, you don't think Perot had an impact in '96?


you ask that question as if bob dole had any chance of winning the election whether there were 2 legit candidates or 3.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

you ask that question as if bob dole had any chance of winning the election whether there were 2 legit candidates or 3.Well, I think he MIGHT have. I definitely think a McCain or Lieberman candidacy as an independent would hurt the GOP candidate, and deliver the presidency to the dims.

[JohnnyMack]

Well, I think he MIGHT have. I definitely think a McCain or Lieberman candidacy as an independent would hurt the GOP candidate, and deliver the presidency to the dims.

How about the "best person for the job" instead of straight party line voting? Think that concept will ever fly?

[mdklatt]

How about the "best person for the job" instead of straight party line voting? Think that concept will ever fly?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

HA.

[JohnnyMack]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

HA.

Sorry. Had to ask. :P

[Scott D]

Does that mean you want them to win, or to monkey wrench the repubs, and have the dims win ala '92 and '96

I'd be happier than Rush on Oxycodone if everyone with a (D) or (R) after their name on a ballot lost the next 4 elections.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'd be happier than Rush on Oxycodone if everyone with a (D) or (R) after their name on a ballot lost the next 4 elections.I would be happy to see politicians be satisfied with serving in public office for a short period of time, and then WANT to return to the real world, and have real jobs, in the private sector, producing real goods and services that people voluntarily pay their hard earned( or not so hard earned) money for.

[Scott D]

I would be happy to see politicians be satisfied with serving in public office for a short period of time, and then WANT to return to the real world, and have real jobs, in the private sector, producing real goods and services that people voluntarily pay their hard earned( or not so hard earned) money for.

impressive, something that the two of us can agree on.

[sooneron]

impressive, something that the two of us can agree on.
I also agree. Who would have thought that a thread started upon such a stupid premise could actually become a well-thought out thread where there is little bickering and the typical mery go round crap.

[sooneron]

What do people think of this?
I was thinking around the last go of elections that maybe the Pres. (and Prolly other pols) get one shot at office? No re-election, therefore, no grandstanding for votes in the next election. How much of incumbent's time is focussed on re-election instead of running the country? It has to be quite a bit. You get six years to get some **** accomplished, then you're gone. Maybe you can run again down the road if you did a decent job the first time.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

impressive, something that the two of us can agree on. I believe there's probably a lot of agreement. But, I definitely think that a vote on a third party candidate results in your helping out the candidate you would least like to win. It's just logic. We have a two party system, and it's gonna stay that way.

[Scott D]

I believe there's probably a lot of agreement. But, I definitely think that a vote on a third party candidate results in your helping out the candidate you would least like to win. It's just logic. We have a two party system, and it's gonna stay that way.

it only stays that way as long as people continue to wear blinders and not see either 'party' for what it is...the opposite side of the same coin made out of crap.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I believe there's probably a lot of agreement. But, I definitely think that a vote on a third party candidate results in your helping out the candidate you would least like to win. It's just logic. We have a two party system, and it's gonna stay that way.You've got constitutionalists and non-constitutionalists. That's 2 opposites. That situation molds the political reality. A third party person is somewhere along the continuum, and a vote for that person takes votes away from the party on the same half of the continuum, thereby helping the candidate most unlike the one you're voting for.

[mdklatt]

You've got constitutionalists and non-constitutionalists. That's 2 opposites.

This has nothing to do with our current political reality. Both parties treat the Constitution as a mere obstacle to their goals.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This has nothing to do with our current political reality. Both parties treat the Constitution as a mere obstacle to their goals.Agreed, but one much more than the other.

[mdklatt]

Agreed, but one much more than the other.

You go ahead and believe that while the Republicans continue to push flag burning and marriage ammendments.

[Scott D]

Agreed, but one much more than the other.

I don't know I think the Communist party has been leaving the constitution alone unlike the Demopublican party.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You go ahead and believe that while the Republicans continue to push flag burning and marriage ammendments.As contrasted with abortion(murder) and doctor assisted euthanasia(murder)! At least 3 of these issues are wrong, but I contend the taking of lives is more grievous. I'm not so sure about the marriage amendment.
We could go on with lists of problems. I just contend that the dims are VASTLY more corrupt than the repubs, and they don't show any signs of heading in the right direction.
Neither party wants to control entry into the US, and that is MOST disturbing.

[mdklatt]

I just contend that the dims are VASTLY more corrupt than the repubs

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Whatever lets you sleep at night with that Republican voter card in your wallet, dude.

[Scott D]

As contrasted with abortion(murder) and doctor assisted euthanasia(murder)! At least 3 of these issues are wrong, but I contend the taking of lives is more grievous. I'm not so sure about the marriage amendment.
We could go on with lists of problems. I just contend that the dims are VASTLY more corrupt than the repubs, and they don't show any signs of heading in the right direction.
Neither party wants to control entry into the US, and that is MOST disturbing.

The Illuminati haven't told them that's the next agenda yet ;)

[JohnnyMack]

People who cast straight party tickets shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore.

[sooneron]

I just contend that the dims are VASTLY more corrupt than the repubs, and they don't show any signs of heading in the right direction.

Well, this WAS a constructive conversation.

I can point out republican corruption for every democrat corruption you can point out. This is useless. THEY ARE BOTH CORRUPT. This where the world can be black and white, to an extent, as varying shades of corruption really don't make a difference- Corrupt is corrupt.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Whatever lets you sleep at night with that Republican voter card in your wallet, dude.Thanks. Best of luck to you.

[TexasLidig8r]

You've got constitutionalists and non-constitutionalists. That's 2 opposites. That situation molds the political reality. A third party person is somewhere along the continuum, and a vote for that person takes votes away from the party on the same half of the continuum, thereby helping the candidate most unlike the one you're voting for.

See... 1992.. Ross Perot... taking many, many votes away from George Bush (In fact, he received 19% of the popular vote).. allowing for the then improbable election of..... William Jefferson Clinton... who had 43% of the popular vote.

[JohnnyMack]

See... 1992.. Ross Perot... taking many, many votes away from George Bush (In fact, he received 19% of the popular vote).. allowing for the then improbable election of..... William Jefferson Clinton... who had 43% of the popular vote.

How many votes did Perot take away from WJC?

[TexasLidig8r]

How many votes did Perot take away from WJC?

Don't know... in fact, one independent (?) voter group which conducted a study indicated that had Perot never entered the race, Clinton still would have won the election because of the Electoral College system.. but opines that Bush may have taken the popular vote.

That was the only time where 3 candidates from different parties participated in a televised debate...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, this WAS a constructive conversation.

I can point out republican corruption for every democrat corruption you can point out. This is useless. THEY ARE BOTH CORRUPT. This where the world can be black and white, to an extent, as varying shades of corruption really don't make a difference- Corrupt is corrupt.Murder vs. penalties for hate speach against America. Those are contrasts of shades of corruption that DO make a difference.
What would you do, throw out all the politicians? Unrealistic, of course. Just vote for the ones who do the least harm.

[mdklatt]

Murder vs. penalties for hate speach against America. Those are contrasts of shades of corruption that DO make a difference.

Some people's definition of murder vs. the very principle this country was founded upon. The pubz are trying to entrench their version of political correctness using the Constitution itself. Disgusting.



Just vote for the ones who do the least harm.

Logical impossibility! The politician that does the least harm is the one that doesn't get elected.

[GDC]

I'll vote Libertarian, as usual.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Some people's definition of murder vs. the very principle this country was founded upon. The pubz are trying to entrench their version of political correctness using the Constitution itself. Disgusting.




Logical impossibility! The politician that does the least harm is the one that doesn't get elected.Not if the worse one wins.
Pubz political correctness=not murdering people??? OK by me.

[mdklatt]

Not if the worse one wins.
Pubz political correctness=not murdering people??? OK by me.

No, flag burning and gay marriage ammendments.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, flag burning and gay marriage ammendments.I have a problem with the anti-flag burning amendment, as a violation of free speech. I don't have a problem with the definition of marriage amendment.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance restriction law is also a violation of the first amendment. I hope you don't like that one, too.

[Scott D]

I have a problem with the anti-flag burning amendment, as a violation of free speech. I don't have a problem with the definition of marriage amendment.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance restriction law is also a violation of the first amendment. I hope you don't like that one, too.

what's not to like if it means that nobody related to Bush or Kennedy will ever have another public office.

[mdklatt]

I have a problem with the anti-flag burning amendment, as a violation of free speech. I don't have a problem with the definition of marriage amendment.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance restriction law is also a violation of the first amendment. I hope you don't like that one, too.

I don't like any nit-picky ammendments.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't like any nit-picky ammendments.McCain-Feingold isn't an amendment, but it is a law. What do you think of it?

[mdklatt]

McCain-Feingold isn't an amendment, but it is a law. What do you think of it?

Yeah, I misread your post. I didn't think it was an ammendment....

I honestly don't know enough about McCain-Feingold to have a definite opinion on way or another. Does spending money really count as political speech? I don't know, which means I should assume that it does and that McCain-Feingold is a bad idea. Like every other attempt Congress makes to police itself I'm sure it's a half-assed knee-jerk bill that special interests would have no trouble finding loopholes with anyway.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yeah, I misread your post. I didn't think it was an ammendment....

I honestly don't know enough about McCain-Feingold to have a definite opinion on way or another. Does spending money really count as political speech? I don't know, which means I should assume that it does and that McCain-Feingold is a bad idea. Like every other attempt Congress makes to police itself I'm sure it's a half-assed knee-jerk bill that special interests would have no trouble finding loopholes with anyway.It's pathetic it got passed. It's saying "you can't donate money to the candidate of your choice, but certain people can, under some conditions, and the media has free reign to support and trash who they want." It's crap legislation, IMO.

[Scott D]

It's pathetic it got passed. It's saying "you can't donate money to the candidate of your choice, but certain people can, under some conditions, and the media has free reign to support and trash who they want." It's crap legislation, IMO.

oh please, the media does that already. republicans have been whining about that for years.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

oh please, the media does that already. republicans have been whining about that for years.Sure they do, but others should not be prohibited from promoting their candidate or trashing their opposition, because they aren't "media". It's unconstitutional crap(and you know it).

[Scott D]

Sure they do, but others should not be prohibited from promoting their candidate or trashing their opposition, because they aren't "media". It's unconstitutional crap(and you know it).

'technically' a 'forced' two party system is unconstitutional.

[Jerk]

I'm staying out of this. I don't want to lose my temper, plus I have to go to bed. But i do have one thing to ask:

If Hillary wins, does this mean that Alec Baldwin will move back from France?

[Jerk]

ohh...to william favor...

I really think you can sleep well. I just don't see how Hillary can win. Things may seem dire now with an unpopular president, nutless Senate Repubs acting like democrats, no conservative agenda being pushed through, etc but I think that is going to change, and I think it has already in the house...it's the d*mned senate repubs who are such sackless cowards.

I think the best thing for a conservative to do is to vote for the challenger in the primaries this year.

I got to be honest, though. The only reason I vote for repubs is because I think the dems will do worse and try to move the country to socialism. Repubs don't do anything to reverse liberalism; they just sit around and try and be popular with a media that hates them - or whatever they think they need to do to stay in power. It's vote for the lesser evil, I guess.

I'm a single issue voter, and my issue is guns, and the Repubs haven't reversed one thing..except let one law expire and pass a bill to protect gun makers. They don't un-do anything, though. The ATF is doing things now that would make the Gestapo jealous. I guess it's okay to act like thugs if the victims are red state redneck peons. p*sses me off. If dems win, get ready for gun bans.

[OUinFLA]

I rarely get into these political conversations with you younger people, you are usually well informed, somewhat opinionated, and vigorous in your defense of your views. I commend you for that, as it is the informed vote that should determine the fate of the nation.
The above statement was not smack, just my excuse for not being too political conversationaly contributing.

However, after reading this thread I thought that I might toss out my feelings on a particular election that was being discussed.

Although I havent completely researched what I am about to state, it fits into my brain pattern comfortably.

My first premise is that pubs are more business friendly than dems.
dems are more labor friendly than pubs.

Second: If the country elects a dem president, then within two years the country will elect a publican congress and vice versa. Certainly there are some exceptions to this statement over the years, but I feel most citizens are somewhat leary of a "pres/congress" single party control Even though it does happen, it can be and is usually corrected in the off years election 2 years after the pres is elected.

Third: The pres has great influence, but he does not make the laws that govern the country. He is the unquestioned leader of the military, and has the right to veto anything that comes across his desk. But, he does not write or make the proposed laws, but can influence them.

Given those thoughts I address 1992.
IMO GB Sr. would have won that election. Which meant a democratic congress was going to come to Washington on the back of the voters fear of a pub pres and a pub congress.

One of the nations biggest businessman with some political support is not a stupid man. Why would Perot enter the election (twice I might add) that would cost him out of his pocket $50 million?

My suspicions are that at that time in the 90's the economy was gearing up for a big boom, provided that congressional spending, tax disadvantages and government interference did not get in the way. Enter the thought that a publican president might lead to a dem congress, which is not very businessman friendly. So, Perot enters the race, tosses in 50 million, which he could have just as easily donated to his less than friendly democrat, but found a better way. Enter the race. Where were his votes going to come from? Publicans, thus ensuring that the dem won the election. Quickly followed by a overwhelming publican congress. Which proved itself to be business friendly, thus lining the pockets of Mr Perot far in excess of the 50 mil he tossed away on a campaign that he was never 100% committed to, nor could such a smart man ever conceive that he could win.

Am I right? I dont know, but like I said, I am comfortable with the theory, and comfortable with how I perceived the outcome. The economy boomed for the next 8 years, business flourished, Perot got much richer, and the pubs in congress made all the laws that helped. Mr. Clinton did not run the country, he headed the country. Congress ran the country.

Also, I have seen the fiasco of pub pres with pub congress, I think that sometimes the party that is in total control is somewhat afraid to do what is right along their party lines for fear of total revolt of the public.

Bash away, Im not a poly sci guy, Im just a farmer who has watched the guberment for a long time. As a businessman myself, I'd chose a publican congress over a publican president for the benefit of my business. I just couldnt take my theory and really convence myself that I needed to vote for Clinton in 96. I just didnt like the guy. Greatest orator I have ever heard, morals of a mink.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hey, OUinFLA, thanks for your ideas. Interesting theory. I don't think Perot's run was that complex. I lean more to the vendetta theory against Senior. We'll never know for sure. I just don't think Perot was all that concerned with money at that time, since he had so much already, and he had a grudge(as I understand it) against Bush Senior. Also, what do you have against minks?