115
The Second Republican Debate : Swingers Discussion 791051011
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsThe Second Republican Debate
TOPIC: The Second Republican Debate
GoTo Page: 1 2 3
Start   11 to 20 of 29   End
User Details are only visible to members.
e_r, Just because most of the nation votes along strict party lines, popularity and big money connections, doesn't mean that I am going to do the same. As always I'll vote for the best person for the job regardless of popularity. That means, I DO want someone in there with experience beyond their ability to "say" the things we want to hear. I want to see a track record of getting the job done, and how their ability to negotiate moves the goal forward. Before GWB got into office he has a track record that spelled failure across the board. He got where he is today purely by being a Bush and daddy's connections to big oil money. I believe that baby Bush was intended to be a mere puppet to continue daddy's original goals while being surrounded with the same cronies as Papa Bush. I didn't vote for him then based on that history. Baby Bush had other plans, however. (I think Papa really wanted Jeb to be in that seat as he is the more intelligent of the two, but that ain't saying much either).

Voting for president has become a vote for the LEAST INCOMPETENT, rather than the most politically literate cadidate.

Now, based on your comparison, why would I vote for Obama when I didn't vote for Bush either?

Palm Beach Gardens FL
Username hidden
(1095 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Wnt2, sad, isn't it. What gets a person into the highest office in this country has everything to do with money and nothing to do with credentials and intellect.

Obama has a chance if only for the fact that he is black. I figure the black vote will come out based on that alone. It wouldn't even matter if he were Rep or Dem to most.

As for the Dems over all, I think Hillary probably has the most prowess of all regarding foreign policy. She pays attention. Put her in a room full of women and she gets all weirded out and cuts it short (because she's not the fem cookie baker). Put her in a room full of political men of power and she's working the room talking up policy with the best of them. If she hadn't been tied to Bill, I'd be willing to bet she be a far more formidable choice without qualms from nearly anyone. Unfortunately, Bill has been her arbatros. (snickering to myself here...I just got some really good juice from an extremely reliable source on White House BS all the way back to the Carter years up to Bush...facinating shit ROFLMAO)

Obama, let him do some time first, about ten years, then run for Prez. He needs credibility beyond mere pandering to the masses yearning to be free. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Clinton/Obama ticket. It's almost a given.

I'll continue to watch all the debates if only in the hope that somewhere out there is the spark of intellect we so sorely need right now.

I ain't holding my hand over my ass, however.

Palm Beach Gardens FL
Username hidden
(1095 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Happy, what do you have against Obama besides the fact that you believe he's too inexperienced? You've already conceded that it's a popularity contest and experience is hardly a factor in the outcome. And there's no way he could do any worse that Dubya. So what's your problem with him?

Goose Creek SC
Username hidden
(1690 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"I don't think that McCain is the Bush-ite that you claim in so much as he is at least willing to listen to alternate views and be more inclined to develop a clear plan before embarking into the violent territory of war."

Bush *ite*, no. Bush-*lite*, yes. In my opinion McCain is the diet coke of Bush-ism. Looks, smells, and quacks like a Bush. Where do you get the notion that he is anymore inclined to resolve against war? He has come out in advocation of escalating the war in Iraq. He is for the deployment of *more* troops in Iraq. He is just another one of those vets still pissed and upset that we lost Nam because of the *liberals*. He is one of those that would refuse to admit defeat and throw every last soldier and bleed the national coffers dry to somehow *win* in Iraq. He talks the same game as the Bush cronies when you ask him why we went into Iraq ... he'll start yacking about 9-11 even though the two are unrelated. In the past few months McCain has proven to me undeniably that he's a dipshit and I'd *never* vote for him under *any* circumstances.

"The notion that McCain thinks Bagdad is safe does bother me."

It ought to bother *anyone* considering voting for that twit. It shows he's just as disillusioned as the Dubya Shrub.

"In my mind, Iraq is Bush's purposeful boondoogle in an effort to take notice away fromt he fact that he failed miserably to get Bin Laden in the first place."

Iraq is payback for daddy. It's a statement to all the tyrants in the world that these neocons prop up that "We brought ya in and we can take ya out!" Don't you think it's even just a little ironic that these guys that are in power now that have gotten us bogged down in Iraq are the same ones that put Saddam in power?

As far as getting bin Laden goes, they're not even trying to get him. They don't want him dead; he's more use to them alive. He's a great tool for garnering fear among the citizenry anytime they need to ratchet up the "Terror threat level" to amber or orange or mexican red.

Goose Creek SC
Username hidden
(1690 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Realistically, there isn't a candidate out there, Republican or Democrat, that's worth a lick as far as I'm concerned. However, as per usual, it comes down to the lesser of evils.

I don't think that McCain is the Bush-ite that you claim in so much as he is at least willing to listen to alternate views and be more inclined to develop a clear plan before embarking into the violent territory of war. GWB went off half cocked, no plan, no decisive vision of how to attain goals. He remains the village idiot straddling his wooden horse stick yelling "I'm the decider" while riding in circles and kicking up dust.

The notion that McCain thinks Bagdad is safe does bother me. If it's so damn safe, let's see it. I often think of the fact that during the Viet Nam war we were inundated with nightly news views of the horrors of Nam. Yet, we see virtually nothing by comparison of what is actually taking place in Iraq. If it's so safe, show me the school children walking the safe streets. Show me the businesses operating and thriving. Show me the happy people of Iraq thrilled at the site of our troops presence ensuring their safety.

I assert that the reason we don't see those images is that the truth is the reverse, and that truth would enrage Americans even more against the war effort in Iraq.

In my mind, Iraq is Bush's purposeful boondoogle in an effort to take notice away fromt he fact that he failed miserably to get Bin Laden in the first place.

Palm Beach Gardens FL
Username hidden
(1095 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"I completely agree with Joeodd. We need someone in the Oval Office that not only understand foreign policy, but knows how to work it. McCain may be the only one running that has a clue in that regard. This is not the time for testing training wheels on a new politician."

How we got Georgie is simple: he talks to Jesus.

As far as McCain goes, you *must* be joking. McCain is Bush-lite. McCain is married to the war and walks around in a stupor spreading the same rhetoric that Gee Dubya has been spewing for the past 4 years. McCain thinks the streets of Baghdad are safe and that sending *more* troops to Iraq is some sort of plan for victory. Escalation is no plan; it is admission of failure.

I thought McCain would have been a good candidate 6 months ago, but then he started opening his mouth and inserting his foot. In my opinion he's just more of the same old, same old. There's not a Republican candidate right now with two brain cells to rub together, excepting Guilliani (and he's a liberal as far as I can tell). And that pretty much locks Hillary into the White House.

Obama is the only person I've heard thus far that isn't a complete idiot, idealogue, or that doesn't just turn my stomache outright (Hillary).

Goose Creek SC
Username hidden
(1690 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
And I DO concern myself with whom the candidate might surround him or herself with while in office.

Palm Beach Gardens FL
Username hidden
(1095 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
*L* Well, I agree with both of you. It IS a popularity contest (based on how many millions one can raise to run for election) which is truly unfortunate. I would say charisma might play a part in all of it, however, that would still make me wonder how we ever got ol' Georgie. I hesitate to think that GWB has any charisma other than the good ol' boy attitude, but he certainly had the name and the connections to money and power (sans intellect).

I completely agree with Joeodd. We need someone in the Oval Office that not only understand foreign policy, but knows how to work it. McCain may be the only one running that has a clue in that regard. This is not the time for testing training wheels on a new politician.

Will someone please kick Tommy Thompson to the curb? He makes repubs looks really bad *L*

Palm Beach Gardens FL
Username hidden
(1095 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Obama...LOL...wet paint and wet behind the ears. I don't think he has a clue about foreign policy ..."

Since when does the POTUS have to know anything about *anything* to get elected? It's a goddam popularity contest. And Obama is extremely popular, especially with the young people who make up a pretty significant voting bloc.

Goose Creek SC
Username hidden
(1690 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Actually Dou that was my biggest concern during the 2000 primary. W was the golden boy of the party and they dismissed his foreign policy inexperience. Now imagine a bleeding heart Liberal with no experience surrounded by bleeding heart advisers........."fighting" the war on terror.......I don't like the idea one bit. Get some military and foreign policy experience in that office.

Arlington TX
Username hidden
(2284 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3
Start   11 to 20 of 29   End
TOPIC: The Second Republican Debate