posted on August 13, 2001 11:06:20 PM
With the reappearance of Al Gore onto the political scene, speculation about whether he'll run again for president abounds in the media. Wouldn't it be totally weird if we ended up with another Al Gore - George Bush presidential contest?
Of course, we may get Dick Gepheart as a Democratic alternative to Al Gore and John McCain again as a second choice to Bush. And just recently, Ralph Nader of the Green Party came to Oregon to speak to a crowd of 7,500 or so. The race for the 2004 presidency is in full swing already!
Anybody for John Nesbitt or the Reform Party?
This is already shaping up as something very interesting to look forward to. And this next time, with so many states investing in new technologies and laws for improved voting methods, it'll be interesting to see any outcome and hopefully we'll never have the hassles that we did this last time.
posted on August 13, 2001 11:18:51 PM
Cut it out, will ya? Why not go find some political message board and rant to your heart's content? This is getting ridiculous.
posted on August 13, 2001 11:56:27 PM"Cut it out, will ya? Why not go find some political message board and rant to your heart's content? This is getting ridiculous."
A thread about the upcoming presidential election in 2004 is a political rant? You gotta stop smokin' that stuff, spaz!
posted on August 14, 2001 12:32:52 AM
It's not "upcoming." It's three years in the future, three years in which anything can happen including depression, war, or even invasion by extra-terrestials, making discussions like this absurd and painfully premature.
Speaking as someone who used to enjoy this forum before it was trashed and transformed by Bush-this and Bush-that threads in the months before and ever since the last election, I'm sick and tired of being assailed by politics every time I glance at the menu here.
With respect to this forum, someone said of me recently that my "heart isn't in it anymore." But that's way off the mark. My heart hasn't changed. I'm just bored sh*tless by the same lame chest-thumping my-President-can-take-your-President posturing that goes on here day in and day out. Doesn't anything else interest you?
There's a whole world out there, a galaxy of things to talk about. It doesn't have to be Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush every freaking day.
If we use Bush's fuzzy ethics in regard to the stem cell question (providing federal funding to support research on stem cells cultivated from embryos already destroyed), I
guess we could also consider providing federal funding for Nazi-like experiments on people who are in irrreversible comas, or who are terminally ill. Heck, they're not going to get any better, the damage is done, so let's have at 'em.
It's a little like providing federal funding to a murderer so long as he promises not to murder any more people.
I know! That's not political, it's outrage over a political decision or occurrence.
posted on August 14, 2001 01:00:00 AM
LOL. As the ensuing discussion showed, that thread was more about the stem cell debate than he who had the last word -- more about the effect than the cause. It wasn't as much a political discussion -- in my view anyway -- as it was about the ethics of stem cell research.
But even if you want to construe it as a Bush thread, I'm still running behind you two about 20-1 at least. With no possibility -- or attempt -- for catching up.
posted on August 14, 2001 01:19:23 AM
Yes, but you've got me beat when it comes to transexualism (if that's an accurate term), a subject that I've noticed has never been interrupted by anyone claiming that their president could beat your president.
It would seem to me that it all goes to the repeated recommendation we've received so many times that if a thread does not interest you or me, don't read it.
Looking at the first page of thread subjects I do not see a high percentage of political ones and I don't think that it can be denied that whether a person stands here or stands there, loves the subject, hates it, or is sick of it, those political threads do often bring responses, often quite a lot of responses.
Oh, and Spaz; please don't group me with borillar as in "you two about 20-1". I'm sure it would offend him, and neither of us wants that.
As you know, I've been here at least as long as you have. I've seen the place up and I've seen it down. Nearly abandoned more than once for this reason or that one. You yourself have given up in frustration over the actions of AW that have occurred, and I very nearly have as well. But it's worth saving from the sort of oblivion that both of us and many other people have seen other boards fall into.
Many of the threads that I started were started with only one aim--to generate controversy so that people would come to see the fight. I'm not pretending to altruism or to martyrdom in saying that, I just know that action brings people whether they join or they lurk and gossip as surely as those God awful wrestling extravaganzas bring networks their ratings.
Many people have been going about wistfully wishing for the better times in AW that existed before politics, or before the fee imposition, or before the moderation changes, or before this or before that. Today the political threads get the blame, what tomorrow?
posted on August 14, 2001 03:48:10 AMBorillarThe race for the 2004 presidency is in full swing already!
Yes indeed, just around the corner, over the hill, down the road, across the valley, past the next bend, through that stretch of woods, and it's presidential elections again. I was wondering who would bring this time sensitive subject up. Imagine my surprise that this wasn't brought up till August of 2001. Talk about cutting it close!
Isn't Al Sharpton the only person from a major party that has even said they're considering running? I guess he's got the election by default since the others aren't making any commitments as the deadline approaches.
If you're not into major party candidates here's a list to ponder.
oops, I need to take a break and baste the Christmas turkey, I hate when they're dried out when it's time to be served. I hope the guests are on time.
posted on August 14, 2001 05:30:56 AMWho Ya Gonna Vote For In 2004?
Can't say until I see the list, but Hillary would be my choice.
many states investing in new technologies and laws for improved voting methods
If anything good comes out of the last election, this is what it will be.
Al Gore can't run again - he's grown a beard.
It worked for Lincoln, Grant, and a host of others. Hair styles change with the times, and the "Children of the 60's" are coming "of age" where we are a big voting block
It's not "upcoming." It's three years in the future
Don't you think the "powers to be" in the Democratic Party began planing for the 2004 election back in January? 3 years isn't a "life time" by any stretch.
making discussions like this absurd and painfully premature.
I don't think so. If a large group of people can hammer out their differences way ahead of time, they can be solidly behind one candidate when the time comes.
posted on August 14, 2001 07:06:01 AM
Potential Candidates: George W. Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes
Party: REPUBLICAN
Potential Candidates: Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Gray Davis, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton
Party: DEMOCRATIC
Potential Candidates: Ralph Nader
Party: GREEN
Potential Candidates: John Hagelin, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Charles Collins
Party: REFORM
Potential Candidates: Harry Browne, Carla Howell, Art Olivier
Party: LIBERTARIAN
Potential Candidates: Howard Phillips, Alan Keyes
Party: CONSTITUTION
Potential Candidates: John Hagelin
Party: NATURAL LAW
posted on August 14, 2001 07:46:02 AM"It worked for Lincoln, Grant, and a host of others. Hair styles change with the times, and the "Children of the 60's" are coming "of age" where we are a big voting block"
'Children of the 60s' have been of age for at least ten years and Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance unless she grows a beard.
So far I don't see a viable democrat able to unseat an incumbant no matter how badly dumbya blows it. I'd like to see more of the Massachusetts Kerry as he has struck me as being an honorable man who has the skills to make a monkey out of Bush and has a statesmanlike appearance and bearing.
I'm afraid that the DNC will lose it by trying something 'different' on the order of the Mondale-Ferrarro (or whatever her name is) fiasco.
I wish that the others would just sit down. Particularly Nader, who's been jacking his jaw since 1960 and has only accomplished the demise of the Corvair.
posted on August 14, 2001 08:17:48 AMAs you know, I've been here at least as long as you have. I've seen the place up and I've seen it down. Nearly abandoned more than once for this reason or that one. You yourself have given up in frustration over the actions of AW that have occurred, and I very nearly have as well. But it's worth saving from the sort of oblivion that both of us and many other people have seen other boards fall into.
Many of the threads that I started were started with only one aim--to generate controversy so that people would come to see the fight. I'm not pretending to altruism or to martyrdom in saying that, I just know that action brings people whether they join or they lurk and gossip as surely as those God awful wrestling extravaganzas bring networks their ratings.
Many people have been going about wistfully wishing for the better times in AW that existed before politics, or before the fee imposition, or before the moderation changes, or before this or before that. Today the political threads get the blame, what tomorrow?
I have to admit that that is the best post I have read in a long long time.
posted on August 14, 2001 08:20:07 AM
I forgot to answer the topic's queston. Who would I vote for? Hilary, if she runs. Powell if he ran. Unless someone else steps up that will be better.
posted on August 14, 2001 08:42:38 AM'Children of the 60s' have been of age for at least ten years
The older people get, the more likly they are to actualy go to the polls and vote. Sure, we've been a "voting block" for quite some time, but as older people die off, we become the "older, smarter (what ever that means )" group of people, and % wise, become a larger block.
Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance unless she grows a beard.
If you mean that basicly no female candidate would have a chance, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Times change, and I think this country is about ripe to elect the right Woman. Is that Hillary? I think she would have a better chance than most.
So far I don't see a viable democrat able to unseat an incumbant no matter how badly dumbya blows it.
Normaly I would agree, but this last election left such a sour taste in some peoples mouths that I think the voter turn out next time will be very high, and that is to the advantage of the Democrats.
UBB edit
[ edited by Microbes on Aug 14, 2001 08:43 AM ]
posted on August 14, 2001 12:08:47 PM
Spaz, I agree that this is a bit bizaar a subject to be talking about, but its in the news. The coverage for the 2004 Presidential Election is already underway, with likely candidates being followed around by the paparazzi. Since Dubya and Congress have dissappeared from the radar scope for the time being, I thought that this would be a good thread to take the pulse of this segment of the American people at this time.
KRS: I agree with your political summation (I wasn't posting in here when the RT started up). Hillary may be a candidate in some far off future election, but certainly not in 2004.
"Oh, and Spaz; please don't group me with borillar as in "you two about 20-1". I'm sure it would offend him, and neither of us wants that."
LOL! When I first ventured into the RT because I was so bored with the eBay Outlook, I noticed that KRS was being chased -- hounded by republicans and they were all complaining about the links that KRS was posting and were giving him the 'treatment'. So, I loudly crashed the party and stated my position as a living Lighting Rod and I've enjoyed every moment ever since.
I'd say that KRS and I get lumped together or together with others is because we can handle our own. I'm most happy with my caboose inside the doghouse and defending my territory - the harder that they rail against me, the more I enjoy it. But KRS seldom joins in when I'm having my fun and I seldom interrupt his fun when he's taking his share of the lightnig bolts, so to characterize us as being any sort of team is just another mischaracterization.
UARU: thank you for that link. I tried to follow the links to the two 2004 candidates but their web sites are trashed.
JUMPINJACKO: LOL! Monica again!
MICROBES has some good points there!
Good Morning, NearTheSea! I followed those links and I have them bookmarked to use in the next election, or as soon as data begins to be posted there. Thanks for the web site!
As for me, I'd love to be a democrat once again as I was in my youth. Right now, the DNC will have to show me that they are the right party that has it together and has the leadership qualities that this divided nation needs, and their firm commitment to being for the People of this nation instead of just repreating, "We're democrats -- aren't we?" like as if that explains it all. The Democracts have got a LOT of work to do to compete for power again, as this nation clearly has a very conservative faction as shown in the last election, no matter how many illegal ballots that get discovered. If the Democrats do get their act together and they do prove to us all that they deserve to be in power, I'm likely to give my vote to Dick Gepheart since he is very qualified and seems to be very honest. We'll see.
Right now, only John Hagelin is the candidate from the last race that didn't have Oil Company money in their portfolio. His ideas are "nice" and different in a way that screams of fantasy, but would really be nice if it did ever come about. I'd like to see him take a higher prominance in politics than he did last time and maybe become a real Independant choice.
posted on August 14, 2001 01:46:37 PM
This is not such a bizaar subject for a thread if you consider that Bush is actively campaigning for 2004, and has been since his election.
I think that there will be an unprecedented amount of trickery in his campaign. I think that the so-called 'exposure' of the Indiana Senator Bob Kerry's war record painting him as having committed atrocities, when that senator had already placed the incidents in question before the public himself during his election campaign in 1989, was only the beginning of a program to destroy the electability of any perceived opponent. I believe that bush is so desparate for reelection, either because of his own megalomania or because there is a need to give that solace to his father or a combination of the two, that he will do anything at all in his quest for victory.
The willful destruction of John McCain during the last campaign is only a small example of what bush is capable of if he choses. Richard Nixon was a comparative priest alongside dumbya with his 'little man' syndrome.
posted on August 14, 2001 02:03:33 PM
Why wouldn't Gore win? He got 500,000 more votes than did Bush. The old adage that "my vote doesn't even count" was proven as wrong as it ever will be. Odds are that more voters will come out next time. There is usually a greater motivation among voters to unseat an incumbent then to keep one in. Bush will no longer be able to tout his "I'm a Washington outsider" record. Unless he does a helluva good (or acceptable) job he's very out of there. Gore can do it. The nomination is certainly his for the taking. No other Democrat can beat him if he chooses to run (and he will). He'll actually appear fresh when he starts popping his head in for commentary and criticism of Bush in a year and a half from now.
It worked for Lincoln, Grant, and a host of others. Hair styles change with the times, and the "Children of the 60's" are coming "of age" where we are a big voting block
