NerblyBear wrote:

tommydski wrote:Right now, I don't think the Democrats have a snowflakes chance in Hell.

Why do you say that? Aren't you aware that 54% of polled Americans are in favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney? That the administration's approval rating is hovering below 30%? For Chrissakes, this is the worst debacle of a presidency that has ever occurred. People are starting to realize that.

I even think that many Republicans are becoming aware of the fact that their bungling administration has seriously hurt their party's reputation.

All of the Conservative-types I know have managed to separated Bush from the Republican Party. Regardless of what Bush says, he's not really even a conservative.

Skronk wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:The Republican candidate has no chance at the 2008 election unless something catastrophic happens before that point. I'm no big fan of Democrats, but I'd love to see Obama get the ticket.

What makes you think Obama will be any better?

NerblyBear wrote:I think it might end up being Edwards, though, unfortunately. He seems like another Clinton to me.

Edwards hasn't got a chance.

edit: It's all about charisma and personality, and Edwards serious lacks in both. Voting in America is whoever has the best propaganda, and it merely becomes a popularity contest.

Sorry, Skronk...but you've done the impossible...making NerblyBear look well-informed and reasonable. You are dead WRONG on both counts. Edwards has serious charisma...and Obama is CLEARLY a better choice than ANY Republican.

Like Clocker Bob, your (apparent) obsession with shadow governments and stuff blinds you to the truth that different leaders produce different results.*

Obama is the same as Bush the same way that Elizabeth I is the same as King John...that is to say, they're not the same. At all. Our Presidents are now more or less kings. Bush has proved that you can regularly shit all over the constitution...especially if you've hired evil people to submit to your will. The latest Bush "scandal" is right out in the open. Harriet Miers and that other guy whose name eludes me at the moment blew off a congressional subpoena! They make the dubious "executive privilege" claim, and that is that.

A strong president...or a strong king (whether or not they're bad or good leaders is not the issue) is able to set a tone. They make the decisions that affect the world.

The visible, palpable effect that Bush or Obama as president has on your life is minimal (for now). But the whole argument that everything is just going to stay the same no matter who is elected is totally ignorant. Your congressmen and women...they have little effect on things (as the Bush Administration has demonstrated)...but your Presidents and your leaders at the state and local levels make a huge difference. Another Clinton is just a continuation of our un-American dynasty.

tommydski wrote:(in summary): The Democrats are fucked.

Jesus Christ...now I'm tooting my own assholish horn here...but I can't believe that an American (me) has a far better handle on your country's affairs than an [Englishman? Welshman? WTF ARE YOU??] does on American affairs. Your "understanding" of American affairs struck me as being...well...American.

Gordon Brown seems like a pretty cool guy (thus far), by the way.


*EDIT: Even CB realizes the differences that come with different leaders. You appear to be way out of your depth when it comes to matters of politics.

sunset_gun wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:

tommydski wrote:Right now, I don't think the Democrats have a snowflakes chance in Hell.

Why do you say that? Aren't you aware that 54% of polled Americans are in favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney? That the administration's approval rating is hovering below 30%? For Chrissakes, this is the worst debacle of a presidency that has ever occurred. People are starting to realize that.

I even think that many Republicans are becoming aware of the fact that their bungling administration has seriously hurt their party's reputation.

All of the Conservative-types I know have managed to separated Bush from the Republican Party. Regardless of what Bush says, he's not really even a conservative.

Oh, he's a conservative all right...wildly conservative...but he's not a Republican. He is a fucking tyrant in idiot's clothing.

Germ War wrote:I don't really think Clinton or Obama can hold the public's interest for another 16 months, either. Seriously impossible.

I dunno...they're pretty public figures...but in a lot of ways, they're both laying pretty low.

That's why it was interesting to see Obama take a public stab at Clinton finally.

NerblyBear wrote:The Republican candidate has no chance at the 2008 election unless something catastrophic happens before that point.

I hope you are right but I don't see it. Frankly I lost all faith in the US electorate when they elected Bush for a second term.

I would hope it would be Edwards because he has the best chance.

Minotaur029 wrote:Sorry, Skronk...but you've done the impossible...making NerblyBear look well-informed and reasonable. You are dead WRONG on both counts. Edwards has serious charisma...and Obama is CLEARLY a better choice than ANY Republican.

Like Clocker Bob, your (apparent) obsession with shadow governments and stuff blinds you to the truth that different leaders produce different results.

Obama is the same as Bush the same way that Elizabeth I is the same as King John...that is to say, they're not the same. At all. Our Presidents are now more or less kings. Bush has proved that you can regularly shit all over the constitution...especially if you've hired evil people to submit to your will. The latest Bush "scandal" is right out in the open. Harriet Miers and that other guy whose name eludes me at the moment blew off a congressional subpoena! They make the dubious "executive privilege" claim, and that is that.

A strong president...or a strong king (whether or not they're bad or good leaders is not the issue) is able to set a tone. They make the decisions that affect the world.
...

You know, for every smart thing you say, you keep saying something flat out wrong. I'm not interested in shadow governments, just what happens to us.

I can see '08 now. Duped people with the idea that somehow democrats will be our saviours and the republicans are evil will come out of the woodwork.

I have never said these husks of skin don't change or affect the world, but that we will not see an improvement in our lives. You don't think a new administration will shit on the constitution and further their own agenda, whatever that might be?

Optimism has it's place, sure, but don't fall into the same old shit about how "change will come if you vote for me."

Dude your dreaming. This country full of evanagelical christians is never going to vote a chick and a black dude into office. No way. And the fact that one of them might actually get the nomination is proof that the democrats are not really serious about taking back the white house.

The republicans want nothing more then the "chick and the black dude" to be taken seriously. They're laughing right now. Such easy targets. So easy to beat. They're loving this.

tommydski wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:The Republican candidate has no chance at the 2008 election unless something catastrophic happens before that point.

I hope you are right but I don't see it. Frankly I lost all faith in the US electorate when they elected Bush for a second term.

I would hope it would be Edwards because he has the best chance.

First of all, there is a lot of compelling evidence that Bush stole even the second election.

Second of all, Americans tend to be pretty reasonable...they are just sometimes slow to come around. Even if Bush won, it was by a slim margin the second time around...and they did it by appealing to the lowest, sickest common denominators.

As Sam Houston told his Texan bretheren during the Civil War re: the North: "They are not a fiery, impulsive people such as you...but when they begin to move in a given direction...[they move until they fuck you]."

The most insane, unreasonable people make up approximately 25% of the electorate. A nonetheless disturbing number, but it's mostly the South. The other 26% that voted for Bush are just kinda stupid...but even they have come around. Bush's approval rating is at Nixon levels.

NerblyBear...I hate to say it...is basically right on this one. Only Obama's blackness or Hillary being Hillary Fucking Clinton can take the Democrats down this time.

Skronk wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:Sorry, Skronk...but you've done the impossible...making NerblyBear look well-informed and reasonable. You are dead WRONG on both counts. Edwards has serious charisma...and Obama is CLEARLY a better choice than ANY Republican.

Like Clocker Bob, your (apparent) obsession with shadow governments and stuff blinds you to the truth that different leaders produce different results.

Obama is the same as Bush the same way that Elizabeth I is the same as King John...that is to say, they're not the same. At all. Our Presidents are now more or less kings. Bush has proved that you can regularly shit all over the constitution...especially if you've hired evil people to submit to your will. The latest Bush "scandal" is right out in the open. Harriet Miers and that other guy whose name eludes me at the moment blew off a congressional subpoena! They make the dubious "executive privilege" claim, and that is that.

A strong president...or a strong king (whether or not they're bad or good leaders is not the issue) is able to set a tone. They make the decisions that affect the world.
...

You know, for every smart thing you say, you keep saying something flat out wrong. I'm not interested in shadow governments, just what happens to us.

I can see '08 now. Duped people with the idea that somehow democrats will be our saviours and the republicans are evil will come out of the woodwork.

I have never said these husks of skin don't change or affect the world, but that we will not see an improvement in our lives. You don't think a new administration will shit on the constitution and further their own agenda, whatever that might be?

Optimism has it's place, sure, but don't fall into the same old shit about how "change will come if you vote for me."

You keep saying "different leaders...same agenda." That same argument that (face it...in terms of numbers and reality) lost Al Gore the election in 2000...and allowed Nader to have a creepy self-satisfied ego trip (I'm a fan of his, so it hurts to say that).

Different leaders make a huge difference. They set a tone. I'm not listening to their bullshit, I'm just aware that an Obama presidency is definitely different than a Hillary presidency in terms of what happens to our collective nation.

Your argument "different leaders, same agenda" is just like Michael Moore's in 2000 when he noted (correctly) that Gore and Bush took the same position on virtually EVERYTHING. Michael Moore is eating his words now...apologized to Gore, who in turn...apologized to Moore.

Gore and Bush said the same exact shit in order to get elected. Yet...an Al Gore presidency was obviously going to be a hell of a lot different from a Bush presidency.

I look at Obama's character. He is a good man. His bullshit political maneuvering is just part of the game. The electorate...is mostly not so bright (though not outright stupid)...political bullshit is just a necessity...or you're Dennis Kucinich.

I seriously don't think you read what I wrote. I think you got upset and jumped to conclusions. Go back and read my original post.

otisroom wrote:Dude your dreaming. This country full of evanagelical christians is never going to vote a chick and a black dude into office. No way. And the fact that one of them might actually get the nomination is proof that the democrats are not really serious about taking back the white house.

The republicans want nothing more then the "chick and the black dude" to be taken seriously. They're laughing right now. Such easy targets. So easy to beat. They're loving this.

I think he's right. Everyone is doing what they did last time, talking about how it is a done deal and the Democrats just have to show up. Last time, the campaign seemed to be based around "Vote for us, George Bush is a moron" rather than presenting any sort of compelling ticket. This time around could be even worse judging on this preliminary Obama/Clinton nonsense.

Also, the feeling I have regarding McCain, Giuliani and Romney is similar to how I felt about Bush the first time around. I have this nagging suspicion that they are exactly the kind of candidates I can see causing upset in '08.