Lounge of Tomorrow - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=3249)

Could be. Paul Tsongas, who swore his cancer was a thing of the past, would not have lived out his first term. Kerry, McCain and Giuliani have all been treated for cancer. John Edwards's wife is sick, which also could be a distraction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Damn sight better than McCain.

It will be interesting to see how many other republicans see it that way, being that the guy is pro gun control, pro gay marriage, pro choice, and has admitted to infidelity.

At this point and for at least a couple more terms I don't see it mattering much who is actually president, just what the letter after their name is. If it is the wrong one they will be evil spawn to 49.9% of the population. The level of discourse is just too hate filled.

Personally, I'll never vote for McCain. He's a decent enough guy but he doesn't strike me as sincere, just playing "straight talking" as a political gambit. He'll go where he needs to in order win. Plus, he is just too old. He'd be 72 when he took office, two years older than Reagan, who was laughed at for being too old. One year younger than Bob Dole who faced serious questions about his age in '96.

Guiliani is intresting (and more honestly a "straight talker," in my opinion) but I doubt he could get through primary which is always the problem on both sides killing the more appealing candidates on either side. That said, Guiliani would be a big lightning rod for the viotriol if he's elected and he has shown problems cowing his temper.

How about Guiliani/Rice against Clinton/Obama in '08? (I wonder if all the people who condemned the Bush "dynasty" as a reason not to vote for him will have a similar problem with a Clinton "dynasty."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I don't think this election was a vote for chaos.

Speak for yourself ;)
@

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

It will be interesting to see how many other republicans see it that way, being that the guy is pro gun control, pro gay marriage, pro choice, and has admitted to infidelity.

No argument there.

He won't get the Nom anyway-I doubt it anyway.

Quote:

By the way, al-Qaida claims to have 12,000 fighters ready for death in Iraq. Once we leave and it takes over, it won't be the end — not by a mile. As al-Qaida said Monday, next it wants to topple Lebanon's democratically elected regime.

So much for the Democrats' notion that only Afghanistan represents "the real war on terror."

So in case you're thinking maybe this new era of appeasement and walking away from our enemies will work, it pretty much looks like the answer is no.

Our enemies, real and potential, seem to think the U.S. is weaker today than it was before the election.

It will be up to us as a nation — and to our newly shifted Congress — to prove them wrong.

link

Got to be a feather in the cap of dems to be endorsed by terrorists. :rolleyes:

Link

Quote:

That was fast. A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn't raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway.

True to form.

Quote:

By the way, the federal deficit for fiscal 2006 was only 1.9% of GDP, which is lower than all but eight years since 1975. Add in the budget surpluses at the state level, and the overall U.S. fiscal "deficit" is economically trivial. It is all but irrelevant to Mr. Rubin's complaint that the U.S. borrows too much from "foreigners." Those foreigners invest here because of safety and soundness and the expected after-tax return. The quickest way to drive away those investors is to reduce that return by raising taxes.

But but but!! I thought we were BROKE! :rolleyes:

Excellent article.

The real reason Rubin wants to raise taxes;

Quote:

...Mr. Rubin's real game here is politics. The Citigroup Inc. executive is part of Hillary Rodham Clinton's braintrust, and he and she would like nothing better than to coax Mr. Bush into raising taxes in the next two years. That would take the tax issue off the table in 2008, while splintering Republicans the way President George H.W. Bush's tax-hike deal with George Mitchell did going into 1992.

Aren't you guys glad the Dems are taking over the Congress? Now you'll have lots more to complain about- I mean, they haven't even taken over yet and you are already on a roll!

Someone has to finance this war, btw. Generously sending other people's kids over to serve as cannon fodder isn't going to cut it- you may actually have to underwrite it financially as well. Be interesting to see how many warhawks start backpedaling once this adventure starts hitting their wallets.

So, should I run for PResident or not?