where is gore in the election?

[sandorski]

None of the Above!

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.

But let's say you are.....

Here is a brief run down of Thompson.

He has lived in the South, East, and West

He earned his law degree in 1967

He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.

He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.

Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee

Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.

Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.

They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.

So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?

No, as I stated, they are equally qualified. However, we need to turn the page. America has never elected a non white, christian, male candidate. America needs to change. America needs Hillary.

America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?

Here's your argument. America has never elected a parapelegic with a lazy eye, so we should elect a white,male, christian. It doesn't hold.

No...that is me pointing out how utterly ridiculous your argument is. I don't care if someone is black, blue, green or white and is a man, woman or transsexual. I want the best person available to hold that office.

You however don't seem to give a damn about who is the best person for the job...you just want someone who is from a different gender/religion/whatever just because we haven't elected a person from that gender/religion/whatever before.

I'm sorry...but that is a stupid stupid argument.

Sometimes you need change. When a basket ball team isn't doing well, you change the coach. When a corporation isn't posting good earnings, you change the board and ceo. When America's reputation as a fair and compassionate nation is cronied into junkbond status, we need a fresh face, the face of Hillary Clinton.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this....but there will be an election next year and there will be a fresh face in the White House regardless of if they have a vagina or not.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.

But let's say you are.....

Here is a brief run down of Thompson.

He has lived in the South, East, and West

He earned his law degree in 1967

He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.

He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.

Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee

Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.

Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.

They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.

So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?

No, as I stated, they are equally qualified. However, we need to turn the page. America has never elected a non white, christian, male candidate. America needs to change. America needs Hillary.

America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?

Here's your argument. America has never elected a parapelegic with a lazy eye, so we should elect a white,male, christian. It doesn't hold.

No...that is me pointing out how utterly ridiculous your argument is. I don't care if someone is black, blue, green or white and is a man, woman or transsexual. I want the best person available to hold that office.

You however don't seem to give a damn about who is the best person for the job...you just want someone who is from a different gender/religion/whatever just because we haven't elected a person from that gender/religion/whatever before.

I'm sorry...but that is a stupid stupid argument.

Sometimes you need change. When a basket ball team isn't doing well, you change the coach. When a corporation isn't posting good earnings, you change the board and ceo. When America's reputation as a fair and compassionate nation is cronied into junkbond status, we need a fresh face, the face of Hillary Clinton.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this....but there will be an election next year and there will be a fresh face in the White House regardless of if they have a vagina or not.

Another white, chrisitan, male candidate who is the same old same old isn't exactly a fresh face.

 

[ProfJohn]

Hacp... Hillary has some MAJOR issues from her past.
I don't think she would make a good President.
Although you never know based on how Bill did.


I think it would come down to whether or not she follows Bill?s model and rules by polling or follows her own beliefs.
Running the country on polls works for a lot of domestic issues, but was an absolute disaster on foreign policy.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ummm the new quote thing really sucks when you start to get multiple nested quotes? it?s like vertigo or something?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.

But let's say you are.....

Here is a brief run down of Thompson.

He has lived in the South, East, and West

He earned his law degree in 1967

He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.

He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.

Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee

Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.

Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.

They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.

So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?

No, as I stated, they are equally qualified. However, we need to turn the page. America has never elected a non white, christian, male candidate. America needs to change. America needs Hillary.

America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?

Here's your argument. America has never elected a parapelegic with a lazy eye, so we should elect a white,male, christian. It doesn't hold.

No...that is me pointing out how utterly ridiculous your argument is. I don't care if someone is black, blue, green or white and is a man, woman or transsexual. I want the best person available to hold that office.

You however don't seem to give a damn about who is the best person for the job...you just want someone who is from a different gender/religion/whatever just because we haven't elected a person from that gender/religion/whatever before.

I'm sorry...but that is a stupid stupid argument.

Sometimes you need change. When a basket ball team isn't doing well, you change the coach. When a corporation isn't posting good earnings, you change the board and ceo. When America's reputation as a fair and compassionate nation is cronied into junkbond status, we need a fresh face, the face of Hillary Clinton.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this....but there will be an election next year and there will be a fresh face in the White House regardless of if they have a vagina or not.

Another white, chrisitan, male candidate who is the same old same old isn't exactly a fresh face.

Have any of the candidates been President before?

No.

Therefore a fresh face WILL be in office after Bush is gone.

IF you want to get technical about it all of them are a lot fresher face than Hillary is. I mean she was the shadow President not too long ago.

I think you need to find a new argument.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Hacp... Hillary has some MAJOR issues from her past.
I don't think she would make a good President.
Although you never know based on how Bill did.


I think it would come down to whether or not she follows Bill?s model and rules by polling or follows her own beliefs.
Running the country on polls works for a lot of domestic issues, but was an absolute disaster on foreign policy.

You just described Walker. Bush does alot of polling. He just doesn't make the numbers public.
Besides that, yes, you need to have political courage(John McCain) if you are going to be effective in forgein policy.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: shinerburke
He didn't win it once in spite of trying to steal it.

As for now...he is too busy trying to hunt down Manbearpig to run for President.

MBP is currently the biggest threat to humanity as we know it!

Are you serial?

 

[Hacp]

Have any of the candidates been President before?

No.

Therefore a fresh face WILL be in office after Bush is gone.

IF you want to get technical about it all of them are a lot fresher face than Hillary is. I mean she was the shadow President not too long ago.

I think you need to find a new argument.

I agree with you. Hillary, a fresh face, will be in office after Bush goes.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?

You are right, we did in get the paraplegic and the lazy eye part wrong!

Edit: cut nasty nested quotes.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Have any of the candidates been President before?

No.

Therefore a fresh face WILL be in office after Bush is gone.

IF you want to get technical about it all of them are a lot fresher face than Hillary is. I mean she was the shadow President not too long ago.

I think you need to find a new argument.

I agree with you. Hillary, a fresh face, will be in office after Bush goes.

:roll:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.

But let's say you are.....

Here is a brief run down of Thompson.

He has lived in the South, East, and West

He earned his law degree in 1967

He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.

He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.

Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee

Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.

Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.

They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.

So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?

No, as I stated, they are equally qualified. However, we need to turn the page. America has never elected a non white, christian, male candidate. America needs to change. America needs Hillary.

America has never elected a retarded paraplegic with a lazy eye either. Although Bush is close. If one were running would that make him/her most qualified as an agent of change?

Here's your argument. America has never elected a parapelegic with a lazy eye, so we should elect a white,male, christian. It doesn't hold.

I don't understand your logic... how do physical attributes make someone more qualified for president? Hillary isn't more qualified because she's a woman. Obama isn't more qualified because he's black.

Casting a vote for someone because "we've had too many presidents who have looked like this... we need a president who looks different that what we've had in the past" is retarded. WTF difference does it make what they look like? What do their physical atributes do to make them more qualified for the job?

Do you pick your doctor like that? "He is the doctor with the squarest jawline... I will choose him to operate on my heart." :roll:

 

[Hacp]

I don't understand your logic... how do physical attributes make someone more qualified for president? Hillary isn't more qualified because she's a woman. Obama isn't more qualified because he's black.

Casting a vote for someone because "we've had too many presidents who have looked like this... we need a president who looks different that what we've had in the past" is retarded. WTF difference does it make what they look like? What do their physical atributes do to make them more qualified for the job?

Do you pick your doctor like that? "He is the doctor with the squarest jawline... I will choose him to operate on my heart." :roll:

I'm sorry. I misstyped earlier. I meant to say that Hillary is the most qualified candidate for change. We need a fresh face, her's will remodel the way other nations look at us.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hacp

I don't understand your logic... how do physical attributes make someone more qualified for president? Hillary isn't more qualified because she's a woman. Obama isn't more qualified because he's black.

Casting a vote for someone because "we've had too many presidents who have looked like this... we need a president who looks different that what we've had in the past" is retarded. WTF difference does it make what they look like? What do their physical atributes do to make them more qualified for the job?

Do you pick your doctor like that? "He is the doctor with the squarest jawline... I will choose him to operate on my heart." :roll:

I'm sorry. I misstyped earlier. I meant to say that Hillary is the most qualified candidate for change. We need a fresh face, her's will remodel the way other nations look at us.

Actually if change is what you want then Ron Paul is the obvious choice.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Hacp

I don't understand your logic... how do physical attributes make someone more qualified for president? Hillary isn't more qualified because she's a woman. Obama isn't more qualified because he's black.

Casting a vote for someone because "we've had too many presidents who have looked like this... we need a president who looks different that what we've had in the past" is retarded. WTF difference does it make what they look like? What do their physical atributes do to make them more qualified for the job?

Do you pick your doctor like that? "He is the doctor with the squarest jawline... I will choose him to operate on my heart." :roll:

I'm sorry. I misstyped earlier. I meant to say that Hillary is the most qualified candidate for change. We need a fresh face, her's will remodel the way other nations look at us.

I don't really see how she is going to change much. She's every bit the instutionalized politician. Even if she hasn't held office that long, she's been neck-deep in the game for decades.

She's not a fresh face either.

America will never be looked on with fondness by the rest of the world until we start doing things they way THEY want us to. Turns out we do things the way WE want to. We always have and we always will. Bush has done a craptacular job of making that situation worse over the last few years, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that we were universally admired on the world stage before he took office or that there is any chance that it will happen in the future... Or that it matters to begin with.

 

[Stunt]

Two families have run the United States of America for the last 25 years...Bush and Clinton. A vote for Hillary is not a vote for something new. It's a vote for the same old watered down populist crap.

Something fresh is Obama (although lacks experience) or Paul (my personal choice).

I hope Hillary falls flat on her face; everyone thinks she will make things all warm and fuzzy like the 1990's. Well newsflash there was a dot com bubble, and Hillary doesn't have a Republican house and senate to keep her in check. Hillary has probably sided with Bush more times than not and I see nothing she is bringing to the table with her 'leadership'. I think electing a woman or black man would be a huge step forward for those who are superficial; what really matters is how the president composes him/herself and how they act. To say a white man can't advocate total and unconditional equality is absolute crap.

 

[toughwimp11]

i think this thread has lost the focus which was gore, should he run.
I personally think that Obama and hillary cannot (not that they shouldn't win but they wont cause people wont vote for them) win due to the fact that I dont think america is ready for a black or female president and although many will vote for them, they will fail to persuade people in the general elections.
I think gore has a very strong chance of actually winning

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Lemon, it is HIGHLY unlikely we reach the convention without one person having a clear majority.
You would need a three way race to end with the vote being divided up amongst those three and that is unlikely to happen.

Furthermore, every election someone floats the idea of a deadlocked convention and every election we have a clear cut winner just a few weeks into the voting.

That was the case in the past, but with the way the primary calender is front loaded with multi-state contests, I could see the delegates getting split up. The primary calendar this cycle is not going to produce as much momentum for the candidates as it has in the past. We are looking at very big days early in the season.

On the GOP side Thompson, Rudy and Romney are all going to have the money to get their message out to the voters in the early big contests. Thompson is going to do well in the southern states, Rudy is going to do well in the California, New York and the mid-Atlantic states, Romney is going to do well in New England and maybe the mountain west. McCain if he shows strong in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire, can still be a factor.

On the Dem side, Hillary is leading right now based on name recognition alone. Her and Obama are really going to have a brutal fight since they both have a ton of money and they both can get a ton more. Edwards may be able to pick around the edges (especially down south) and Richardson may be able to pick up some delegates out in the mountain west and on the left coast.

I see the GOP as more likely as having a brokered convention just because there are three candidates that are definitely going to accumulate some delegates. On the Dem side, it is less likely because Hillary and Obama are probably going to drown out the other voices with their big campaign warchests. It becomes more likely if Edwards gets traction or a little momentum out of Iowa/Nevada/New Hampshire.

If Gore decides to run, he will run the table - it won't even be a contest.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: toughwimp11
i think this thread has lost the focus which was gore, should he run.
I personally think that Obama and hillary cannot (not that they shouldn't win but they wont cause people wont vote for them) win due to the fact that I dont think america is ready for a black or female president and although many will vote for them, they will fail to persuade people in the general elections.
I think gore has a very strong chance of actually winning

If I were Gore I'd take the wait and see approach. Wait for the crowd to thin out and for the electorate to get good and bored with what's left. Then file and run. The new guys always gets a bump (look at Fred Thompson) and he's on the minds of enough people that he might be able to sustain a run to the convention and take the nom. He definitely has the D core's attention.

After that... Don't know if he has enough appeal to middle america to carry it through to November. He's built up one heckuva kook lefty image over the last few years. Not sure how that would play to Jane & Joe Sixpack. The only loser in modern times to come back from defeat and win was Nixon. So it's not impossible... But I just don't see any widespread appeal with him.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Hacp
We don't want another white, rich, male, christian.

So we elect a white, rich, female, christian? :roll:

Where's a black, poor, female, buddhist when you need one? :roll:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shinerburke
You can't be serious.

But let's say you are.....

Here is a brief run down of Thompson.

He has lived in the South, East, and West

He earned his law degree in 1967

He was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney and served in that post from 1969 to 1972.

He has been involved in politics since the early 70's and was a key figure in bringing down a corrupt President.

Was instrumental in brining down a corrupt governor of Tennessee

Was a U.S. Senator from 1994 to 2003.

Sooooo......clearly if you want to go by your criteria Thompson is far more qualified than Hillary.

They are equally qualified. However, Thompson is more of the same old, same old. Hillary is a fresh face, the face of change.

So now you're falling back on your argument that she is more qualified because she, allegedly, has a vagina?

No, can you not read? It's because she has a fresh vagina. Douche FTW!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: toughwimp11
i think this thread has lost the focus which was gore, should he run.
I personally think that Obama and hillary cannot (not that they shouldn't win but they wont cause people wont vote for them) win due to the fact that I dont think america is ready for a black or female president and although many will vote for them, they will fail to persuade people in the general elections.
I think gore has a very strong chance of actually winning

If I were Gore I'd take the wait and see approach. Wait for the crowd to thin out and for the electorate to get good and bored with what's left. Then file and run. The new guys always gets a bump (look at Fred Thompson) and he's on the minds of enough people that he might be able to sustain a run to the convention and take the nom. He definitely has the D core's attention.

After that... Don't know if he has enough appeal to middle america to carry it through to November. He's built up one heckuva kook lefty image over the last few years. Not sure how that would play to Jane & Joe Sixpack. The only loser in modern times to come back from defeat and win was Nixon. So it's not impossible... But I just don't see any widespread appeal with him.

I don't either. I think Obama has a MUCH better chance than Gore would. I think people see Obama in almost the same way they saw Bill Clinton.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Please keep this thread on the topic of Al Gore.

If you wish a debate over Hillary Clinton qualifications, please start a thread for that subject.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
After that... Don't know if he has enough appeal to middle america to carry it through to November. He's built up one heckuva kook lefty image over the last few years. Not sure how that would play to Jane & Joe Sixpack. The only loser in modern times to come back from defeat and win was Nixon. So it's not impossible... But I just don't see any widespread appeal with him.

Ya, *Gore* built up that - it's not the attack of the right based on lies.

The right just falls for that crap.

What was the 'widespread appeal' of GWB? Nothing but hot air marketing. A lying, manipulative, sociopathic immoral whore with a very little polish - very attractive.

But show him using a few well designed phrases like 'compassionate conservative' and talking about popular conservative themes like 'no nation building' ,and anti-tax no matter how fiscally irresponsible the debt, toss in things like the religious right pushing him, and you have enough for him to win.

Gore is a good example of the right doing character assassination - it's terrible but amusing how they painted *him* as the chronic liar of the 2000 election.

The way they turned his excellent leadership of the creation of the internet - something all the posters here should appreciate - into an attack that he lied about it is remarkable.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Hacp
Hillary is the most qualified candidate. Its time to break away from the same old same old, Rich, White, Male, Chrisitian mold. Its time for change. Vote Hillary;vote for change.

Most qualified? Puh lease. Being a power hungry carpet bagging opportunistic bitch does not make you qualified to be President.

If you haven't noticed, the qualifications to become president are pretty low these days. Heck, look at Bush and look at the lot of losers we have running this time around