President

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 1:23 AM GMT
    I know it is to early to talk about it but who is your choise. In gay rights who is the best. In Irag war who is the best. Also who do you think will win. Not the best one but who will win. Like how Bush won yet he is a terrible president. I started this is encourage voting and help mine and others know more about the people. I know this may get heated so please do not insult other choises.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 1:47 AM GMT
    For the Democratic primary I want to vote for the most electable candidate, but I haven't decided who that is yet...

    Any thoughts on that guys??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 2:46 AM GMT
    I think Obama would be a cool president. But I'm getting the feeling McCain might win.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 2:48 AM GMT
    I hear alot of people talk about Clinton as the best choice. She got our backs and knows what is best for the country. Not saying this is my choice yet. I just can't see another 8 years of gas prices going sky high, while Mr Bush collects on his oil rights and gets richer and richer. He is big into oil and has done what is best for the oil companies and his check book. The war was all about getting done what his father could not finish. Or was it?
    The media claims there were not weapons of M.D. But I know people who went over there and saw with there own eyes and showed me pictures of these weapons. Why have we not heard about them in the press our from our fearless leader? I said it back then, they will roll the information out to help get another Republican into office by making the country feel good about going over there. That we did have a reason to go. And gas prices and hating gay people and woman not having a choice is what is best for our country.
    Can a man who served as mayor of New York durning 9/11 do better than and actor from the Love boat? No one knows for sure. But I have not heard anything that makes me want to vote for them yet. For me it to soon.
    I am not saying that what happened should not be taken laying down. But what if someone knew and let it happen in order to keep make sure certain people in office got back in office.What we had during the start we should have to finish. I know it's out there but think about it for a minute.
    We still don't know for certain who shoot JFK.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 3:02 AM GMT
    ^^^ what in the world?...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 3:29 AM GMT
    From our side in Australia, anyone has to better than Bush.

    What we dont understand is why so few Americans actually vote. In our country we all vote.

    And what about the people in DC they dont even get the option of voting...so much for American freedom and domocracy.
  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Jun 01, 2007 10:10 AM GMT
    Handstuart. Sometimes good countries get bad leaders. Sometimes the leader you vote for doesn't live up to their promises and turns out not so good.

    As is the case in the UK. We're doing okay financially. But the war that no one wanted has spoilt 10 years of office for Labour and means our outgoing leader (good riddance) has tainted all he has achieved.

    As far as the US is concerned. To outsiders both main parties look almost the same. The Democrats are a bit more liberal, but politics now all seems just about money, with so little integrity. It would be nice to see a black man or a woman as the leader of one of the world's greatest countries though.

    Loz
  • jc_online

    Posts: 487

    Jun 01, 2007 2:50 PM GMT
    I think Dennis Kucinich would be a great president. And he is the most outspoken in support of lgbt people.

    That being said, I don't think he's electable. Too many people see him as a flake or too far to the left by USA political standards. He not just liberal, he's progressive!

    The most electable candidate, in my opinion is John Edwards. According to polls this week in New Hampshire he is slightly ahead of Clinton and Obama.

    I like all 4 of the candidates I've mentioned, but in a general election, I'm not sure that the sexism and racism in our history has been healed enough to get Obama or Clinton all the way to the White House.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 3:34 PM GMT
    "She got our backs and knows what is best for the country"

    Where does this come from? Is this how she has our backs?

    "Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage."

    To the guy from Austraila......is it true that if you are registered to vote it is required that you do so or face penalty?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 3:49 PM GMT
    Dennis Kucinich gave a passionate thoughtful and intelligent speech at Case a few weeks ago. A thoroughly admirable man who would go down very well in the UK.

    Sadly for all of us, I don't imagine he has a chance. :-(
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 4:27 PM GMT
    I want Hillary to win - because it was really piss off my Dad. :) How's that for motivation? Seriously though, I am not sure at this point. I will reserve judgement until I have more details.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jun 01, 2007 8:54 PM GMT
    Hillary would be a good choice. I'm still not sold that she could win over enough swing voters to win. She's a practical insider, which has it's good and bad points. Overall, I think we need someone intelligent and qualified to try and undo the catastrophic damage that Bush and the republicans have done to our economic foundations, democratic institutions, and standing and influence in the world

    Obama's good too for his more abstract leadership qualities.

    I like Edwards for his understanding of domestic issues. He showed awesome leadership on the recent Iraq war vote and declining to appear on 'debates' sponsored by Fox (unfair and imbalanced) News. I hate to say this though -- he will NEVER recover from that damn "I'm so pretty," hair cut mess. He's done.

    No other Dem has the cash, so they are moot points.

    God help our poor country if another republican wins it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 01, 2007 9:44 PM GMT
    I like Bill Richardson.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11648

    Jun 01, 2007 10:28 PM GMT
    I like Obama...he's well stated has many of the same positions I stand for
    and Hilary has the backbone I think we need as a candidate and a leader

    ...but we've GOT to get the republicans out of our gov't once and for all so no matter who it is they got my vote
  • HotCoach

    Posts: 247

    Jun 02, 2007 2:04 AM GMT
    Dennis Kucinich. Tells it like it is! Not afraid to be right. Damn the cost. Go Dennis!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2007 2:28 AM GMT
    freaky1

    You are right she is against gay marriage, so am I.
    I believe that we as a gay culture need to come up with a union that gets us the same rights but is for gay people only. If it is a civil union to start with, well at least it's a start.
    Most churchs do not do same sex marriages, most churchs think we are going to hell.

    I still think we can do better and avoid the things that hurt most married couples and cause so many divorces today.

    As far as that law preventing the feds from reconizing our marriages. Well there used to be a law that black folks had to sit at the back of the bus. But with a willinness to fight for what they believe they got it changed.

    I think if the gay community stopped being scared of being found out. We should just stand up and walked out for our rights for just one day. We would shut down every company in this land. And they might start listening to us. But no one has the balls to do it, or take the time to come out for fear of what people might think.

    Stop being afraid and fight for what you want. There are so many members on this web site alone that if we all took one day off at the same time for gay rights the impact would be huge. But everyone would have to come out of that closest and be ready to never go back. And there are to many gay people who want the rights but will not stand up and be counted and say I here I am gay and I want to have the same rights as every other american in this country.

    But this is just my opition, and not everyone will like it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2007 2:57 AM GMT
    Football_lover, well said! I've always liked the idea of a gay taxpayer boycott. Althought, these days with the prison system being privatized, I bet the Repubs would love an excuse to build even more jails. ;-)

    That said, I'm not impressed by anyone running for President, especially on the Dem side. I'm hoping Rudy gets the Repub nomination. I'd actually vote for him. Clinton just doesn't have what it takes. Too many people hate her so vehemently that, if she gets elected, it will be just as divisive as Bush has been to the country. Enough of that stuff. As for Obama, I'm not sold.

    I dig the fact that Rudy is standing up to the religious right. I want him to get the nomination and to win if only to shut the religious right's influence down once and for all. If their own party chooses someone pro-choice and gay-friendly, and the country elects him, what do they have left?

    I don't think Rudy is nearly as polarizing as Clinton. He's far more level-headed than McCain (horror!!!). And I think he's got the experience, connections, and common sense needed to run the country. So far he's my favorite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2007 7:44 AM GMT
    Most politicians suck. I mean that in a bad bad way.

    On the Indy/Lib side, I am strongly leaning towards Gravel. He generally tells it like it is and doesn't hold back.

    On the Repugnican side, ugg, well they are repugnicans after all. Being lying clueless bags of ... isn't anything new.

    McCain is a horror story waiting to be written. Rudy doesn't know squat about the facts and when called on it bleats and hoots the war mongering with the Fox audience never mind you he's ignorant of the facts from intelligence reports that are 3+ years old.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to actually be a republican truer to the definition of the word. Like Gravel, he also likes to state the facts and echo the will of the people.

    I dunno, I'm so sick and tired of our country being shoveled into the outhouse hole lick-e-ty split.

    :(
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2007 3:23 PM GMT
    Football.........I agree with you on the marriage issue.

    I've always advocated for us not insisting on the "M" word. Voters, for the most part, will always equate the word marriage with religion...
    while we know that marriage is a legal contract given/granted by the gov't.

    I was using that exmple to ask......how does Sen. Clinton have our backs. All politicians will say what they need to say to get votes.....but it's action( no pun intended) that we're looking for.

  • Starboard

    Posts: 242

    Jun 02, 2007 3:42 PM GMT
    Gotta disagree with Owl -- McCain could have been the Republican front runner, but he seems to have gone completely insane over the past few weeks.

    There is no one candidate who will stand out and advocate gay marriage, though some will dance around the subject under the camouflage of being pro-equal rights (as if any candidate would openly come out against equal rights).

    The gay marriage issue will remain without a resolution, just as many of our social issues do. Some say that the Republicans won the last presidential election because of their open support of the Defense of Marriage amendment...yet, with a Republican controlled House and Senate, no federal legislation ever resulted from their firmly-held "moral" beliefs. These social issues are fuel for interesting debate, but in the end, nothing will change without a signifcant revolution such as the suffrage movemement.

    As for candidates, Edwards seems to be ahead on all of the Left's hot-button issues (war, the environment, health care, etc.). But if Gore ever sacks up and puts his hat in, the Democrat's will have their primary candidate and the country will likely have its next president.
  • mcwclewis

    Posts: 1701

    Jun 02, 2007 8:10 PM GMT
    Kucinich, no doubt.
  • Starboard

    Posts: 242

    Jun 02, 2007 10:14 PM GMT
    Gore and tobacco have had a difficult relationship. I know that Gore has accepted campaign contributions from Big Tobacco and his family's farming interests have produced tobacco. But after losing his sister to a smoking related illness, he seems to have overcome any criticsm over the apparent conflict of interest -- when he is attacked, it's usually not over tobacco (though, admittedly I was unaware of the "tobacco speech" and couldn't really find anything through a very brief Google search).

    The reason why I think Gore could take it is because he has the right (lower case R)stance on the war, and his environmental credentials are going to be unparalleled with any other candidate as we (as a nation) finally, gradually succomb to the realization that he has been right all along about global warming.
    I really think that the environment is gearing up to become the 2nd or 3rd most important issue for Americans (after the Iraq War and national security).

    I don't think there is enough support for Hillary in a general election -- maybe not even in the primary. A lot of people hate her the way most liberals hate Bush. I think that many Hillary supporters are really just sentimental for the Clinton years...Gore can bring some of those Clinton memories back without the "Hillary baggage".

    And finally, after all that has happened since 2004, and in comparison with the catastrophic legacy that our current president will leave behind, I think that a lot of people look back at Gore and have forgotten all of the stewpid reasons why they did vote for him the first time around ("he's boring", the "internet" comment" a "stiff suit"). All of that seems ridiculous compared with the idiot that supposedly won the election. America is ready for a "do over".


  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jun 03, 2007 1:01 AM GMT
    I like Gore too, but as a candidate, for all his great qualities he's still got that stench of 'defeat' (engineered as it was) from 2000.

    I don't know if anyone can come back and win like that, though I guess Nixon did.

    Am I wrong about Gore, what do you think? Can he evoke the kind of passion a winning candidate needs to?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2007 6:00 AM GMT
    Gore was a lot more passionate in "An Inconvenient Truth" than he ever was as a candidate... which was wooden at best.

    I hate to say it, and while there are reasons not to like any candidate, I don't think Hillary, Obama or Romney have a chance of winning primarily because this country isn't prepared or ready to elect a woman, an African American or a Mormon. Nor a Jew, if Lieberman would have received the nomination.

    Of course, this exercise is all for naught. One morning I suspect we might wake up and learn that Bush has imposed martial law and cancelled the elections....
  • Starboard

    Posts: 242

    Jun 03, 2007 8:30 AM GMT
    I don't think that Gore is carrying much baggage from the defeat he suffered in 2000.

    If we were talking Kerry, I'm reeling from that stench. I think that many Democrats voted for Kerry just because he wasn't Bush, but found few other endearing qualities about his campaign.

    People who supported Gore in 2000 I think feel vindicated by their vote, while those who voted for Kerry in 04 kind of shrug their shoulders as if to say "we gave it a shot".

    AND many of those who paved the way to the Bush victory in 2000 are now second-guessing (if not full-out regret) the logic they used when they cast their ballots and there is enough doubt about how Bush won to balance out any embarrasmment of Gore's defeat. Not to mention the fact that Gore won the popular vote....