Something to think about

Apparently, the presidential front runners for the 2008 election are Rudy Guliani (I hope I *****ed that right) for the republicans and Hilary Clinton for the democrats. What an awful lineup. Either way, this country is going to the dogs. It would be nice to see Obama or McCain in the running. McCain is the popular vote behind Guliani, but I don't see him overtaking Guliani as popular as Guliani is...

---

› See More: Something to think about

Rudy Gualini is a good guy, but I really and truly think that a woman president would be good for America... i don't know...

Originally Posted by Robb4248

I really and truly think that a woman president would be good for America... i don't know...

I think Hilary is an excellent choice. Not only because she's a woman, but she's a smart, intelligent person who can lead a nation. I'm sorry but Bush simply can't lead a nation, he's a puppet. $20 says he doesn't actually make half the decisions he claims to, probably a polit bureau sitting in a conference room figures out what to do and simply tells him what to say. Wouldn't surprise me.

My vote is definately for another Clinton to run the country.

as far as hillary running the country see did it once i guess she can do it again. i wont vote for her.

As much as I would like to see Bill Clinton getting involved with foreign policy again, I couldn't vote for Hilary. I'm really on the fence on this one.

I wouldn't vote for Guliani because he has no balls. He was great during the days following 9/11 and getting the country behind the cause, etc etc. Everything else he's done sucks. He doesn't speak up for his ideas; he just sees what his party is doing and thoroughly supports it...regardless of how silly it is. I remember when he was saying that Bush won one of the debates by a landslide when he very obviously lost it (I think it was the first debate, but I could be wrong. Bush was really flustered and kept stuttering and contradicting himself). People that are so enveloped by their party that they can't see through the red or blue have no place in office. I wish McCain was the front runner. I'd vote for him.

I couldn't vote for Hilary either. I like some of the things she's done (making a bill that says minimum wage needs to be increased every time the congress gets a wage increase), but I honestly don't think this country can have a female president at the moment. With North Korea and Iran needing to be dealt with (not necessarily in a military sense), we need to have someone in office that is able to talk sense into them. These people simply do not respect women. If we had a female president, our foreign policy would cease to exist. As much as I hate it, the US is a major player in nuclear arms. We need someone that can deal with the people that are developing nuclear technology with a violent mindset. When those countries don't respect women, a woman couldn't do the job.

That's very true. Many countries (not to be sexist), say that a man is the man. Look at Iraq and other major countries simmilar to it and it's beliefs. They do not respect women. What would are country look like to them? They would try to step all over us. But on the flip side, I strongly think that a women president would do this country good economically.

I've been a New Yorker for a while before I moved to Pa, and Giuliani did a good job while in office. He kept NYC in a good condition. The Isreali panel says he's the "best" choice.

I really don't know. America could be brought to it's knees economically since our monotary system has no back-up in place any more. So that leads me to Clinton, but Giuliani kept NYC is a good condition, could he do the same for the country? I think he could take care of business.


the question is... who would YOU vote for?

Problem with last election too. The whole idea of each party choosing one candidate is ridiculous. Let us choose from 3 from each party so the American people actually have a say in the election.

You can vote in the primaries, but you need to be a registered voter for that party. John Kerry/John Edwards had been elected by Democratic voters before the presidential election. We just need a democratic candidate that you can vote for. I wish they'd put a minority in the running.

cool

Originally Posted by Robb4248

That's very true. Many countries (not to be sexist), say that a man is the man. Look at Iraq and other major countries simmilar to it and it's beliefs. They do not respect women. What would are country look like to them? They would try to step all over us. But on the flip side, I strongly think that a women president would do this country good economically.

the question is... who would YOU vote for?

While this is true in those countries, I don't think it would really impact the world table. The United States, although not as much as before, still is the world's gigantic powerhouse, both in economy and military. Regardless of Bush's failed efforts to boost the economy (something no one can touch Clinton for, the economy was one of the best under his presidency), the USA is still doing alright, and is still the one single symbol of the "free world" and capitalism at it's best. Of course there are good and bad sides to these things, but that's a whole other thread

For countries to start ignoring the United States because it's leader is a female sounds plausable, but in reality it isn't. I personally think Hillary would do a much better job on the "behind the scenes" stuff, like covert operations, CIA OPs, etc. Bush could have asassinated Saddam Hussein covertly, without dumping the entire military into Iraq. If anyone remembers, on the eve when the bombs started dropping, the military dropped a "bunker buster" that burrowed into a bunker where they had intelligence that Saddam was inside. Saddam was indeed inside, and the bunker buster detonated inside the room he was in, yet he made it out with only minor scratches ! Why send a bunker buster in and not a special operations team ? I personally think they could have taken Saddam down with very minimal, if any, causalties. This was once debated with Bush in a press interview, and his reasoning was because members of the armed forces might have gotten injured or killed in the process, so a bunker buster was chosen instead. Hello?!?!? These people SIGNED up WILLINGLY for the military, they know the risks involved ! And besides, the reasoning doesn't hold up anyways. A dozen personel killed while raiding Saddam's bunker, compared to how many hundreds / thousands are dead since the beginning of the war ?

Bush did f*ck-all on the behind the scenes stuff. If anyone watched the 9/11 commission stuff that's been on TV this past week, you'll know what I mean. Memos that Bush got while vacationing on his Texas ranch, warnings that got no attention and were pushed to the side. Hell, when the crisis began happening, he sat in front of a classroom thinking "oh sh!t, wtf do I do?". He could have sent in covert ops months before 9/11 and may have been able to prevent it. If the military was so ordered to do so, I'm nearly positive they would be able to capture Osama Bin Laden and his hierarchy of terrorists.

I think Hillary would make much more usefulness of the resources that the United States has. I watched a movie the other day, Swordfish, I'm sure most of you have seen it. We need someone like John Travolta's character. I'll quote my favorite line to end my post:


"Anyone who infringes on America's freedom. Terrorists' states, Stanley. Someone must take their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. We must make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans"

Originally Posted by _Abom_

While this is true in those countries, I don't think it would really impact the world table. The United States, although not as much as before, still is the world's gigantic powerhouse, both in economy and military. Regardless of Bush's failed efforts to boost the economy (something no one can touch Clinton for, the economy was one of the best under his presidency), the USA is still doing alright, and is still the one single symbol of the "free world" and capitalism at it's best. Of course there are good and bad sides to these things, but that's a whole other thread

Honestly, I'm not sure that this it true. We are starting to outsource a lot of jobs which will eventually leave the only available US jobs in corporate offices. Once your manufacturing starts dropping and management takes over, the economy can't survive and will eventually collapse. This is still a long way off, but you can see that it's starting to happen right now. We are great designers, but we can't do much of anything for cheap. The value of the dollar is dropping which is also evident in the rise in gas prices. China holds a large amount of our currency because at the moment, their economy depends largely on ours. Once other countries develop and start needing the same things that we do, China can stop depending on us and drop that money back into our pockets...causing further inflation. I'll be surprised if our economy doesn't collapse in the next 50-60 years.

Originally Posted by _Abom_

For countries to start ignoring the United States because it's leader is a female sounds plausable, but in reality it isn't. I personally think Hillary would do a much better job on the "behind the scenes" stuff, like covert operations, CIA OPs, etc.

This may or may not be true (I agree, but it's impossible to tell until it happens). The fact of the matter is that Kim Chong Il (among others) has no respect for women. He has his "right hand men" go out and look for women fitting the description he feels like that day. I seriously doubt that he would be willing to look at a woman as an equal role around a table to discuss the policies of his nation. He might, he might not. But while the chance that he may not is out there, I won't vote for a woman. I think it's better to be safe than sorry. You can disagree with me all you like, but neither one of us will know what would happen until we're in the position to watch it. And while that chance is out there, I don't think it's worth the risk to put a female in office. I think Hillary would be a better fit on the cabinet.

Originally Posted by _Abom_

Bush could have asassinated Saddam Hussein covertly, without dumping the entire military into Iraq. If anyone remembers, on the eve when the bombs started dropping, the military dropped a "bunker buster" that burrowed into a bunker where they had intelligence that Saddam was inside. Saddam was indeed inside, and the bunker buster detonated inside the room he was in, yet he made it out with only minor scratches ! Why send a bunker buster in and not a special operations team ? I personally think they could have taken Saddam down with very minimal, if any, causalties. This was once debated with Bush in a press interview, and his reasoning was because members of the armed forces might have gotten injured or killed in the process, so a bunker buster was chosen instead. Hello?!?!? These people SIGNED up WILLINGLY for the military, they know the risks involved ! And besides, the reasoning doesn't hold up anyways. A dozen personel killed while raiding Saddam's bunker, compared to how many hundreds / thousands are dead since the beginning of the war ?

Yeah, but if he'd done that, he wouldn't have been able to say Mission Accomplished. Or, "Of course I hate (Saddam). This is the guy that tried to kill my dad." Which, I might add, isn't true. I can't remember Saddam ever attacking George Bush Sr., although I'm sure it would be a good cage match.

Originally Posted by _Abom_

Bush did f*ck-all on the behind the scenes stuff. If anyone watched the 9/11 commission stuff that's been on TV this past week, you'll know what I mean. Memos that Bush got while vacationing on his Texas ranch, warnings that got no attention and were pushed to the side. Hell, when the crisis began happening, he sat in front of a classroom thinking "oh sh!t, wtf do I do?". He could have sent in covert ops months before 9/11 and may have been able to prevent it. If the military was so ordered to do so, I'm nearly positive they would be able to capture Osama Bin Laden and his hierarchy of terrorists.

Yeah, he also had intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan at the time that we invaded Iraq. Actually, that was public knowledge. I remember seeing that on the news and being confused as hell when we invaded. I still have no idea what we're doing in Iraq.

Originally Posted by spum

Yeah, but if he'd done that, he wouldn't have been able to say Mission Accomplished. Or, "Of course I hate (Saddam). This is the guy that tried to kill my dad." Which, I might add, isn't true. I can't remember Saddam ever attacking George Bush Sr., although I'm sure it would be a good cage match.



Yeah, he also had intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan at the time that we invaded Iraq. Actually, that was public knowledge. I remember seeing that on the news and being confused as hell when we invaded. I still have no idea what we're doing in Iraq.

Haha, he did put a picture Bush Sr's face on the floor in the lobby of a Baghdad hotel, so everyone could "walk on his face" everyday

I have an interesting opinion on Iraq. Personally, I find the entire world to be cowards and fools for NOT intervening in Iraq years ago. Sure there's the whole WMD debate and whether Saddam had them or not, blah blah blah. What we do know for a fact is that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, opressive dictator who killed thousands of his own citizens, as we've seen in the mass graves that were dug up during the invasion. Saddam was an evil person, and needed to be removed. There was nothing wrong in removing Saddam from power, as I compare his regeime to the North Koreans, and on a smaller level, the Nazi's. Very simply he's a coward and a murderer and needed to be removed.

Now, that said, I still think the covert operation would have been easier, faster and spared more lives, but that's a different discussion

Saddam was an evil dude, but there were much worse people than Saddam at the time of invasion. If we wanted to go after dictators, we should have been somewhere else. Lybia, for example. If we wanted to go after terrorists, Pakistan would have been key. Like I said, I have no idea why we're in Iraq.

Originally Posted by spum

Saddam was an evil dude, but there were much worse people than Saddam at the time of invasion. If we wanted to go after dictators, we should have been somewhere else. Lybia, for example. If we wanted to go after terrorists, Pakistan would have been key. Like I said, I have no idea why we're in Iraq.

Agreed, there are worse people around and they must be dealt with as well, but by the world as a whole. It's our responsibility as human beings, let alone the "free" nations, to deal with those who abuse their power and oppress their people. And why Iraq ? I shall sum it up with one word. Oil.

If we're over there for oil, aren't we the ones that are abusing our power and oppressing people? If oil really is the reason, we're worse than Saddam ever was.