Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The next president...


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic
Author Message
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Guiliani is the only candidate who should be talking about 9/11 at all, because while all the other candidates were just watching the TV, he was bringing an injured city together and unifying the people in the face of tragedy. Guiliani's leadership abilities were highlighted in the wake of 9/11, why shouldn't he be allowed to bring that up?
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craze wrote:
I think its highly relevant. The republican party spawned the current president.



The caucasian race spawned the current president, therefore everyone should vote for Obama because he is black (kind of). Right?
Back to top
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
I think its highly relevant. The republican party spawned the current president.



The caucasian race spawned the current president, therefore everyone should vote for Obama because he is black (kind of). Right?


Umm... The republican party CHOOSES who they support to run, they supported Bush. TWICE. It's a little different then comparing it to a whole race. The Caucasian race didn't choose for Bush to be born, republicans CHOSE to run him as a candidate. Thus the entire thing gives them a bad record. If they're stupid enough to throw Bush at us twice, then why can we trust their current canidate?
What have democrats gave us in the past years? Clinton! Gore! Yes, Kerry, but even he is better then Bush.

Gullioni's has a nice record with 9/11. He did well, but thats about all he did.

My current vote belongs to Hilary or Obama.
Back to top
IgnisFatuus



Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 96

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill Richardson? Anybody?
Back to top
Avata



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 407

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stucco wrote:


I very much disagree with that. If we had a president that did a great job stimulating the economy, improving foreign relations, and cutting taxes, then wouldn't you search for someone who was as good the previous president at this? Wouldn't you search for a candidate who seemed to embrace these same attributes?



I'd search for a candidate with those attributes regardless of whether the current president had them or not.

Obviously you're going to look to a person with good qualities to be president. What those qualities are matters a whole hell of a lot more than how they compare to the current guy.

Also, it's already been said, but another reason for Clinton not to be nominated is that she polarizes people too much. Obama has the chance to pick up a lot of swing votes, and some traditionally republican votes as well. Clinton won't get a single republican vote, and won't pick up many swing votes, either.

I really don't want to see another Republican president right now. After the PR hell that Bush has put them through, the Republican party is in shambles. The Dems putting up Hillary would be a best case scenario for the Republicans, because going against such a volatile Democratic candidate would be the only way in hell the Republicans stand a chance of winning another election.

It's stupid, but you do have to look at what the "average American" will be thinking about.

Obama has an inspiring story in his past. Hillary has all Bills sexual baggage.

Obama is charismatic and idealistic, and has a "everyman" feel. Hillary is cold and calculating.

Obama has plenty of positive news coverage, Hillary, not so much. This is a huge one.

Obama has a short political record, but it is very impressive. Hillary has a long political past to nitpick apart.

All these things are admittedly trivial non-issues, but they are all things pushing on the psyche of the "average voter." Obama is likely to excite people enough to actually go and vote. Hillary? Not so much.

Either way, it seems quite possible the Republicans will put up Ron Paul. I honestly don't think they're planning on winning this time around - Bush has done too much damage. They're better off putting up a friendly face and spending the next four years licking their wounds.
Back to top
StormFTW



Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

id bet 65% of all the 6th graders in the world would run the country better then bush thats right i said world.

the only thing i hope is that people like obama or clinton dont get voted for or not voted for the wrong reasons i.e. ( beaing black or a woman) white as he can get. but i do need to start paying attion cuz ill be able to vote by the time election day roles around.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
I think its highly relevant. The republican party spawned the current president.



The caucasian race spawned the current president, therefore everyone should vote for Obama because he is black (kind of). Right?


Umm... The republican party CHOOSES who they support to run, they supported Bush. TWICE. It's a little different then comparing it to a whole race. The Caucasian race didn't choose for Bush to be born, republicans CHOSE to run him as a candidate. Thus the entire thing gives them a bad record. If they're stupid enough to throw Bush at us twice, then why can we trust their current canidate?
What have democrats gave us in the past years? Clinton! Gore! Yes, Kerry, but even he is better then Bush.

Gullioni's has a nice record with 9/11. He did well, but thats about all he did.

My current vote belongs to Hilary or Obama.



All Guiliani did was after 9/11? How about taken one of the most crime-infested cities in the country and turn it into one far below the average crime level for cities? Guiliani is one the best mayors New York has ever, or will ever, have. I think his great leadership abilities would make him a good president, and considering I agree and disagree with every candidate about the same number of times, that makes him the best candidate in my eyes.
Back to top
snoopster



Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 758
Location: nj

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChuckNorris wrote:
Guilliani is the worst possible. Would be worse than Bush in every conceivable way.

Ron Paul is a fucking joke. He rails against pork while funneling 8 million dollars to his district to build an animal research lab. Some small government tax-cutter he is.

I used to be in charge of Students for Barrack Obama at my college and quit over the Invading Pakistan comments. He really has no substance to him, just a face, much like Bush was for the GOP.

Hillary is just awful. She's basically the candidate that the conservatives want the Dems to nominate so they'll have a chance in 08. She's also the least progressive Democrat running, by a lot.

I'm voting for Dennis Kuchinch, even though he doesn't have a chance in hell.

So why not vote for Edwards, someone who does have a chance?

I'm only 16, so I won't be able to vote in the primaries/elections, but if I could, I would definitely go with Edwards.

Hillary and Obama are great. But, as we all know, most Republicans (and some Independents) are morons, and are still concerned about a candidate's race/gender. While I believe that Hillary, Obama, and even Biden and Kuchinich would be fantastic presidents, America desperately needs a Democrat in office. Edwards gives Democrats the best shot.

There has been some talk about Hillary being "unelectable," and, while this is sad, it could be true. The Republican hicks living in the South want women cooking and making babies, not in the White House. Obama is in a very similar (and probably even worse) situation.

It's sad to elect someone not based on his or her policies or credentials, but just because they have a better chance of winning the presidential election. But, as I have said from the beginning, the presidential election cannot be a race of two candidates. It must be a race between two parties, because America cannot, under any circumstance, afford another Republican in office.

Vote Edwards!
Back to top
Avata



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 407

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait, so because some people are sexist and racist, only white males should be be in the white house, because they have the best chance at a win?

What about all the feminist women that are sexist against men would automatically vote for Hillary over any man?

What about all the blacks that are racist against whites and would vote for Obama over any white?

Every race and gender has people that irrationally hate it.

Also, It's irresponsible to try and cater to the whims of racists. All it does is perpetuate the problem.
Back to top
snoopster



Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 758
Location: nj

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Avata wrote:
Wait, so because some people are sexist and racist, only white males should be be in the white house, because they have the best chance at a win?

What about all the feminist women that are sexist against men would automatically vote for Hillary over any man?

What about all the blacks that are racist against whites and would vote for Obama over any white?

Every race and gender has people that irrationally hate it.

Also, It's irresponsible to try and cater to the whims of racists. All it does is perpetuate the problem.

1. I never said that only white males should be in the White House. I said that we desperately need a democrat president, and a white male would have the greatest chance of being elected.

2. The feminist movement people are far outnumbed by the sexist people.

3. Hiallary has a much larger percent of the black vote than Obama (something like 53% to 27%, I believe) so the number of black racists who are coming out to vote is extremely few. Also, there are certainly far more racist whites in America than racist blacks.

4. I'm being irresponsible because I'm trying to help America?
Back to top
snoopster



Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 758
Location: nj

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama!!!!!1111!1111one11!!~``~111111111
Back to top
snoopster



Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 758
Location: nj

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theTrick wrote:

Hah! You're obviously joking right?

ummm... no?...

Was that a serious question?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy