So, John Kerry, then

Uh, as above. Ugly bastard really, but what does he seem like to you Americans?

Me, I think hes a damn fruitcake. But then again I'm not a fan of democrats. :biggrin:

I think into November he could give Bush a run for his spot. I like some of his positions, but I'm not sure if I like him as a whole. I do prefer him over Dean and Edwards, however, though my preference is still Clark.

I'm still trying to determine if his face is a rubber mask or not...

To be honest I really have no opinion of him right now, as I have not really been following any of the primaries. I just hope I'm out of Florida before main election...

i think his intentions are good, but i dont care for his style of campaigning....everyone thinks they can change the world, promises, promises..hes not alone in that regard tho..and the thing i find extremely distasteful is his use of veterans to play on the heartstrings of america....but whats worse is, they fall for it....

Doc B.... :dodgy:

its like choosing between which tooth to have pulled in my humble, yet honest opinion....grrrrr

i am so f**king glad, that i have no political motivation what so ever.. i have absolutely no idea whom you all are talking about..

but please carry on as if i did.. that is all.

Obviously I'm not in the veteran category, but I think that Clark would be the real appealing candidate in that regard to many veterans. Not only is he a veteran, but he was a very high ranking official at that.

Part of that is also why I feel that he would be a good choice. We have a number of military involvements at the moment, mainly Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think that having a former NATO supreme commander would do us very well in doing the best we can to resolve the situation we're in in the best way we possibly can. At the same time, he's no warmonger and supports military action only as an absolute last resort. Hopefully that would never be necessary, but when the interests of our current and possibly future troops are at stake, I feel a man of his experience is the man to be commander-in-chief.

Of course, my support for him is not solely militaristic. I think he has a very good approach to his campaign and the issues as a whole - I still haven't found one point I disagree with any more than normal waivering. He is also a non-traditional candidate in the sense of coming from a long line of former political endeavors, and I think that speaks well for him. I heard something in the midst of the Arnold situation in California - much of what America is sick with in its politics is the same people spawning even more of the same, and traditional politics and politicians no longer seem to be trustworthy in their roles. This is where people like Ventura and Schwarzenegger become appealing - they don't come from that line, and the only way to really change the way things work in this country is to break that line and, with time, start a new line. Now, I'm not comparing Wesley Clark to Arnold or Jesse, but in some regards he's another political 'outsider,' albeit not to the same scale, and that sort of approach makes me more willing to pledge my support to him.

However, if Kerry does get the democratic nod, I could vote for him just to keep another vote away from Bush. Not that it'll do well in this state, but there are other democratic candidates I wouldn't give the same courtesy should they be given the same nod.

nice one Mr Lep. this sort of topic can get quite interesting into the 3rd or 4th page.

it's all gone nice and civilised so far. but just waits i tells ya. hehe, just waits

fishy said:
it's all gone nice and civilised so far. but just waits i tells ya. hehe, just waits

True ...

Ontopic:

I don't really follow up the American elections. In fact, everything is fine, as long as Bush doesn't win again.

fishy said:
nice one Mr Lep. this sort of topic can get quite interesting into the 3rd or 4th page.

it's all gone nice and civilised so far. but just waits i tells ya. hehe, just waits

Yes, I know, but I'm genuinely interested- we hear about who's winning and whatnot over here, but not really about what the candidates are like.

My impression of John Kerry is a slightly more liberal, slightly more abrasive Clinton. I dunno how true to form that is, but I like him more as a candidate than Dean, who I feel was never the strong candidate the papers said.

I have this Non Sequitur cartoon taped to my wall. It gives a hilarious rundown of how a nominee becomes a front runner. First the New York Times chooses a promising candidate at an official editors meeting. (Show men in a fancy bar going "Well, his name's the shortest, we'll save money on headline space.") Then, this decision is deliberated upon by TV reporters. (Show anchor at the make up table, "Great! Now we don't have to cover those other guys, which will save more time for my close-ups.") The Americans receive their info from the TV. (Show wife remarking to husband, "Oh dear.. I was foolishly going to back a more qualified candidate," with the husband responding, "We might have wasted our vote on someone not predicted to win!") Finally, in the last panel, to complete the process the media has to destroy the front runner. Now, I put this comic up right after I got back from winter break, about ten days into January. It absolutely cracked me up when Dean caught all that terrible press a week before the first primary.

as a whole, this truly is the sorriest group of democrats i think ive seen in many a year....no real platform, even though the issues before us make it, imho, open season on the republicans....and they either dont really have the nuts to approach it, or they dont really have a solution to the problems....its the same old sniping at each other kinda s**t, which to me is a definate downer....it shows a real lack of presidentiality (if thats even a word) .....the pres is the closet thing we have to a king, or queen (althought theres tons of queens these days) and should hold a stature as such ....theres an air about a respectable person; its not a dean, whom i believe is a friggin maniac, topped only by being an idiot (i'd rather light myself on fire than vote for him) ....its not a sharpton (too liberal, among other things) a kucinich (whos just a flat ass pussy, imho) a kerry, (ya know how i feel about him already)...or an edwards, although i will say that edwards jumped up a notch on my "pres-o-meter" when he abandoned the negative ad campaigns...then that leaves clark....now, i respect the man immensly, as a vet; he was a tremendous general, but actually untested in serious wartime.... he has his own skeletons to deal with, as his integrity has been called into question quite frequently....then whos left? nobody i'd really care to watch for the next 10 months spout their BS....and none of which are truly qualified to be pres, imho....and that goes for dubya too....so basicly, in an extreme nutshell, its gonna be a tough political year all around...and we will be no better off come next january, let alone the next 4 years, than we are now....

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

let er rip gents....heat this puppy up... :wink:

All I know is that the bastard is winning states left and right. I've yet to hear a word on what his viewpoints are, and that includes listening to some of his speeches and interviews.

Better than that goddamn psychopath Dean.

Dean might not be bad if he could keep himself under control. There are parts of his campaign and platform I like, but if it comes time for diplomatic negotiations with North Korea, the last thing I want is for our President to go jumping on the table at Kim Jong II with his fists in the air going "YEEEAEEAAAAARG!!!!!!" Know what I mean? :razz: Admittedly, I am surprised he hasn't put up a better showing in the primaries so far, but not disappointed.

what you said andrew...he showed his true colors....kinda scary to think the "little red button" in that maniacs hands...***shudder

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

Cassius said:
All I know is that the bastard is winning states left and right. I've yet to hear a word on what his viewpoints are, and that includes listening to some of his speeches and interviews.

Please, if he has no viewpoint he has all viewpoints, it's genius really, everyone can support him. That's how people get elected, they either stand for nothing and hope to fly under the radar or promise things and not follow through. Noone's forced him to say anything definite from what I could tell, as I was going to comment on him being the 'Opposite of Dean', but I have no clue what he's about other than he survived Vietnam.

as much as it pains me to do this....here:

http://johnkerry.com/

a little word to the wise: read between the lines, and think for yourself....do not let this f**k persuade you into something you wouldnt normally think.... :wink:

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

KungFuSquirrel said:
Dean might not be bad if he could keep himself under control. There are parts of his campaign and platform I like, but if it comes time for diplomatic negotiations with North Korea, the last thing I want is for our President to go jumping on the table at Kim Jong II with his fists in the air going "YEEEAEEAAAAARG!!!!!!" Know what I mean? :razz: Admittedly, I am surprised he hasn't put up a better showing in the primaries so far, but not disappointed.

Dean is hilarious

ly stupid.

I don't really care for Karry. He looks like a Richard Cranium. :arse:

i watched the speech the night he gave the ole' yeehaaargghhh screech, as KFS noted, and my wife looked at me and said with a s**t eating grin on her face..."hes done".....prophetic eh?...

shes been a smart lady for many years.....well, with the exception of marrying little old "me"... :heee:

Doc B...

Can someone explain the elections in the US? I mean, they elect ppl in different states, but that doesnt really mean anything, then theres the real election. wtf?

It's currently the Democratic primaries, a competition amongst the party to see who will be chosen as the presidential candidate. The Republicans don't have to bother because they're going with the incumbent GWB.

The winner of the primaries will be the Democratic Nominee to go against Republican Nominee GWB during the Presidential elections.

First off, there's a primary election. These are done by states early in the election year (this is what is happening right now). It functions much like the electoral college system, but instead of electors, candidates win 'delegates.' In this election, multiple candidates for each party are running for office - though often there aren't any to run against the incumbent (in this case, no Republicans oppose Bush). Registered voters in each state can vote for a candidate in their party.

The delegate process is pretty complicated, but basically the candidate with the most delegates gets the nod for the official party nomination at the party's national convention later in the year. These candidates then go on to the general election. Independent candidates also show up in this phase, but the two main parties represent the two main candidates.

What you see right now is the process of narrowing down the available candidates to just the 'top' one in the party. Instead of having a pool of countless candidates in November, this keeps the candidate count low. Can you imagine an election with 14 candidates where the winner takes home 18% of the vote? How's that for a general population that didn't elect you! :biggrin:

McCain should have been the Republican contender in 2000, I can garuntee you that most of the country wouldn't be getting off to the oh-so-original 'Bush is a moron' jokes.

Michael Moore has used the fact that the country is constantly insulting the President to say that the US is a 'liberal paradise'. And by the way, Dude, Where's My Country? was the single worst 'book' I have ever had the misfortune to read. Moore's facts are very powerful, I must admit, but his attempts to joke are painful to look at. Then again, he is a liberal.

i would both vote for john mccain and shoot micheal moore in a heartbeat.....too bad neither will materialize... :razz:

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

Just went on Bushs' "re-election" site. Load of s**te.

Cassius said:
All I know is that the bastard is winning states left and right. I've yet to hear a word on what his viewpoints are, and that includes listening to some of his speeches and interviews.

Better than that goddamn psychopath Dean.

I think there are a lot of people who don't know where Kerry stands on issues, but they're voting for him anyway because there's a perception that he's "electable."

I just want the original Howard Dean back. The sane social liberal and fiscal moderate. His speech at the February '03 DNC Meeting had me going nuts about the guy, but the latter part of his campaign has disappointed me. I don't regret volunteering and caucusing for him though.

SuperCrazy said:
I think there are a lot of people who don't know where Kerry stands on issues, but they're voting for him anyways because there's a perception that he's "electable."

these people know that if they come out and tell everyone exactly what their policies are, then they instantly lose support from some sections of the electorate. they always do better if they can generate that 'perception' of electability, instead of telling us exactly where they stand and what their intentions are.

Being electable and stating your policies aren't mutually exclusive though. All of the candidates have made many of their intentions clear, I was simply saying some voters aren't paying much attention. His perceived electability has nothing to do with that.

So it's just normal, registered voters who are voting in the primaries now? Even republicans who could try and 'throw it off'? Over here we have several rounds of voting to choose the party leader, which is all done by MPs in that party (MPs- members of parliament- are like having a senator for each county in each state).

No, part of the primary process is that registered democrats vote for the democratic candidates, and republicans for republicans.

In some states, voters not affiliated with either party can choose which primary to vote for. Not sure which ones are like that, but I believe NH is.

The series of primaries is also very very weird in how different people win. Somehow Iowa and New Hampshire are the most important primaries of them all. I don't know which states are to the end, but everything after "Super Tuesday" (which I believe the state I'm registered in, CT, is a part of) is more or less completely unimportant. Washington DC even has their own primary--in fact they tried to pull a publicity stunt by rescheduling it for before New Hampshire, but then all the candidates except the Rev. Al Sharpton dropped out of the race in there. Quite honestly, the primaries make the electoral college look extremely sane.

I've actually known a few people to register for the opposite party just to throw off the primaries - they figure that they don't really care who they vote for, but they usually have a strong desire to keep someone else out from the other party so they try to vote him down.

My impression of Kerry from very limited information is that he is a cardboard cut out. if I was a democrat, I'd vote for Clark

If I were democrat, I would either hang my head in shame at a group of chump candidates or run my own campaign because I would stand as much a chance of winning the Presidency. But that's just me.