My Profile

Keep Up to Date:
Blog RSS
Blog
Forum RSS
Forum
Post New Topic Post Reply
Posted 3 Months ago
Attila
Junior Boarder
Posts: 27
graphgraph
User Offline
 
With Bush going down the tubes, and no good news for him in sight (e.g. Mikey's movie Fahrenheit 911), who could pick up the Republican standard and have a decent shot at winning?

McCain is probably the best bet. He has distanced himself reasonably from Bush. Others who opposed the Patriot Act or who demanded proof on the Iraq war might appear sufficiently clean.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
klunifero
Junior Boarder
Posts: 33
graphgraph
User Offline
 
As they say, time will tell. Republicans will vote for the President. Most independents will vote for the incumbent. Democrats openly boast that they'd mindlessly vote for any man, woman or beast with a D beside his name. It's likely that Bush will announce the capture of bin Laden and show us Iraq's mass murder arsenal a couple of days before the election. Resentful culls like you will howl like little kids. No one knows whether the dirty trick will get enough of the independents' votes to get him reelected.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
rbignell
Junior Boarder
Posts: 23
graphgraph
User Offline
 
I think McCain would win in a landslide.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
MystiqueX
Junior Boarder
Posts: 27
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Who says?

Which democrats?

It's likely that Bush

It's time for the arsenal now. Not likely though..now or then it seems.

Resentful

I thought the independents would vote for the incumbent?

You're not as smart as you think you are, Chuckles.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
cihtingio
Fresh Boarder
Posts: 18
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Independents do, generally at exit polls and most questioners.

Pick one. Dems are the most hard core party line voters. This is mostly due to the fact that they are the least informed voters, and the Dems want to keep them that way.

Why, because you say so? Are you a military stratagest or just another internet-fed kook.

Sadly a few will be swayed by people just like you. Pot, kettle, black.....
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
kedaver
Junior Boarder
Posts: 22
graphgraph
User Offline
 
No candidate could win with a divided party. And attempting to tear the nomination away from an incumbent president is one of the most divisive things you can do to a political party.

We saw that when Ted Kennedy ran against Carter in the 1980 primaries and tried to take the nomination away from him, the Dem party became so badly split that they couldn't unify behind either one of these men in time to stop Reagan.

We saw a similar thing in 1992, when Pat Buchanan ran against Bush 41 in the primaries. The GOP ended up badly split and this helped Clinton win.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
Meriont
Fresh Boarder
Posts: 17
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Fred Phelps.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
nrryuhr
Junior Boarder
Posts: 22
graphgraph
User Offline
 
I never understood what it was he did that upset them so much. I do however understand why the Democrats hate Bush so much.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
gromit
Junior Boarder
Posts: 21
graphgraph
User Offline
 
What they mean by that is that they'd be eager to do anything that would damage their country if they could be sure that Bush would be 'collateral damage.'

No, you don't. Try to get serious.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Posted 3 Months ago
woody
Junior Boarder
Posts: 25
graphgraph
User Offline
 
Holy shit. I apologize to all you idiots out there. This thing is far below you.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
 
Copyright © 2006 - Nov 2008 The Conspiracy Theories