-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official RNC topic 2.
- Thread starter Wellington
- Start date
- Status
If Kerry loses, Hillary will run in 2008 but not make it out of the primaries. Her public Ice Queen persona is etched in stone, and 90% of the Hillary-in-2004 talk came from conservatives to whom she's a terrifying bogeyman (bogeywoman?). It's odd that a DLC moderate would arouse such ire, though I'd like to think it's for a better (or at least different) reason than her vagina.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
I actually like Hillary Clinton, I really do, but she wouldn't win the primaries so she wouldn't get the nomination. The republicans would tear her to shreads. Republicans would sooner burn the White House to the ground before they would ever let Bill & Hill set up shop there again.
I think that in 2008 for the republicans its going to be McCain all the way. Giuliani has some appeal but its McCains "turn" (if you look back at the republican nominations over the past 40 years you tend to see a pattern of people running, failing to get the nomination, and then running again and getting it). A McCain/Giuliani ticket is probably a dream ticket right now. In fact, I bet if thats who they had running right now they would be in a hell of a lot better shape than they are currently (I don't think it would be even close to a tie like it is now.)
If Kerry doesn't win then in 2008 I think John Edwards will give it another shot. Al Gore might even step up to the plate again (he should have ran this year IMO). Right now its really up in the air for them whereas for the republican party the choice is more obvious.
I think that in 2008 for the republicans its going to be McCain all the way. Giuliani has some appeal but its McCains "turn" (if you look back at the republican nominations over the past 40 years you tend to see a pattern of people running, failing to get the nomination, and then running again and getting it). A McCain/Giuliani ticket is probably a dream ticket right now. In fact, I bet if thats who they had running right now they would be in a hell of a lot better shape than they are currently (I don't think it would be even close to a tie like it is now.)
If Kerry doesn't win then in 2008 I think John Edwards will give it another shot. Al Gore might even step up to the plate again (he should have ran this year IMO). Right now its really up in the air for them whereas for the republican party the choice is more obvious.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
If you mean "run alongside" as running mate, he's of the opinion that under current Constitutional rules he shouldn't be eligible.AssMan said:
Alcibiades
Member
John McCain has a chance to win the primary cause he supports overturning Roe V. Wade.
Guliani and/or Arnold would have to come up with the ultimate clever manuever to get conservatives to let them off on that issue.
Guliani and/or Arnold would have to come up with the ultimate clever manuever to get conservatives to let them off on that issue.
-jinx- said:
Well, there is that amendment that they're trying to push through. Whether Giuliani or Arnold (assuming he'd be running under a newly amended constitution) would get elected is kind of iffy. On one hand, they're way too liberal by the GOP's own standards for national candidates. On the other, they'd probably be popular enough that they'd dismiss those factors just to get one of their own in power.
I hadn't heard about such an amendment, but I don't know how much popular support it would get. On the one hand, the prohibition against any but natural-born Americans serving as President is a little stupid. On the other hand, it's one of those long-standing traditions that is tied up with (silly) symbolism, so it might be hard to get middle America to wrap their heads around the idea of a "non-American" being President.xsarien said:
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Yeah some people say that the new ammendment was tailored specifically for Arnold. I don't think such an ammendment will ever pass in our lifetimes but rest assured that if it does there will be stipulations involved (like having to be a US resident for 35 years or something like that).
Almost 2,000 people have been arrested since this convention started. Unheard of.
Kudos to New Yorkers though. I salute them. It tells you something when the city needs to be turned into a fortress/police state, with enough security forces to occupy a country so that the convention may be held in NY. Its obvious they're not welcome in the city by the general populace. And I salute the demonstrators for making that clear.
Kudos to New Yorkers though. I salute them. It tells you something when the city needs to be turned into a fortress/police state, with enough security forces to occupy a country so that the convention may be held in NY. Its obvious they're not welcome in the city by the general populace. And I salute the demonstrators for making that clear.
Kobun Heat
Member
It sure does.Slurpy said:
Banjo Tango
Member
I heard on NPR that there is specific language prohibiting foreign-born people from running as Veep (in a correction where they formerly stated Arnold COULD run for VP). But even though I don't want to see Arnold in office, those laws do seem dated - I've got to wonder how people are going to defend it.-jinx- said:
xsarian - it's a link to Arnold in a Japanese beer commerical. If the direct link doesn't work, try going here, clicking on the "search" tab, run a search on "Arnold" and... enjoy. Both commercials are good, but the second one has a much greater WTF factor.
Arnie Arnie Arnie Arnie Arnie Arnie POI!
What I find most ironic is the exploitation of NY, the pain of the people who suffered most from 9/11, who supposedly would benefit the most from Bush's re-election, which is used as the fundamental cornerstone of the re-election bid of this convention- while they have to turn the city into a fucking military base because of the amount of resentment these same people have for the adminstration.
brooklyngooner
Member
Kobun Heat said:
Care to elaborate, home slice? Seeing as how I've been one of the protestors.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
Slurpy said:
Realize that a lot of protesters are coming from out of town. In fact, most people at the office are on vacation out of town, and most people are generally avoiding the city unless they have to go to work. Just watch the news or read newspapers to see how business owners are blaming the RNC for reduced sales.
Personally, I think this whole protester shit is fucking dumb. I bet most of them don't even know any of Bush's policies other than "War in Iraq".
brooklyngooner
Member
Wellington said:
On what do you make this baseless assumption?
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
brooklyngooner said:
You're in New York, you must have been watching the news recently. A reporter from Fox 5 went out to the crowds and asked simple questions to some protestors.
Reporter: "What are the three branches of government?"
Protestor 1: "uhm.... uhm.....uhm..."
Protestor 2: "Why are you asking this stupid shit?"
maharg said:
Basically, they saw her as an uppity first lady. Apparently, the average Republican wants the President's wife to be quiet most of the time, and just nod her head when asked to do so. I personally like Hillary. Total ice queen, sure, but she had enough balls to come to New York, run for Senate against two established politicians, and win.
And from what I hear, she isn't doing too bad a job.
-jinx- said:
Sorry, I see where I wasn't very clear in what I said. Allow me to clarify. In my opinion, taking Afghanistan out from under Al Qaeda was clearly a significant advance on the War on Terrorism. Putting Al Qaeda on defense makes it much more difficult for them to coordinate terrorist attacks, and raise money toward those means. Shutting down significant sources of Al Qaeda funding and freezing known Al Qaeda assets clearly was a blow to their organization, and their ability to carry out attacks on the scale of 9/11, as was the capture of several of their top lieutenants. That particular facet of the "War on Terrorism" (I agree, dumb term, but it's commonly used), was a significant advance, IMO. It did not make terrorist attacks impossible, but likely made them more difficult to carry out and thus, less likely.
There is no way to validate its effects because we have no alternate reality where we did not invade Afghanistan to compare it to. You may disagree, but you can't really argue the point on either side, as the scope and methods of terrorist attacks have changed somewhat since that attack. There is no way to objectively evaluate whether there would have been more or less attacks of a smaller or larger scope had we not invaded Afghanistan.
Note that I am completely and purposely dismissing the Iraq War as beyond the scope of my argument for significant advances on Terrorism. In other words, I am saying that the disruption of Al Qaeda's home base, finances, and command structure was a direct blow to the organization which has likely made American *civilians on American soil* safer from the direct threat of Terrorism
-jinx- said:
It's obvious that terrorism stems mainly from Geopolitical and religious factors, rather than a mass manifestation of serial killer tendencies in one single group of people. Whether it's hatred over religion, a perception that the western world is collectively out to ravage Muslim holy lands and pillage their oil, a direct result of actions taken during the Cold War, or more likely some combination of many reason; I think we can both agree that the reasons behind terrorist actions are nuanced and not particularly well understood by most Western people, because the idea of murdering thousands of innocent people in a suicidal rampage to achieve political goals is a foreign concept to the great majority of people, from all cultures.
To turn my argument towards the current Iraq War, I think it's important to note how significant of a departure the Iraq War is from established American military doctrine. It's at least as revolutionary as Ronald Reagan's Cold War strategy, which at the time was very hotly debated even though it was ultimately successful as the Soviet Union collapsed under the weakness of its own economy. The current strategy shift to preventive war, and essentially, a campaign to change those geopolitical factors that result in terrorism by altering the very social structure of the Middle east itself is a revolutionary, but unproven strategy. It's easy to dismiss Preventive War as regime change or puppet governments, but that's certainly not how the strategy has been billed. I fully accept that this may ultimately happen. I cannot guarantee that the USA as a whole will stand fast until a truly representative, popularly elected government is installed in Iraq.
Even if the US does keep its promises until a truly representative government is installed in Iraq, I cannot guarantee that the Iraqi people will not collectively choose to pursue Muslim Extremism and terror attacks against other nations. If the Iraqi people have an elected government and choose to become a modern nation, I cannot guarantee that Iraq will not merely be one modern nation in the middle of a sub-continent of Theocracies and dictatorships. However, the idea that ending terrorism by collectively changing the bedrock on which it is based is definitely a new and interesting idea. I'm not 100% convinced that it will work, but at least it's an idea, and if truly successful (again, I have many doubts on this) brilliant in that it makes the world better for everybody in the end. Many opponents say that Bush has the wrong idea, but offer no serious counter-strategies. In fact, I'd go so far to say that I haven't seen any critics address the strategy itself for what it is. It's much more common to dismiss it as "It will just make it worse", "You're going to kill us all", and "It's just a front for cheap oil". In my mind these arguments are mainly poorly thought out and unconvincing.
Looked upon in the light of this strategy, it's difficult to measure success in the War on Terror. What benchmarks do we set for win conditions? No terror attacks for 5 years? No more Islam? All holes filled with hard cock? Akin to fighting crime, the presence of terrorist attacks does not mean that there is no progress being made against terrorism.
Maybe terrorist sentiment is increasing due to the Iraq War, or maybe the terrorists are collectively running scared. We have no frame of reference to compare it to, since before 9/11 the national attention was not collectively focused on terrorism. Is there actually a higher sentiment, or do we just notice it more? There's no way to tell objectively, and conclusively that there is a higher worldwide terrorist sentiment or a lower terrorist sentiment, because we have no way to objectively measure it, much less any benchmark year of terrorism to compare it to.
[/quote]
I give Bush credit on national defense because at least he has a strategy in place. It may or may not pan out, but at least it's not knee jerk reactionism. Some misguidedly think it is, but have not done much research or thought out the full implications of what the US is actually trying to accomplish in Iraq. If someone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. I do not think that John Kerry is that man, as his strategy consists of two remarks. Kerry stinks of slimy opportunistic politician. Not only that, but he doesn't even have a consistent policy in Iraq. Just recently he said that he would vote for the invasion of Iraq even if he had it to do over again, knowing what he did now. Where are his uniquely enlightened ideas? Why are YOU giving Kerry a free pass when he has said that he would vote to go into Iraq knowing what he does now, while continuously lambasting Bush for doing what Kerry has said he would support again, given the chance?
You need 15 years to see if this strategy pans out. Like I said, I have significant doubts, I don't mean to trumpet this as the be all end all of military strategy, but just because the going gets rough does not mean that it will not ultimately be a successful policy. Iraq is in its infancy as a modern country, and it will take time to evaluate the results of the Iraq War and the subsequent rebuilding. That's where the 10-15 years come from.
It's clear that Clinton's anti-terrorism policy was unsuccessful due to 9/11 being primarily planned on Clinton's watch. If his policy was so successful, why wasn't 9/11 averted 2 or 3 years into its planning? Who made the decision to castrate American intelligence agencies? Again, I'm not passing the buck entirely to Clinton, as I personally never would have expected something like 9/11 as being planned in the late 90's either. He truly, like Bush, had no way of expecting something so seemingly absurd to happen. It's apparent however, that dealing with terrorism primarily as a law enforcement issue and for the most part just ignoring terrorists did not work out as planned for Clinton or Bush.
Yes, I will vote for Bush because Kerry is a shit bag. I'm not a huge Bush fan, particularly on stem cell research and gay marriage, however these items are merely talking points for me, as I primarily want a President strong on Defense, and I truly believe that Bush kicks Kerry's ass on this issue 6 ways from Sunday.
xsarien said:
My beef with Hillary is that she was too involved, not because she was a woman, but because he husband was elected, not her. I don't think the family of the President should be directly involved in policy making, like Hillary was in heading up the Health Care reform agenda. That includes, wives, daughters, brothers, husbands, sons and dogs. We elected the President for his leadership and vision, not that of his loved ones.
xsarien said:
I've never looked into it, as it's not THAT big of a deal to me. I'm guessing by your loaded statement that there is a long and storied history of first ladies being directly involved in policy. I don't expect the Presiden't Family to completely sit on the back burner, clearly they're going to make some appearances, speeches, etc, it's inevitable. But do we really need to hear the Bush twins or Kerry's Daughters (shame about them noses) speak their father's respective conventions? The wives speaking is more palatable, but I still disagree with it on some primal level. I guess ultimately, it's support your family member as President, but don't do his job for him.
edit: Note, I don't know whether the Kerry Daughter's spoke at the DNC, I happened to catch the Bush Twin part on the RNC last night which is why I mentioned it.
Nothing loaded about it -- MANY First Ladies have been involved in public policy initiatives.KingV said:
The bottom line is that Republicans hate Hillary since a) she's a Clinton, and that name can incite any right-winger to riot for reasons I will never understand, b) she's a successful Democrat who went from being First Lady to Senator of NEW YORK, and c) I strongly suspect that a lot of politicians are chauvinists, and the idea of a powerful woman really pisses them off.
KingV said:
Man, it's so clear from that statement that you have NO idea as to what you're talking about. I HIGHLY suggest you read "Against All Enemys" by Richard Clarke. He may not be the most objective point of view but he certainly the most knowledgeable...and Kerry a "shit bag" that could never be strong on defense??? Jeez you must really hate Bush then seeing as his "strong" defensive position involves invading countries that aren't a threat.
-jinx- said:
Honestly, I don't dislike Clinton. Clinton was a pretty moderate President. He made some foreign policy mistakes, namely handling N. Korea and Al Qaeda with kid's gloves, but few if any saw them as inadequate at the time. The Monica Lewinsky thing was blown way out of proportion. The economy was great for most of his Presidency, though that's partially luck, partially good policy as so many things need to hit at the same time to turn the economy one way or the other.
seismologist
Banned
Wow those are some massive protests going on. Funny how it's getting no media coverage at all.
3rdman said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
That's enough to convince me that the Clinton Administration did not do everything it could do against Al Qaeda. I haven't read Richard Clarke's book, I'm wary of it from the get go because of its timing. The fact that he was fired from his job and then immediately decides to write a tell all book detailing the mistakes of his former boss seems like sour grapes to me, and I have trouble taking it seriously because of that.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
KingV said:
And where were those French reporters when they were kidnapped? Iraq. I rest my case.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
The bottom line is that the terrorists hate it when people f*** with muslims.
Our involvement in the middle east = f***ing with muslims.
France's banning head scarves (a muslim tradition) = f***ing with muslims.
Get the point?
Our involvement in the middle east = f***ing with muslims.
France's banning head scarves (a muslim tradition) = f***ing with muslims.
Get the point?
Outlaw Pro Mod
Member
Kerry = owned.
Outlaw Pro Mod
Member
:lol
Alcibiades
Member
drudgereport.com
WOW, even more impressive than yesterday, MSNBC has beat CNN. It's a shame MSNBC isn't more widely available, I know I can't get it here in my college town.
leading up to the convention, MSNBC's shows were just slightly moving ahead of CNN. Is MSNBC providing some good coverage or what? I wish I could see what's going on in that network.
WOW, even more impressive than yesterday, MSNBC has beat CNN. It's a shame MSNBC isn't more widely available, I know I can't get it here in my college town.
leading up to the convention, MSNBC's shows were just slightly moving ahead of CNN. Is MSNBC providing some good coverage or what? I wish I could see what's going on in that network.
JC10001 said:
When is enough enough? Personally, I think the banning of headscarves was a pretty asinine decision, but I'm not French and do not portend to tell them how to conduct their domestic affairs, after all their leaders are popularly elected and presumably representative of their population.
This abduction just illustrates that appeasement and peaceful solutions cannot work with terrorists, as any perceived slight is justifiable grounds for an attack in the terrorist's world view. At what point is it ok to forcefully suggest that maybe we don't like it when people f*** with us either? That point passed long ago for me.
Alcibiades
Member
wow, I wish they had put Miller on Monday and Cheney on yesterday. As weird as it would have been not having Cheney on Wed. night, having Arnold/Rudy on the broadcast networks would have provided a noticeable bump for Bush in the polls IMO.
Arnold/Rudy totally have appeal to cross-over voters, and can communicate very well. Also, I think they should have broadcast all 4 days no matter who was on, and the same thing goes for the Democratic convention.
Zell/Cheney have been a little less persuasive and grand, IMO, although they are hitting Kerry harder even more than Rudy did.
Arnold/Rudy totally have appeal to cross-over voters, and can communicate very well. Also, I think they should have broadcast all 4 days no matter who was on, and the same thing goes for the Democratic convention.
Zell/Cheney have been a little less persuasive and grand, IMO, although they are hitting Kerry harder even more than Rudy did.
Alcibiades
Member
Drensch said:
no, because usually cable tv networks (no matter what newtork, news, sports, etc...) will not best the broadcast networks in primetime. Especially since 20% of TV's out there only have airwave broadcast with no cable/satellite providers.
This is a big deal no matter how you cut it. It's probably the first time it happened (for Fox News).
BTW, more independents watch FOX News than the other two cable networks (no doubt more Republicans also, but they also lead in independent viewers).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked