Pretty amazing fact

[omicron]

I was watching one of the late night shows this week, and they had James Carville (Man that guy is one strange looking dude!) and he mentioned that if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination in 2008, a 49yr old voter will have never voted in a presidential election without a Clinton or Bush on the ticket.

It's almost like we have dueling royal houses :) I think it was Conan who said in 2200 it will be Bush the 23rd vs Clinton 19th or something :)

Omicron

[DarkJedi]

Yeppers.....I said that before too. It's very possible that two families will be ruling this country from 1988-2016.

Even after that if anyone else from the two families gets into politics.

[MPG]

Well, Jeb Bush is a definite possibility. So let's say two terms for Hillary, two terms for Jeb - by then, Chelsea could actually run for president, I guess. :D

[KingVoyeur]

Are the Bush twins allowed to run as one? I mean, with each only having half a brain, they'd hafta share a ballot...

[DaForce]

No, no...their father has no brain, and he ran on the fear contingent. Their handlers just need to find an angle to exploit to get them to win. AND considering that education spending isn't a big priorty with their father, they probably have a better than average chance of winning.

Hell, look at California. The morons here elected a guy governor based on his action movies.

[Intelligent_Design]

Well, Jeb Bush is a definite possibility. So let's say two terms for Hillary, two terms for Jeb - by then, Chelsea could actually run for president, I guess. :D


The Prescott Bush is the Bushs' secret weapon for the future. That dude will hold a high office someday.

[Bark]

You know how they say, "Never say never," about stuff. I'm saying never.

Hillary Clinton will NEVER be President.

[DarkJedi]

And I guess I'm saying she probably will be president by February 2009.

[KingVoyeur]

I think that we'll definitely have a female candidate in '08, either Dem. or Rep., but they won't win. 2012 is probably the year we might get a female president. America will ease into this.

[fastcar]

Which do you see happening first?


A female President?

A non-caucasian President?

The National Debt zeroed out?

[Kaeos]

Me thinks thou doth protest too much. :poke:

[Intelligent_Design]

Which do you see happening first?


A female President?

A non-caucasian President?

The National Debt zeroed out?

I'll go with number 4 (Hell Frozen over)

[kah]

You know how they say, "Never say never," about stuff. I'm saying never.

Hillary Clinton will NEVER be President.


I really hope you are right. I agree with you, but on rare occasions I have been known to be, well, not wrong, but not entirely right.

[American]

I doubt Hillary will get into the Oval Office. Too many skeletons in her closet. But enough about female presidents...what about a thrid party candidate?

[Jakester]

I was gonna go with "American getting laid," but decided that the debt getting zeroed out is more likely to happen first.

[Space Tycoon]

I can see a nonwhite President being elected before a woman president. It will probably be a conservative who is moderate on certain social issues, but also perceived as strong on "defence" i.e., willing to bomb the right foreigners. Not an Alan Keyes, something more like Colin Powell back before he was a water-carrier for the cakewalk crowd. Or indeed, any number of ambitious up-and-coming Latino Republicans.

In fact, I could even see a right-of-centre East Asian- or South Asian-American filling the bill. Demographically speaking, most Asian-Americans are very patriotic and vote Republican, for a variety of reasons. A centre-right presidential nominee who was Korean, for example, would have appeal across the ethnic spectrum.

A woman president could very possibly be elected, but in this case most likely a liberal. Again, one who is pro-interventionist. Hilary Clinton, believe it or not, has been casting herself in the image of a neo-hawk, talking tough about Iran, saying all the right things to the Israel lobby, even playing footsie with Newt Gingrich and certain Republicans.

Personally, I am, generally speaking, not a fan of female politicians--Margaret Thatcher and Hazel McCallion being two shining exceptions. :cool: Living in Canada, we've had to endure many elected women officials, at all levels of government. I have not been impressed. More often than not, they are overly emotional (sometimes to the point of hysteria), bitter, sanctimonious crusaders for any number of trivial, trendy causes to come down the pike. Is it any wonder that the welfare state, in all it's bloated glory, came into being around the same time as women started voting?

Most woman politicians simply are not tough enough for the job. Neither are many of their male colleagues, of course. No, in my opinion, the ideal leadership role a woman can play in any healthy society is as a good wife and mother. I am not advocating the repeal of universal suffrage, I'm just saying, don't be fooled into thinking that a Mrs.--sorry, Ms. President would be some Great Leap Forward for America. I doubt I could seriously vote for one.

Anyway, off the soapbox for now.

As far as eradicating the national debt... don't make me laugh. :green:

[Intelligent_Design]

Or indeed, any number of ambitious up-and-coming Latino Republicans.


See George_P._Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush)

[Scotia]

Living in Canada, we've had to endure many elected women officials, at all levels of government. I have not been impressed. More often than not, they are overly emotional (sometimes to the point of hysteria), bitter, sanctimonious crusaders for any number of trivial, trendy causes to come down the pike.
The same could be said about any politician with or without the nutsack. Hell, Peter McKay got all emotional and pretty bitter with Alexa McDonough last week. She, however, played it cool like a seasoned pro. It's all about perspective. Those qualities we recognize as strength and perseverance do not suddenly become negative attributes when demonstrated by women. I mean, come on.

But I am curious ST. What are those trendy, trival causes that women tend to get behind?

No, in my opinion, the ideal leadership role a woman can play in any healthy society is as a good wife and mother.
That must go over well at the bar.

[MPG]

You know how they say, "Never say never," about stuff. I'm saying never.

Hillary Clinton will NEVER be President.You're forgetting that the US is the country where George W. Bush was elected as President. Apparently, anything is possible.

[Space Tycoon]

But I am curious ST. What are those trendy, trival causes that women tend to get behind? Socialized medicine, socialized daycare, socialized education, social engineering generally. Gun control, capitalism-bashing, emasculating the military, and don't forget, abortions for all. It is very hard to find a woman politician who won't fight passionately to dismantle hundreds of years worth of traditional values.


That must go over well at the bar. LOL Some women are actually still impressed with honesty. But I've long since given up looking for a good woman at "the bar." For that matter, dating in general is a waste of time once you get past 30. Single women today are for the most part, very low quality. They get their values (as well as, apparently, their level of language) from Sex and the City and rarely question the feminist dogma they have been indoctrinated into.


IMO.

[Space Tycoon]

See George_P._Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush) I was thinking, someone actually not related to the the Bush clan.

[Intelligent_Design]

I was thinking, someone actually not related to the the Bush clan.


He WILL be the first Minority President. I will bet money on that.

[Kaeos]

He WILL be the first Minority President. I will bet money on that.

I'll take that bet.

My money is on Barack Obama http://obama.senate.gov/

[Space Tycoon]

Oh, I have no doubt that he could be the first minority president. I just can't see any reason why he should.

[TrixieB]

I'll take that bet.

My money is on Barack Obama http://obama.senate.gov/

I have to agree with you. I am a big Obama fan. However, I think that he should stay in the Senate for another term before making the big run.

[DarkJedi]

Well, I understand that mentality, Space but how do you know what his qualifications 10 years from now?

I mean, I've never heard of this guy until Intelligent Design put up the Wiki link so I don't much about him either.

That doesn't mean 10 years from now, a race between him and Barack Obama won't be legitimate with two qualified intelligent people.

There is no doubt about Obama. I watched him do a number of public addresses and he definitely has the intelligence and charisma for going for the Big Seat.

[Kaeos]

That doesn't mean 10 years from now, a race between him and Barack Obama won't be legitimate with two qualified intelligent people.

Very true. While I do and would ultimately endorse him, I think it is critical that he put in some time before making the "big run"

I think that he should stay in the Senate for another term before making the big run.

I'd make it 2 terms

[DarkJedi]

Go for 2016, I'd say..and agree with you both.

That seems a good enough time.

Besides, I think for the most part Presidents will get 2 terms in the coming future because of conflict around the world.....so Hillary will probably be there 08-16.

[Intelligent_Design]

I mean, I've never heard of this guy until Intelligent Design put up the Wiki link so I don't much about him either.



I heard the Guy speak about 4 years ago and I came away very impressed.

[Space Tycoon]

Well, I understand that mentality, Space but how do you know what his qualifications 10 years from now?

I mean, I've never heard of this guy until Intelligent Design put up the Wiki link so I don't much about him either.

There doesn't seem to be all that much to know, frankly. I don't like royalism in politics. I like self-made, tough outsiders who think for themselves and take risks. Not pampered frat boys who have never created anything or been shot at in anger.

US President is a tough gig. It's no place for pretty boys.

[Intelligent_Design]

There doesn't seem to be all that much to know, frankly. I don't like royalism in politics. I like self-made, tough outsiders who think for themselves and take risks. Not pampered frat boys who have never created anything or been shot at in anger.
.


So from this I take it you are a big supporter of dictatorships? Since they usally rise to power being " self-made, tough outsiders who think for themselves and take risks."

[Space Tycoon]

Usually, I would support democracy. However, under certain circumstances, there are some dictators I would defend. Democracy may be "nicer," but it does not always reward the brave.

But you knew that already, didn't you. :winks:

[Scotia]

Socialized medicine, socialized daycare, socialized education, social engineering generally. Gun control, capitalism-bashing, emasculating the military, and don't forget, abortions for all. It is very hard to find a woman politician who won't fight passionately to dismantle hundreds of years worth of traditional values.

LOL, women are the source of all your problems Spacey. I recommend you try being gay.

Seriously thou. None of the issues you mention, save for abortion, are gender specific. Universal health care and government funded education are items that draw support from both sexes and have become part of the Canadian cultural fabric. They're traditional values, you might say. You could also say that those who call for their dismantling sound a tad bitter and sanctimonious. It all depends on where you sit, I guess.

LOL Some women are actually still impressed with honesty. But I've long since given up looking for a good woman at "the bar." For that matter, dating in general is a waste of time once you get past 30. Single women today are for the most part, very low quality. They get their values (as well as, apparently, their level of language) from Sex and the City and rarely question the feminist dogma they have been indoctrinated into.
I don't know how to respond to that one. Sounds like you've been burned before real good. Chin up, my main man. She's out there somewhere.

[Intelligent_Design]

Usually, I would support democracy. However, under certain circumstances, there are some dictators I would defend.

I can't let you get any further without asking you for some examples of " some dictators I would defend". I know that might seem like a loaded Question but trust me if you make a compelling enough argument I would be forced to agree with you.:winks:

[TrixieB]

LOL Some women are actually still impressed with honesty. But I've long since given up looking for a good woman at "the bar." For that matter, dating in general is a waste of time once you get past 30. Single women today are for the most part, very low quality. They get their values (as well as, apparently, their level of language) from Sex and the City and rarely question the feminist dogma they have been indoctrinated into.


Speaking as a woman over 30, I can tell you that I have never watched Sex and the City and my "dogma" has been developed through my own experience and research. Please refrain from stereotyping millions of women because of a few that you happen to have met.

[Space Tycoon]

I can't let you get any further without asking you for some examples of " some dictators I would defend". I know that might seem like a loaded Question but trust me if you make a compelling enough argument I would be forced to agree with you.:winks:Well, I would say in wartime, when faced with a massive existential threat, such as the old Soviet Union, a case could be made that lesser dictatorships, or states bordering on dictatorsip, had to be supported to contain that threat.

I suppose off the top of my head, South Vietnam during the 1960's comes to mind. Also the regime of Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan during the 1980's. Regimes like that could certainly be brutal at times, but they were the only thing standing in the way of Russian domination of Asia--which was a very real threat.

The problem is that this policy has never really been revoked, even following the collapse of the USSR. People have been conditioned to fear terrorism (which is nowhere near as threatening as communism) so fully that our own society has taken on many of the characteristics of a dictatorship. And of course we continue to support some pretty awful regimes and look the other way when they commit atrocities when it is in our interest. Which is why I would tend to favour democracy, with all of it's hypocrisy and shortcomings.

[Space Tycoon]

Seriously thou. None of the issues you mention, save for abortion, are gender specific. Universal health care and government funded education are items that draw support from both sexes and have become part of the Canadian cultural fabric. They're traditional values, you might say. Well, they really aren't, but they seem to have taken on that aura with many people in Canada, usually on the left. I find it disturbing whenever people are conditioned to think of central government programs and policies as "traditional values." There is a totalitarian impulse embedded in that way of thinking. The Communists under Stalin appealed to Russian patriotism and the "Motherland" to further cement their grip on power, as did other such regimes.

You could also say that those who call for their dismantling sound a tad bitter and sanctimonious. It all depends on where you sit, I guess. At times, some can be, sure. The whole tone and character of political debate has shifted into a whiny pitch, all around, which is something that has to change.

[American]

Most woman politicians simply are not tough enough for the job. Neither are many of their male colleagues, of course. No, in my opinion, the ideal leadership role a woman can play in any healthy society is as a good wife and mother.
If Condi can deal with the international assholes, then certainly she can handle the Presidency.


I'll take that bet.

My money is on Barack Obama http://obama.senate.gov/

Obama...maybe. He is new to the American Political Arena. He needs to toughen his skin and gain political capital. Only then will he be able to advance.

I voted for him when he ran for Senator because he was new to politics, which led me to conclude he was not corrupt. Maybe a couple more terms as Senator and he'll be ready

[Kaeos]

If Condi can deal with the international assholes, then certainly she can handle the Presidency.

To me (putting aside political bias for a moment) she's got the same problems fitting in the role right now as Obama. 1) No tenure 2) No clout poltically.

Some day, maybe she could be a contender. Right now playing the part she playes in Bush's deck of cards, she has no voice of her own.

Similarly, Obama is known as a fresh face to the arena. If he can distance himself from a lot of the problems the Dems have brought on themselves and come out with a strong voice of his own. Definately see him being elected.

[Sgt. Awesome]

I can't see Condi getting elected. The Americans will have a minority President at some point. They will also have a woman President at some point. But probably not both at the same time. You guys are socially behind us - so we've gotta have a minority leader (non-white... not a leader in a minority government, we've got that now. He's a robot, does that count as a minority?) before you do. It's way more likely up here.