Does anyone find it ironic?

[Sheldonrs]

I think they should just set it up so that the candidates have to participate in a debate in every state, starting no sooner than 6 Months before the election.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

I think they should just set it up so that the candidates have to participate in a debate in every state, starting no sooner than 6 Months before the election.

YES! By the time the Prez election rolls around, we will have been listening to campaign speeches and bashing for a year and a half! That's too long. And too expensive for some others that may be viable election material but just don't have the funds to spend 18 months campaigning.

My states primary hasn't gone yet and I'm already tired of the election. But it is after Super Tuesday, so the field will be narrower. I also get to choose on primary day which party I vote in, so if the republican I like is already ahead, I'll vote for the democrat I like, and if the democrat I like is already ahead, I'll vote for the republican I like. Better odds of having at least one candidate I like in the general election.

So far NONE of my primary choices from previous elections made it to the general election. I hope that doesn't happen this year.

[shina]

I am really not looking forward to one more year of non-stop political analysts, name calling and the like. And it's been going on for about that long in this particular race.

[tw]

Originally Posted by shina

And it's been going on for about that long in this particular race.

History repeats. Ignore all presidential candidates until after the Super Bowl. Politicking for the past year has been mostly irrelevant. Valid contenders are typically not front runners until after the Super Bowl. Any time spent learning, praising, or listening to presidential candidates before Super Bowl was only wasted time.

The leader Giuliani is gone. McCain, who was at the bottom and all but written off, is moving up. Obama was clearly way down in the polls. Surprise, surprise (as Gomer used to say because even Gomer was smarter).

Your question is, "which candidate is moderate?" Which one does not worship extremist liberal or extremist conservative propaganda? Which one would Rush Limbaugh hate? Which one will work for America rather than as George Jr has done? George Jr, who promoted extremism and mythical fears, is supported by 1/3rd of America who love extremism, fear, and 'big dic' solutions. That is the politics – wacko extremism - that has existed too long in the name of political agendas.

Last Monday may have been a benchmark. But nobody will know until long after the Super Bowl.

The Economist demonstrates how bad presidential candidates eventually get weeded out by the system so that we never even need consider them.

To his fans, [he] was the real thing: pro-life, anti-tax, plain-spoken and unlikely ever to change his mind about anything. ... "There are, apparently, too many illegal aliens, too much welfare and a younger generation that's all "me, me, me". " "Mr Thompson is the best candidate to protect the country", said Mr Wilkes. He must be sad.

Sad? Yes because Thompson promoted the hate and simplistic ignorance that rallies extremists. Those who have been ignoring such wackos can soon begin an intelligent study after the Super Bowl. Irrelevant candidates are being weeded out by their own extremist biases and stupid mistakes. They did not need us to do that for them.

Do we want more extremist politics complete with the hate and unjustified massacre of good American soldiers? Then ask yourself whether he works for America (a moderate who uses intelligence) or is an extremist (who promotes wacko political agendas). Ask yourself whether he will do what George Jr never did. "When do we go after Osama bin Laden?" We know extremists even in the Cellar so hate America as to never ask that question even when challenged.

They fear to ask that question that only moderates would ask. It should be a benchmark question after the Super Bowl.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

I think they should just set it up so that the candidates have to participate in a debate in every state, starting no sooner than 6 Months before the election.

So you'd rather have 50 small debates than one mass debate?

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by monster

So you'd rather have 50 small debates than one mass debate?

C'mon folks, pay attention.

[glatt]

Speaking of ironic, does anyone find it ironic that in this old thread, Merc picked Hitlery Cliton as his number two choice for president?

Don't mean to single you out so much, Merc. there's a lot of funny stuff in this old thread.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Speaking of ironic, does anyone find it ironic that in this old thread, Merc picked Hitlery Cliton as his number two choice for president?

Don't mean to single you out so much, Merc. there's a lot of funny stuff in this old thread.

I know man, I was surprised as anyone (who personally knows me).