Presidential Election Debate Here:

[moe.ron]

Anybody else think this election is going to be one of the ugliest?
You already have attack on Kerry and his alleged affair with an intern. Now it seems Larry Flynt has enter the frail and accused GWB of arranging an abortion for his girlfriend. This is going to be ugly. In the end, the voters are going to loose.

[Kevin]

It's great to see this preview of the general election. We won't be voting on the issues or the best man for the job.

We'll be voting on which of them we find to be the least repugnant.

[AXO_MOM_3]

I can't wait to see Mr. Clean Campaign Edwards start slinging the mud now that it has become a two man race!

[AlphaGamDiva]

starting to think that last go-round was a cake walk.......

[AlphaGamDiva]

here's another question along the same lines of these allegations (i think):

how recent does something shady in a candidate's past have to be to be considered "damaging"?

for instance: clinton's "non-inhale"....far back enough, or damaging enough that it's irrelavant when it happened?

kerry's supposed fling: too close to this election to not consider it, or just not damaging enough to care?

bush's supposed abortion secret: too controversial to not be considered damaging to his election, or too long ago to judge him on?

no need to answer these specific questions, really, as they are mainly examples of scandals that are discussed. can we really get in a tizzy about something someone did in college when they are now at a much more mature and "knowing" age? or, is the scandal too big to not be upset about?

[James]

LOL.. . . it depends on:

1. Whether you like the candidate or not mostly.

2. Also, how critical a thinker you are. Like the question would be is such and such relevant to his ability to make decisions in government.

Originally posted by AlphaGamDiva
here's another question along the same lines of these allegations (i think):

how recent does something shady in a candidate's past have to be to be considered "damaging"?

for instance: clinton's "non-inhale"....far back enough, or damaging enough that it's irrelavant when it happened?

kerry's supposed fling: too close to this election to not consider it, or just not damaging enough to care?

bush's supposed abortion secret: too controversial to not be considered damaging to his election, or too long ago to judge him on?

no need to answer these specific questions, really, as they are mainly examples of scandals that are discussed. can we really get in a tizzy about something someone did in college when they are now at a much more mature and "knowing" age? or, is the scandal too big to not be upset about?

[AlphaGamDiva]

Originally posted by James
LOL.. . . it depends on:

1. Whether you like the candidate or not mostly.

2. Also, how critical a thinker you are. Like the question would be is such and such relevant to his ability to make decisions in government.

which is kinda my point.

i think i would die of a heart attack if a republican ever came back with "so?" when told something that clinton did back in the day. ya know? and I'M a republican! (not that everything he did should be blown off -no pun intended- as nothing, but you know.....)

some issues are relevant and some aren't.....i guess this is just my lil rant about how ppl need to realize that and not just go off b/c the guy is in the "opposing" party.

deltalum....you seem to inspire my thinking.... gray areas.....let's go with gray areas....

[Rudey]

Does anyone know what this means?

"You know, it takes time to mature, and then it gets really good and you can sip it."

-Ms. Heinz Kerry comparing her husband to a "good wine"

-Rudey
--What a nut job

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by AlphaGamDiva
deltalum....you seem to inspire my thinking.... gray areas.....let's go with gray areas....

Always nice to know I inspire something.

[Tom Earp]

POLOTICION:

A profession such as any other job, Doctor, Laywer, Candlestick Maker, etal.

I get so tired of Hearing Democrats/Republicans I want to gag!

Basically it comes to the point that all when running for office are wearing sheeps clothing, but when they get elected, they put on the true wolfs garb.

As on previous threads, 5 Black/Afro-American Presidents.

Kerry had ilicit affair.

Bush, did not serve full time in Air Guard and had paid for an abortion.

Clinton did not inhale!

So what it turns out is that some have the calling to be public servants! BS, Power is a lucious mistress.

I had that initial thought twice, once as mayor and one as city commisioner, thank god I won neither of them!

Now I no more about what goes on behind the scenes than most because of the people that I know! Scarry but a hell of a lot more intersting!

Now, if you would, ask yoursef, how many poor ex-politicos do you know?

[rainbowbrightCS]

Originally posted by ktsnake
It's great to see this preview of the general election. We won't be voting on the issues or the best man for the job.

We'll be voting on which of them we find to be the least repugnant.

Oh I agree. We are not seeing who we believe in but who we hate and can not tolerate.

[DeltAlum]

There's so much crap being spread by both sides that I think I'll just ignore politics until after the Conventions, and then hope there will be at least some discussion of important issues.

This stuff is out of control

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
There's so much crap being spread by both sides that I think I'll just ignore politics until after the Conventions, and then hope there will be at least some discussion of important issues.

This stuff is out of control

Not a bad idea... though I'm sure I'll not follow it. When it comes to national politics, look at the party agenda and platform as well as the person. Who is kidding who. Liberals will not vote for a Rebulican and Conservatives will not vote for a socialist... I mean Democrat. We libertarians are somewhere else...

[breathesgelatin]

I love how campaigns devolve into "who did what" fights. I hate how we will find any excuse to really examine issues in-depth, in a meaningful way.

That said--
1. I don't really care about whether Bush served or not. Let's face it, everyone of his generation was scrambling to find ways not to go to Vietnam. Of course, I wasn't going to vote for him anyway, so it really doesn't matter. But it seems petty to keep whining about it. That's why I question the DNC a lot.
2. Kerry's affair is sleazy. Bush's potential abortion scandal--I don't really see that as much of a scandal. I'm not pro-"family values" (I HATE that term as it's used by its proponents) and I'm pro-choice, so if that is what happened and it's what his girlfriend wanted, more power to her. And him. Does not faze me one bit. It's not even a "scandal". Kerry's affair is sleazy. I don't like leaders who carry on affairs. Doesn't say much about his moral fiber or honesty if it's true, and it would definately make me consider Nader more highly. I never liked Kerry in the first place--I'm a North Carolina girl and I really like Edwards. I'm not really convinced of his qualifications in the first place. If Nader can develop some better policy positions this go-through, I may well vote for him. But he's got to get cracking.

So, ironically, I don't think Bush comes off that bad with these "scandals", but that Kerry does, even though I'm obsessively liberal. More and more, I'm becoming open to Nader again.

[midwesterngirl]

Originally posted by ktsnake
It's great to see this preview of the general election. We won't be voting on the issues or the best man for the job.

We'll be voting on which of them we find to be the least repugnant.

This has been the case for the last several elections and probably for many more to come.