Dem. Candidates for president

[Trauma-san]

Am I the only one who notices these people don't stand for anything?  The only argument they make, or case they present to the American People for why they should be elected, is that they disagree with George Bush.  Well; since more than 50% of the American AGREE with George Bush, and with the economy growing strongly those numbers are sure to increase; why do they think it's a good idea to attack him?  LOL sounds kind of stupid to me.

What I would suggest (this is just my intellect talking) is that they actually come up with some plans, and ideas, so they can present them.  So far, nobody has said 1 thing about why they should be president!  All they're saying is George Bush SHOULDN'T be president.  Why would I pick Lieberman over Kerry, for instance?  They don't have any plans that they are presenting, they're just saying Bush is a fuckup.  O.K., he's a fuckup... how are you any better?  


I mean, to me, it's 101.  If you're going to beat somebody at anything, you have to be better than them.  How are they any better? They won't present any ideas of plans they have.  They so far have said they would do 2 things if elected...


1. Leave Iraq.

Well; that's great, but it's a little too late, isn't it?  Leave Iraq, and just say fuck you to all the Iraqi citizens?  Since the war's already pretty much over, what would that accomplish?  Whether or not you disagree or agreed with the war, we should all agree that we at least have to stick around and rebuild the place.  How any of them can argue that we should leave Iraq is beyond me.  

2. They'll rescend Bush's tax cuts

O.K., so let me get this straight.  Bush's tax cuts were across the board, for every american, rich, poor, hell, he even gave refund checks to people that DIDN'T PAY taxes... and you think you're going to get elected by saying you'll immediately revoke them? LOL what the fuck are they smoking?  Who in the hell would vote for a tax raise?  They not only want to raise taxes, they want to TAKE BACK money that was already refunded to you!

I'm just clueless on this one.  It's like watching a circus; they have no ideas of their own, their only 2 ideas are to do the opposite of what Bush choose to do.  At least Bush, whether you agree or not, had some fucking initiative.  At least he had ideas.  When election time rolls around, Bush can honestly say this: I have 2 roles as President.  1. Protect the united states.  2. Protect the united states economy.  I have tried to do both.  


What will they have to say to that?  "Oh, lets leave Iraq" or "Lets charge the American people more money"

HOW will that get anybody elected?  They need to think of how they would do things BETTER than Bush, if they want to get elected.  This is 101, I can't believe they don't know this.  

[UnstoppableForce]

Dean in 2004

[Trauma-san]

Why?  What has he offered you as a citizen?  

[UnstoppableForce]

Getting rid of Bush. It's the best argument any candidate could make.
On a serious note though, I actually agree with most of Kucinich's ideas, but voting for him would be a waste because due to his lack of charisma and ultra-liberal stance, he'd have no chance. Dean has a better chance of winning, and is my 2nd favorite so I'd vote for him.

[UnstoppableForce]

Bush has given my parents a couple hundred bucks, and thanks to him we have the Patriot Act.
Trauma, what is your honest opinion on the Patriot Act, all bullshit and jokes laid aside.

[UnstoppableForce]

Bush has given my parents a couple hundred bucks, and thanks to him we have the Patriot Act.
Trauma, what is your honest opinion on the Patriot Act, all bullshit and jokes laid aside.

[UnstoppableForce]

Bush has given my parents a couple hundred bucks, and thanks to him we have the Patriot Act.
Trauma, what is your honest opinion on the Patriot Act, all bullshit and jokes laid aside.

[Trauma-san]

I think a bunch of nothing is made out of it.  I think democrats know they are going to lose the election, horribly, and are grasping at any straw to attack Bush with, instead of presenting good ideas of their own.

The patriot act isn't what people claim it is.  First off, I would prefer it doesn't even exist, because I feel a smaller government with less regulations is a better government.  Of course, your democrats don't believe that, and unfortunatly in this instance Bush is going for a more powerful government, which I disagre with.

However; in actuality, the Patriot Act doesn't really grant much power at all to the government.  For instance, everyone has made a big deal about the library card thing, the government can spy now on what you check out at the library.

Reality Check: The government already could.  Library records have been introduced as evidence in the past, this was just putting it in writing.  The FBI has also stated since then that not one person has had their library information requested, lol so it's kind of a non-issue.  

Library records, telephone transcripts, all that could be supoened into evidence long before the patriot act.  There is no change there.

The government, before, could get a roaming tap on your phone.  So tha'ts nothing new, either, and it still requires under the patriot act an o.k. from a judge, so again, there's nothing new there.

All in all, the patriot act is pretty much useless, it doesn't really give the government any powers it didn't have already, and was mainly written up to show that the government was doing SOMETHING about terrorism.  

[Woodrow]

Never thought I'd quote Barbra bush, but here goes:

"So far, they are a pretty sorry group if you want to know my opinion"

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=3648287

[UnstoppableForce]

The government, before, could get a roaming tap on your phone.  So tha'ts nothing new, either, and it still requires under the patriot act an o.k. from a judge, so again, there's nothing new there.

You see that's where you're misinformed. The Patriot Act states that the judge "SHALL" grant them the o.k., which to them means that even if the judge denies them the right, they can still go on with what they were planning on doing. Also, almost all the senators (Democrats and Republicans) want it removed because they have realized that it is highly unconstitutional. It is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent. I agree with your statement about it giving the government more power. Plus, this one I don't blame on Bush. It's the people around him that came up with it, Ashcroft being the front-guy so to say. He presented it to congress in such a way as saying "sign it cuz you don't wanna blamed in case something happens", and most of them just did that without reading the entire thing (I dunno how many pages it is exactly but its supposed to be a lot). Only Kucinich and Feingold refused to sign it, and now many others are coming forward stating that if they knew what it's actual intentions were they wouldn't have signed it. Most Republicans don't like it either,because it's unconstitutional.

[Jay ay Beee]

Dean has no chance of winning the nomination.  Clark or Kerry will win and both can beat Bush, although Clark would beat him much more easily than Kerry.

[M Dogg™]

Cruz Bustamante for president in 2004... lol

Nah, I wish Hillary would run. The time is now to use the force. Hillary is becoming the Democrat Collin Powell, everyone in their party wants them to run, because both are the best each party has to offer, but instead we are going to have Bush vs. Kerry in an election I really see neither as a strong canidate. "So far, they are a pretty sorry group if you want to know my opinion" Yeap, I might have to vote Green party if this keeps up, or hell, Reform, I'll go ultra-conservative if I believe in the canidate. Bush or any of the Democrats, nah. What ever happened to Gore