|
|
Post by POA on Mar 31, 2004 16:12:58 GMT -5
Recently on another message board, a thread was started about the possibility of Kerry choosing Gephardt for his Vice Presidential choice.  What do we think of that idea? |
|
|
|
Post by dev0ra on Mar 31, 2004 17:16:30 GMT -5
Kerry will only pick Geppy if he wants to bore the American voters to sleep. I think he actually wants to win. (I give him a 50-50 shot at it.) I think he will pick Edwards, because everybody thinks Democrats need the REPUBLICAN SOUTH to win elections. And Edwards is very likeable. Note: Even if Kerry wins, Corporate Amerikkka still wins. So does Skull and Bones and all the other over-privileged idiots. The beauty of the ABB is that even if Kerry wins, so do the republicans.  |
|
|
|
Post by karpomrx on Mar 31, 2004 18:22:43 GMT -5
I think it's a long way to the election. Edwards seems like a good bet for the dems, he can sound like an angry populist and doesn't have enough baggage to be an encumbrance.
The dems will probably make a lot of noise about reform and progressive ideals, Clinton sucked me in like that the first time he ran. We know that there will be no substance to any real reform or support for the majority of the population, it will be the emperor Nero fiddling, as usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 1, 2004 11:45:05 GMT -5
yes-- you could see from reading between the lines in an article I saw that Gephardt and Graham seem to be leading contenders. The way to read between the lines is to see which states they choose as "swing states". There are a lot of swing states, and those with an agenda choose just one or two, and then choose their favorite "swing" demographic.
You can bet your bottom dollar it will be a "Friends of Zion" ticket. (literally-- those who have received this award in Israel) Every name mentioned has been run by Sharon, it would appear.
So I think that winning is a secondary consideration to the Democratic Party and those who run it. Israel is their primary consideration, and owning the Democratic Party, in terms of its leadership and policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 6, 2004 21:23:19 GMT -5
With Gephardt the sleepy vote would be a cinch, but Edwards would win him some rednecks, and Howie could lend him the World Wide Web.
My money's on Tony Blair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 6, 2004 21:44:22 GMT -5
He'll probably choose that neo-con Party Machine Governor of Iowa-- after all, he owes him for fixing the Iowa primary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 7, 2004 19:18:33 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]VOTE FOR CTHULHU AND HE'LL EAT YOU LAST![/glow]  [glow=red,2,300]WHY VOTE FOR A LESSER EVIL?[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by POA on Apr 28, 2004 21:12:58 GMT -5
Gephardt, Edwards Undergo Vetting for VP: story after watching adI'll say one thing for the Democrats-since they've got a lot of people by the b*lls through 'ABB' they certainly intend on rubbing it in, don't they? It's almost a cold joke to choose someone like Gephardt with his passive-aggressive behaviors towards his compititors, his chronic cowardice when he had power, and the fact that even worse than Kerry he epitomizes everything that's wrong about the DLC. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 29, 2004 0:05:59 GMT -5
It demonstrates that the special interests are very much in control of the Democratic Party. It is more than depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dev0ra on May 2, 2004 21:15:11 GMT -5
I still think it will be Edwards. The democrats got this crazy idea they can't win without the REPUBLICAN SOUTH.
Personal Observation: If this were a boxing match, I'd swear the entire party was taking a "dive."
Another thought: If the Democrats can't even beat the Idiot Boy In Chief, they may as well hang it up. The part is D-O-A.
|
|
|
|
Post by POA on May 2, 2004 21:36:27 GMT -5
I still think it will be Edwards. The democrats got this crazy idea they can't win without the REPUBLICAN SOUTH. Personal Observation: If this were a boxing match, I'd swear the entire party was taking a "dive." Another thought: If the Democrats can't even beat the Idiot Boy In Chief, they may as well hang it up. The part is D-O-A. You're not the first person to say that who belongs to this board either. It would be baffling, after all, otherwise. Although Bush has systemic advantages (an electoral system rigged through small-state over-representation, an illogical and venal supreme court, and monetary advantage), as a candidate he's terrible. He has a proven record of total incompetence at everything he's tried his hand at, his malapropisms are legendary, his 'personality' is alarming, and these may very well be recorded by future historians (if there are any) as the worst four years of this nation's life. |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on May 2, 2004 23:05:04 GMT -5
I think to the people who control the Party, Israeli interests (and thus maintaining Bush in office) is more important than anything else.
|
|
