President in 2000 - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  President in 2000

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   President in 2000

Steel_Dragon posted 11-20-98 12:25 AM ET
Here in TX and maybe around the country I been hearing alot of talk of George W Bush Jr running. Anybody else think that would be a bad thing, not for his policies, but becuase his father was President. Heritary leadership a bad thing .
PS: was Teddy related to FDR?
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 11-20-98 12:36 AM ET
I believe FDR & Teddy were cousins. Also John Quincy Adams, a former president, was the son of John Adams, another former president.
Since I'll be of voting age then, right now, I'd definately vote George Bush Jr. Just because Gore sucks. In the words of Imran on Gore "I just have a feeling he'll ban cars or something."
Remember Au's old thread on this??
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
Imran Siddiqui posted 11-20-98 12:45 AM ET
Bush, Jr. and JC Watts for VP. JC Watts as the first black in the VP, and he'd be a Republican!! A definate winning team.
Imran Siddiqui
Patriot
WCW posted 11-20-98 01:15 AM ET
Have you guys heard of Hollywood Hulk Hogan *allegedly* is running for pres.?
what do you Amis think about that?
I think it's funny
WCW
chris
BoomBoom posted 11-20-98 10:36 AM ET
And doesn't Ted Turner want to turn as well? Not that he's gonna get anywhere, but imagine if he did. He'd make the Braves and the Hawks win everything by giving them government exemptions and stuff.
Here in England were on the verge of getting that to happen. Rupert Murdoch (evil inc) is gonna buy ManU (he can have for all I care- down with the reds), and use his sattelites to subvert everyone to the evils of ManU.
dushan posted 11-20-98 10:46 AM ET
Hey Americans, can you have woman as president (presidentess??)
If not that's pretty sexist.
I'd also like to see a black American president, though I think it'll take a woman to bring some sense to American politics :-)
Please, no offense meant (just in case)
Dushan
Octopus posted 11-20-98 12:45 PM ET
I think that the only constitutional requirements of the president are being 35 years old and being a natural-born (rather than naturalized) US citizen.
There's nothing keeping a woman from being president, but there probably aren't any female politicians with enough national stature right now to get elected (although I think it would be pretty cool myself). Some people say that Elizabeth Dole (wife of presidential wannabe Bob Dole) might try for national office. A lot of people outside New Jersey also liked governor Christie Whitman as a potential VP choice or something, but (as a former resident of New Jersey) I really dislike her, and I doubt that the right wing of the Republican party would support her anyway (not that I'm right-wing, I just don't like her). I'm sure that there are other female politicians, but I wouldn't hold my breath (and Gore pretty much has a lock on the Democratic side, so don't bother looking there).
AUH20 posted 11-20-98 02:14 PM ET
Why no women for president in 2000? Lady Thatcher isn't a natural born citizen.
Heh.
I think that George Bush, Jr. could make a really good president. He's a bona fide conservative, more so than his father, he's charismatic, he's not as dorky as Steve Forbes, not as rabid as Alan Keyes, and not as sanctimonious as John Aschcroft, three people I do happen to like, BTW. He's managed to figure out federalism. ANd he's a good communicator.
It's good Rep. Watts was named Chairman-he's probably the best communicator in the GOP.
AUH20 posted 11-20-98 02:16 PM ET
Yes, FDR and Teddy were cousins. And the Harrison's were related somehow.
Synthetic posted 11-20-98 03:18 PM ET
Back in 96, I have to admit that the Republicans forced people to vote for Slick Willy by putting a man up for election that had no backing of the new and politically correct America. Twenty years ago, sure... not problem... but not in today's mass-media culture.
And in that vein, I don't think we'll see a woman president for a long time to come, for many reasons. The biggest reason is that the men in power (not the politicians... the men who own the conglomerate businesses) do not want it that way. It's the men who own the oil companies, the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the auto companies, the computer companies, and the media and communications companies. These are men who want to deal with men... so they aren't very apt to put their trillions of dollars of backing behind a woman.
Tell me that Bob Dole wasn't one of the most picked-on candidates in a long time. Tell me that Billy boy isn't a bigger liar and cheat than Bob. (Well, as far as I can tell Bob's biggest stumbling block was the backing of tobacco, which was a double edged sword.)
Maybe if both the Dems and the Reps fielded woman candidates Perot would have a real chance at the office.
Of course, politics is a finicky thing... just as the who impeachment inquiry goes to show. I think it reflects very poorly upon the American people that our president can lie to us, and we think it's okay. I don't give a damn about the sex, who cares? What bothers me is the fact that we have come to expect lies... and that is a pretty sorry state of affairs, indeed.
Maybe it's time to start an idependant moon colony or something, because things are so screwed up here on earth that I don't think they're ever going to get it straight. Yes, yes, some people ARE trying to improve things, but we've got just as many self-serving parasites that are doing their level best to keep things their way.
Only in games like SMAC will you be able to run things the way you really want them.
-synthetic
Arnelos posted 11-20-98 03:19 PM ET
Yeah, JC Watts took that number 4 spot, that was great. For me, it was even better that Rep. Tom M. Davis (VA, 11th) took the GOP campaign chair leadership position. He's only been in the house for 4 years and he's already in leadership (!). He happens to be my congressman, who I've met several times, and I HOPE to get an internship in one of his offices this summer. I find it real great that the ideological right-wing of the party is loosing so much ground and the moderates and fiscal conservatives are gaining ground.
The fact that Davis was able to overcome nation-wide opposition from the Christian Coalition and the Virginia conservatives.
For those of you who didn't know, unlike most other areas of the country, the fight between social conservatives and moderates/fiscal conservatives in the Virginia GOP has broken out into an open brawl. It started over the nomination of Oliver North for Senate 4 years back. He was OPENLY opposed by Senator Warner, a fiscal conservative. Rep. Davis (my rep, a moderate), backed up Warner. The moderates/fiscal conservatives in the GOP ran Coleman as a third party candidate who almost got as many votes as North!!! The Christian Coalition folk were so mad they refussed to go and vote for Senator Warner 2 years later, but he won overwhelmingly because so many average moderate people voted for him for standing up to the Christian Coalition and the right-wing. Given how much Davis and Warner make joint appearances and work together, the word (substantiated by some personal contacts) is that Senator Warner wants to retire and wants Rep. Davis to take his place in 4 years.
So it makes alot of sense that the far right REALLY doesn't like Rep. Davis and organized their national network to try and beat him, but they couldn't. As Davis said, "Republicans want to be elected." The far right has an un-electable agenda, as can be seen in the open fight between party wings in Virginia, one of the most conservative states in the union (the FOUNDER and head of the Christian Coalition lives there and they still don't have much influence on state-wide elections). So even in one of the most conservative states in the union, the far conservative christian right can't make as much as a dent on the state-wide races (they're candidate for Lt. Governor several years back, who was AGAINST public education, lost by something like a 3-1 margin or more)
Imran Siddiqui posted 11-20-98 03:21 PM ET
The Christian Coalition will be the death of the Republican Party. They need to focus on their popular issues, less taxes and smaller government. I hate the Christian Coalition.
Imran Siddiqui
Patriot
AUH20 posted 11-20-98 03:48 PM ET
Oooh, the Christian Coalition pisses me off so much. I'm familiar with the growing rift between fiscal/social conservatives, and I'm allying with the fiscal conservatives. I'm pro-life, and pro school-choice, but the evangicals and CC nuts are destroying the GOP and giving conservatives a bad name. And they pick on Catholics and Jews.
Synthetic posted 11-20-98 07:14 PM ET
What we really need is either a no-party system... or a lots-of-parties system. This two choice fiasco we have to take every four years sucks.
-synthetic
Arnelos posted 11-20-98 09:50 PM ET
It sucks for democracy. However, extremely multi-party systems (rather than 2 coalition-party systems like ours) tend to produce a high level instability in the government. Any time you have a failed vote of confidence (or the fear of one), you have to realign the governing coalition to one that can be supported or have new elections. Look at Italy, the average survivability of a government since WWII is only a few months! It's alot more "democratic" in a sense, but it's very unstable and often very inefficient. With cabinet posts and the bureaucracy flying around all the time, it's hard to set long-term policy. We have enough problem in the United States with setting long-term goals and policy with a 4-6 year time window for replacing the government. Imagine if the government was ideologically replaced every few months, the "horrizon" in politics would be every few weeks, not every few months and politicians would be hard-pressed to do things that benifit them at that moment rather than stuff that's more important down the road.
The U.S. republican system was specifically designed by the founders to be very hard to change quickly (the situation is even more laborious in the state of Virginia, where, the architect of our state structures, Thomas Jefferson, made an even more hard to change system). This was done for a very simple reason: political whims come and go, fanaticism of various forms comes and goes. If the government is very difficult to storm with a group of fanatics in a single election year, then the system is much more stable and the voters then don't cry "why the hell did we do that 6 months ago, that was REALLY dumb!" Instead, the system is built to "account" for voter fickleness. A movement has to be popular and remain so for 4-6 years to gain control of our government. Then, it can't beat the constitution of the country, if it has a problem with it, unless it can gain 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and the majority votes of 3/4 of the states legislatures (in order to alter the constitution).
So, in short, the U.S. system is specifically designed to make it REAL HARD to storm with this year's hot political trend that may look real dumb by next year. This may be frustrating to many reformers who want change "NOW!!!", but it's worked in keeping the system successfully stable for over 200 years (something no other democratic or republican system has ever been able to do).
AUH20 posted 11-20-98 10:20 PM ET
I support a two party system-I just think it should be between the right-wing of the GOP and the Libertarians.
AUH20 posted 11-20-98 10:21 PM ET
Heh. Kiss goodbye to Social Security without that combination.
Ultra SupremePaco posted 11-21-98 08:00 PM ET
YYYH - Wasn't Teddy Roosevelt FDR's uncle? Correct me if I am wrong.
WCW - Hulk Hogan running for Presidency... no wonder foreigners argue that this is a stupid country.
I wonder if Perot is going to try running again... he hasn't gotting more than 10% votes in his last two elections. Third times the charm...
~Paco
Imran Siddiqui posted 11-21-98 08:06 PM ET
Actually Paco, Perot got like 19% of the popular vote in 1992.
Imran Siddiqui
Patriot
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 11-21-98 08:31 PM ET
Uncle, cousin, the only difference is a few years! I can't know everything, maybe they were cousins, maybe Teddy was FDR's uncle, but the ywere related ok!
Someone correct me!
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: President in 2000
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-20-98 12:25 AM ET Here in TX and maybe around the country I been hearing alot of talk of George W Bush Jr running. Anybody else think that would be a bad thing, not for his policies, but becuase his father was President. Heritary leadership a bad thing . PS: was Teddy related to FDR?
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 11-20-98 12:36 AM ET I believe FDR & Teddy were cousins. Also John Quincy Adams, a former president, was the son of John Adams, another former president. Since I'll be of voting age then, right now, I'd definately vote George Bush Jr. Just because Gore sucks. In the words of Imran on Gore "I just have a feeling he'll ban cars or something." Remember Au's old thread on this?? Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
Imran Siddiqui	posted 11-20-98 12:45 AM ET Bush, Jr. and JC Watts for VP. JC Watts as the first black in the VP, and he'd be a Republican!! A definate winning team. Imran Siddiqui Patriot
WCW	posted 11-20-98 01:15 AM ET Have you guys heard of Hollywood Hulk Hogan allegedly is running for pres.? what do you Amis think about that? I think it's funny WCW chris
BoomBoom	posted 11-20-98 10:36 AM ET And doesn't Ted Turner want to turn as well? Not that he's gonna get anywhere, but imagine if he did. He'd make the Braves and the Hawks win everything by giving them government exemptions and stuff. Here in England were on the verge of getting that to happen. Rupert Murdoch (evil inc) is gonna buy ManU (he can have for all I care- down with the reds), and use his sattelites to subvert everyone to the evils of ManU.
dushan	posted 11-20-98 10:46 AM ET Hey Americans, can you have woman as president (presidentess??) If not that's pretty sexist. I'd also like to see a black American president, though I think it'll take a woman to bring some sense to American politics :-) Please, no offense meant (just in case) Dushan
Octopus	posted 11-20-98 12:45 PM ET I think that the only constitutional requirements of the president are being 35 years old and being a natural-born (rather than naturalized) US citizen. There's nothing keeping a woman from being president, but there probably aren't any female politicians with enough national stature right now to get elected (although I think it would be pretty cool myself). Some people say that Elizabeth Dole (wife of presidential wannabe Bob Dole) might try for national office. A lot of people outside New Jersey also liked governor Christie Whitman as a potential VP choice or something, but (as a former resident of New Jersey) I really dislike her, and I doubt that the right wing of the Republican party would support her anyway (not that I'm right-wing, I just don't like her). I'm sure that there are other female politicians, but I wouldn't hold my breath (and Gore pretty much has a lock on the Democratic side, so don't bother looking there).
AUH20	posted 11-20-98 02:14 PM ET Why no women for president in 2000? Lady Thatcher isn't a natural born citizen. Heh. I think that George Bush, Jr. could make a really good president. He's a bona fide conservative, more so than his father, he's charismatic, he's not as dorky as Steve Forbes, not as rabid as Alan Keyes, and not as sanctimonious as John Aschcroft, three people I do happen to like, BTW. He's managed to figure out federalism. ANd he's a good communicator. It's good Rep. Watts was named Chairman-he's probably the best communicator in the GOP.
AUH20	posted 11-20-98 02:16 PM ET Yes, FDR and Teddy were cousins. And the Harrison's were related somehow.
Synthetic	posted 11-20-98 03:18 PM ET Back in 96, I have to admit that the Republicans forced people to vote for Slick Willy by putting a man up for election that had no backing of the new and politically correct America. Twenty years ago, sure... not problem... but not in today's mass-media culture. And in that vein, I don't think we'll see a woman president for a long time to come, for many reasons. The biggest reason is that the men in power (not the politicians... the men who own the conglomerate businesses) do not want it that way. It's the men who own the oil companies, the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the auto companies, the computer companies, and the media and communications companies. These are men who want to deal with men... so they aren't very apt to put their trillions of dollars of backing behind a woman. Tell me that Bob Dole wasn't one of the most picked-on candidates in a long time. Tell me that Billy boy isn't a bigger liar and cheat than Bob. (Well, as far as I can tell Bob's biggest stumbling block was the backing of tobacco, which was a double edged sword.) Maybe if both the Dems and the Reps fielded woman candidates Perot would have a real chance at the office. Of course, politics is a finicky thing... just as the who impeachment inquiry goes to show. I think it reflects very poorly upon the American people that our president can lie to us, and we think it's okay. I don't give a damn about the sex, who cares? What bothers me is the fact that we have come to expect lies... and that is a pretty sorry state of affairs, indeed. Maybe it's time to start an idependant moon colony or something, because things are so screwed up here on earth that I don't think they're ever going to get it straight. Yes, yes, some people ARE trying to improve things, but we've got just as many self-serving parasites that are doing their level best to keep things their way. Only in games like SMAC will you be able to run things the way you really want them. -synthetic
Arnelos	posted 11-20-98 03:19 PM ET Yeah, JC Watts took that number 4 spot, that was great. For me, it was even better that Rep. Tom M. Davis (VA, 11th) took the GOP campaign chair leadership position. He's only been in the house for 4 years and he's already in leadership (!). He happens to be my congressman, who I've met several times, and I HOPE to get an internship in one of his offices this summer. I find it real great that the ideological right-wing of the party is loosing so much ground and the moderates and fiscal conservatives are gaining ground. The fact that Davis was able to overcome nation-wide opposition from the Christian Coalition and the Virginia conservatives. For those of you who didn't know, unlike most other areas of the country, the fight between social conservatives and moderates/fiscal conservatives in the Virginia GOP has broken out into an open brawl. It started over the nomination of Oliver North for Senate 4 years back. He was OPENLY opposed by Senator Warner, a fiscal conservative. Rep. Davis (my rep, a moderate), backed up Warner. The moderates/fiscal conservatives in the GOP ran Coleman as a third party candidate who almost got as many votes as North!!! The Christian Coalition folk were so mad they refussed to go and vote for Senator Warner 2 years later, but he won overwhelmingly because so many average moderate people voted for him for standing up to the Christian Coalition and the right-wing. Given how much Davis and Warner make joint appearances and work together, the word (substantiated by some personal contacts) is that Senator Warner wants to retire and wants Rep. Davis to take his place in 4 years. So it makes alot of sense that the far right REALLY doesn't like Rep. Davis and organized their national network to try and beat him, but they couldn't. As Davis said, "Republicans want to be elected." The far right has an un-electable agenda, as can be seen in the open fight between party wings in Virginia, one of the most conservative states in the union (the FOUNDER and head of the Christian Coalition lives there and they still don't have much influence on state-wide elections). So even in one of the most conservative states in the union, the far conservative christian right can't make as much as a dent on the state-wide races (they're candidate for Lt. Governor several years back, who was AGAINST public education, lost by something like a 3-1 margin or more)
Imran Siddiqui	posted 11-20-98 03:21 PM ET The Christian Coalition will be the death of the Republican Party. They need to focus on their popular issues, less taxes and smaller government. I hate the Christian Coalition. Imran Siddiqui Patriot
AUH20	posted 11-20-98 03:48 PM ET Oooh, the Christian Coalition pisses me off so much. I'm familiar with the growing rift between fiscal/social conservatives, and I'm allying with the fiscal conservatives. I'm pro-life, and pro school-choice, but the evangicals and CC nuts are destroying the GOP and giving conservatives a bad name. And they pick on Catholics and Jews.
Synthetic	posted 11-20-98 07:14 PM ET What we really need is either a no-party system... or a lots-of-parties system. This two choice fiasco we have to take every four years sucks. -synthetic
Arnelos	posted 11-20-98 09:50 PM ET It sucks for democracy. However, extremely multi-party systems (rather than 2 coalition-party systems like ours) tend to produce a high level instability in the government. Any time you have a failed vote of confidence (or the fear of one), you have to realign the governing coalition to one that can be supported or have new elections. Look at Italy, the average survivability of a government since WWII is only a few months! It's alot more "democratic" in a sense, but it's very unstable and often very inefficient. With cabinet posts and the bureaucracy flying around all the time, it's hard to set long-term policy. We have enough problem in the United States with setting long-term goals and policy with a 4-6 year time window for replacing the government. Imagine if the government was ideologically replaced every few months, the "horrizon" in politics would be every few weeks, not every few months and politicians would be hard-pressed to do things that benifit them at that moment rather than stuff that's more important down the road. The U.S. republican system was specifically designed by the founders to be very hard to change quickly (the situation is even more laborious in the state of Virginia, where, the architect of our state structures, Thomas Jefferson, made an even more hard to change system). This was done for a very simple reason: political whims come and go, fanaticism of various forms comes and goes. If the government is very difficult to storm with a group of fanatics in a single election year, then the system is much more stable and the voters then don't cry "why the hell did we do that 6 months ago, that was REALLY dumb!" Instead, the system is built to "account" for voter fickleness. A movement has to be popular and remain so for 4-6 years to gain control of our government. Then, it can't beat the constitution of the country, if it has a problem with it, unless it can gain 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and the majority votes of 3/4 of the states legislatures (in order to alter the constitution). So, in short, the U.S. system is specifically designed to make it REAL HARD to storm with this year's hot political trend that may look real dumb by next year. This may be frustrating to many reformers who want change "NOW!!!", but it's worked in keeping the system successfully stable for over 200 years (something no other democratic or republican system has ever been able to do).
AUH20	posted 11-20-98 10:20 PM ET I support a two party system-I just think it should be between the right-wing of the GOP and the Libertarians.
AUH20	posted 11-20-98 10:21 PM ET Heh. Kiss goodbye to Social Security without that combination.
Ultra SupremePaco	posted 11-21-98 08:00 PM ET YYYH - Wasn't Teddy Roosevelt FDR's uncle? Correct me if I am wrong. WCW - Hulk Hogan running for Presidency... no wonder foreigners argue that this is a stupid country. I wonder if Perot is going to try running again... he hasn't gotting more than 10% votes in his last two elections. Third times the charm... ~Paco
Imran Siddiqui	posted 11-21-98 08:06 PM ET Actually Paco, Perot got like 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Imran Siddiqui Patriot
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 11-21-98 08:31 PM ET Uncle, cousin, the only difference is a few years! I can't know everything, maybe they were cousins, maybe Teddy was FDR's uncle, but the ywere related ok! Someone correct me! Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH