If Romney were to withdraw, who gets your vote? - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

TripletDaddy · 01-04-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am not impressed by political speeches and his lack of experience in an executive capacity scares the crap out of me.

No President makes any decisions without advisors and a full Cabinet.

W had executive experience....he was a Governor of one of the most populated states in the union. Look at how great his Executive decisions were. An entire war based off flawed intelligence (regardless of whether he knew it was flawed). His approach to diplomacy has our global reputation in the toilet.

What exactly is Obama lacking that the other candidates allegedly have? Why does it scare you? Our system of checks and balances are designed for this very issue.

PS Gettysburg, I Have a Dream, Ask Not what your country....all unimpressive political speeches. Whose oratory do you prefer? I thought you were a Greek geek? Werent their speeches political? What about Jesus? You need to rethink your position on that.

jay santos · 01-04-2008, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myboynoah

What if an armadillo ran? Would you vote for an armadillo?

Might be interesting, so yes.

The main point being that I view the political importance of the presidential election much lower than most of y'all. And the social importance of female prez or black prez higher than many of you.

For my potential granddaughters to be born and not have to ask their dads like my daughters asked me "why has there never been a girl president?" would be very cool.

Insensitive PAP · 01-04-2008, 08:54 PM

If those guys are knocked out, I'd go for Obama so I could say I voted for a black guy and a Democrat. I think he'd be a terrible President and he wouldn't accomplish a thing in office, so he'd be a good place holder for the next 4 years.

jay santos · 01-04-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

No President makes any decisions without advisors and a full Cabinet.

W had executive experience....he was a Governor of one of the most populated states in the union. Look at how great his Executive decisions were. An entire war based off flawed intelligence (regardless of whether he knew it was flawed). His approach to diplomacy has our global reputation in the toilet.

What exactly is Obama lacking that the other candidates allegedly have? Why does it scare you? Our system of checks and balances are designed for this very issue.

PS Gettysburg, I Have a Dream, Ask Not what your country....all unimpressive political speeches. Whose oratory do you prefer? I thought you were a Greek geek? Werent their speeches political? What about Jesus? You need to rethink your position on that.

You really think we're in a war with Iraq because of W? The nation wanted war. No matter who was president we would have gone to war.

TripletDaddy · 01-04-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

If those guys are knocked out, I'd go for Obama so I could say I voted for a black guy and a Democrat. I think he'd be a terrible President and he wouldn't accomplish a thing in office, so he'd be a good place holder for the next 4 years.

Really, the bar W has set is so shockingly low, Obama could actually accomplish nothing in office and still have a better legacy.

jay santos · 01-04-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Really, the bar W has set is so shockingly low, Obama could actually accomplish nothing in office and still have a better legacy.

Accomplishing nothing? That's my idea of a great presidency.

TripletDaddy · 01-04-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

You really think we're in a war with Iraq because of W? The nation wanted war. No matter who was president we would have gone to war.

The nation wanted invasion of Afghanistan. I dont recall a huge call to bomb Iraq on 9/12.

It was only after lack of success in the hills of Tora Bora that all of a sudden, Iraq was a "threat." Meanwhile, Kim Jong Il actually has weapons and we are ignoring him.

I do agree that the call to retaliate against Talibani forces in Afghanistan was almost nearly universal. Strongly disagree that it was universal to invade Iraq almost 6 months later.

TripletDaddy · 01-04-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

Accomplishing nothing? That's my idea of a great presidency.

Which is why you support W.

jay santos · 01-04-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Which is why you support W.

Nah, I don't support W. Feel sorry for him maybe. That's about it. I'm not political.

TripletDaddy · 01-04-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

Nah, I don't support W. Feel sorry for him maybe. That's about it. I'm not political.

Fair. Apologies for miscategorizing you.

I also feel sorry for him. I see his decision to go into Iraq as a huge political roll of the dice...all or nothing. He wanted to be the President to bring Democracy to the Middle East. Ultimately, his legacy will be one of an unpopular war, the lowest approval ratings in history, and being a dimwit.

I agree that had the Iraq war been even remotely successful and met with some stability, W would have gone down as the wildest gunslinger in the West....the 9/11 visionary who had the guts to take on the bad guys and win.

View Poll Results: Who would you vote for if the election were today, sans Romney?
Clinton	1	2.86%
Edwards	1	2.86%
Guiliani	11	31.43%
Huckabee	1	2.86%
McCain	5	14.29%
Obama	10	28.57%
Paul	4	11.43%
Thompson	0	0%
Other	2	5.71%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

01-04-2008, 08:54 PM	#13
Insensitive PAP Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 293	Only 2 guys I think would be good are Mitt and Rudy If those guys are knocked out, I'd go for Obama so I could say I voted for a black guy and a Democrat. I think he'd be a terrible President and he wouldn't accomplish a thing in office, so he'd be a good place holder for the next 4 years.