When Democrats Win Presidency In 2008...

[demolaynyc 0]

Alright, one of the main goals of the democratic party is to get the troops back home and out of Iraq. I'd say most of you would be cheering when they come back. I'd cheer to if I had a relative finally come home. I apologize now for not having one sent to Iraq but this is just a point of view.If the troops were to be sent back, who would rule over the country? In my opnion, the rebel forces who drove the troops out of the nation simply because of their superior power (weaponry and suicide bombings). I'd be glad to have the troops sent home, but if we were to pull out without finishing what we started (establish a just government) then it'll just go back to the same old tyranny. And with this said, this would show the other nations how "weak" the power of the US.Furthermore, enemies such as Iran, and the other countries that have bad relations with the US will be encouraged to do something. --Something's gonna happen for sure--Iran and North Korea are already nearing to nuclear power. More countries are doing the same thing. There will be chaos all around, and it wont take long until the doomsday clock's hand will be moved.All in all, we've blamed Bush for all this mess we're in right now. Now, I predict that the Democrats will take office this time and what's ahead for them will be a challenge.Now if this party would be to face these events, will we blame them too? It's up to you.

[iGuest 3]

Alright, one of the main goals of the democratic party is to get the troops back home and out of Iraq. I'd say most of you would be cheering when they come back. I'd cheer to if I had a relative finally come home. I apologize now for not having one sent to Iraq but this is just a point of view.
If the troops were to be sent back, who would rule over the country? In my opnion, the rebel forces who drove the troops out of the nation simply because of their superior power (weaponry and suicide bombings).

I'd be glad to have the troops sent home, but if we were to pull out without finishing what we started (establish a just government) then it'll just go back to the same old tyranny. And with this said, this would show the other nations how "weak" the power of the US.

Furthermore, enemies such as Iran, and the other countries that have bad relations with the US will be encouraged to do something. --Something's gonna happen for sure--

Iran and North Korea are already nearing to nuclear power. More countries are doing the same thing. There will be chaos all around, and it wont take long until the doomsday clock's hand will be moved.

All in all, we've blamed Bush for all this mess we're in right now. Now, I predict that the Democrats will take office this time and what's ahead for them will be a challenge.

Now if this party would be to face these events, will we blame them too? It's up to you.

Bush needs to go period.

[unimatrix 0]

Depends on who ends up running. While Hillary is the favorite, she doesn't set well with a majority of voters. Plus the general trend the past thirty years has been to elect people outside of washington as president. The only inside the beltway presidents since 1972 has been old man Bush. Even then he was VP.This bodes will for a Mit Romney or Guiliani. McCain is the front runner, but at some point I think age is going to become a factor with him. He's not young and if nominated could suffer the same fault as Bob Dole in 1996. Most people liked Bob Dole, but felt he was too old in the center/indepenant crowd. My darkhorse on the republican side is Mike Huckabee. If the republician are smart, a nomination with a McCain or Guiliani with a strong social conservative VP (like a Romney or Huckabee) is going to present a challenge to the democracts. McCain stands the best shot of getting the social conservatives behind him as Guiliani's "I'm against abortions, but not in favor of changing the law" and "Domestic Partnerships" (which is basically my stance) doesn't sit well with them. While the Democrats one a lot of seats, a lot of them were by slim margins and I suspect that's because the more fiscal conservatives (the "independants" that lean more libertarian) stayed home over issues like the defecits.

[demolaynyc 0]

Bush needs to go period.

Oh yeah... Bush is going alright. But is that your only concern? What about the future? Are you aware of what's happening around not just our country but the world.

[beatgammit 0]

Alright, I guess I'm going to have to take the opposing argument. I personally like Bush; I think he has successfully led our country in this war in the Middle East and has kept our economy soaring in the process. It doesn't matter whether you think we were justified in going to war in Iraq (I have always supported the war); we are in the war, and now we have to finish it. We cannot cut-and-run; the government isn't strong enough to defend itself from the insurgents. It is getting closer, taking control in most of the recent battles, but it is not strong enough to be left alone.As for Democrats taking the Presidency, I do not think this is necessarily true. We will need a different kind of leader, but we don't necessarily need one from another party. The current package of presidential candidates seems to bode well for the Republican party:Democratic Party Hopefuls:Hilary Clinton- too liberal and will drive away the vote of the more conservative Democrats, competition with BarackBarack Obama- little experience and will have to fight to even take the black vote from HilaryAl Gore: lost his chanceJohn Edwards: doesn't standout in any facetRepublican Party Hopefuls:Mitt Romney- sure he's Mormon (I am too; controversy buys media time), but he has great experience in streamlining government and reducing debt (Massachusetts example); he appeals to the Democrats as well as RepublicansNewt Gringrich- big-wig in the Republican party, but not too well known by the general publicRudy Giuliani- too liberal for Republicans and only appeals to New York DemocratsJohn McCain- kinda shady (no evidence except someone in his "camp" attacked Romney's religion), didn't attend Republican meeting this week ("schedule conflicts")A victory for the Democrats is definitely NOT guaranteed, and not necessarily the best move for America at this point. We need to slim the government (and in the process reduce national debt), not expand the social programs it offers (which would increase the national debt without increasing taxes). I would guess that many of the moderates would vote Republican this election because of the financial status we are currently in. Social programs are nice, if money is available, and NOBODY likes taxes (except the most masochistic of Americans). Sure we pay less in taxes than nearly every country in the world, but to Americans, we are paying too much.

[Rid 0]

I'm betting a majority of you aren't big in the blogosphere, but you should probably get in and take a look. Democrats on this forum, you will be shocked by how horrible your party's largest supporters are. Left wing blogs are racist towards republicans who are minorities, sexist towards female republicans, are very anti-semitic, and think that the troops are nothing more than psychopathic murderers. Republicans on this forum, you will probably find a lot of kindred spirits on the blogosphere who are rather logical and good natured. Republicans will also being learning about a man named Duncan Hunter if you start checking out places such as Right Wing News. Duncan Hunter is a true conservative candidate, who is actually one of the front runners among the right wing blogosphere, and who has a good chance of winning the presidency if he can get his name recognized. Look him up. The only downside I've seen from him (being a conservative) is his foreign trade policy. Other than that, he is as close to Reagan as you can get.

[Ally1405241517 0]

What's about war with Iran? Do you thinks your country will fight with Iran? Iraq is a country of 2 religions. (Shinits and Sunnytes or how they are in english. Two parts of Islam)But Iran is very strong country with one religion. And whenever other countries think about nuclear weapons I thinks it will make nuclear weapons. At first, Iran is absolutely independent from other countries in oil productions. And if EU will apply financial sanctions against Iran it will make bad firstly to self! Because EU have no oil. Oil is bought from Iran, Africa, Russian and Saud Arabia. And US also don't have their own oil plants. If US will fight against iran it will not get needed oil and American people first will have problems. For example gasoline will cost 2 times more. Do you need such problems? Of course not. And you can't win war in Iraq, how you will fight against Iran. It's very funny.