Political discussion thread

Oh wait, I have something even scarier, it's A right-wingnut hydra, RUN AWAY!!!, RUN AWAY!!!:


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/366


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 11 2009 at 19:06

^ The Democrats may be planted in faulty ideology, but at least there isn't a pandemic of batsh*t insanity running throughout the party.

Well it's all opinion Stoney of course. I don't agree 100%, in fact maybe not even 80% but I generally DO agree with the Democrats while my agreement % with the Republicans is below 10.....

And I agree Finnforest, as much as I would love Palin to be their candidate in '12 they would have to be flat out stupid. She would surely doom them. Jindal really would be a good choice. A nice moral and economic consertative that they need, and I hate to say it....but people really do seem to think the Republicans are an old white guy southern party.
This isn't exactly the case...but they might need to break the stigma before it DOES happen.
Rush, Dick, and Newt aren't exactly helping

Well I don't give a rip what any of them look like, nor do I mind old people. I want competence and wisdom of some degree. 

It alarms me that a Palin could get so far in a major party without the party itself taking him/her down.  It is irresponsible the way they stick behind someone so ill prepared for the world stage and the nuke button.  And I'd say that if her pretty face graced the Democratic party as well.

And yes, for those about to point out Obama's lack of experience, I do believe there is no contest between the two in terms of gravitas.  I understand that opinion is subject to debate. 

JJ, you're so right on and it just drives me insane.  This obsession with youth and looks is eventually going to kill us off.  We don't need a TV news anchor, we need a leader with the ability to form complex thoughts and a great understanding of history. 
Dry and boring is fine with me....but you are right about the voter base....clueless.  Eventually we're going to elect Kelly Ripa....hell we've already elected Al Franken.....almost

Like Finn said as long as their compotent, I agree with them, and are qualified I don't care.

However, no one can deny it IS good to have a younger person in sometime. Too many old guys in a row and of course things the government will fall out of touch.
I not only agree with Obama, generally, I actually LIKE him. The latter is rare with me and politicians, esp when I like them and agree.

I think he's the closest to a "real person" we've had in office in probably a very very long time, maybe ever.
And again, even though it's a sticky subject our country has not represented women or minorities....well ever. It IS good to finally have some diversity in the Presidency, as long as their compotent which I think Obama is.

So what was Condoleezza then?  You also had Colin Powell as well.

But anyhow, what constitutes as young?  Most young politicians will be over 30 and most over 40, I should think.

30-40 is young. And really, 30 is plenty of time to get fairly well equipped to govern effectively, at least at a local level up to the House of Reps. It's pushing it for the Senate, though.

So what's old then? 

Reagan, Carter, Nixon?

James wrote: So what's old then?  Reagan, Carter, Nixon?

Well if 40's is old for Pres, and I would say standard age is 50's to EARLY 60's then old would be mid 60's on.
Reagan was DEFF old though!

And yea, Robert Byrd is an example of WAY too old.