BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:38 PM
Original message |
Jimmy Carter announced his presidential candidacy on December 12, 1974. |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 01:00 PM by BuyingThyme
He had to announce early because nobody knew who the hell he was. As I recall, he eventually won the thing.
Bill Clinton announced his presidential candidacy on October 3, 1991. He too had to announce a bit early because very few people had ever heard of Arkansas.
Al Gore announced his presidential candidacy on June 16, 1999. He won the race, but because he entered so damn early, he was penalized two million votes.
John Kerry announced his presidential candidacy on September 2, 2003, not as early as Gore, but the early-announcement penalty was just enough to cost him the office.
Al Gore, a seasoned veteran, will announce his {latest} presidential candidacy between October 15 and October 31, 2007. The timing is perfect. He's sure to win by an uncontested landslide.
|
TwilightZone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:42 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Uncontested landslide? |
|
Based on what, exactly? I'm pretty certain that there are at least three candidates who will most definitely "contest" Gore's coronation.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Oh, I'm not wasting any time on the primaries. |
TwilightZone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
book_worm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:48 PM
Response to Original message |
4. He will? Where did you get your information? |
TwilightZone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. The same place he got "uncontested landslide" |
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
12. The same place she gets all her information |
|
snatched out of the ether.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. Oh, oh. Cali's here to lose another battle of wits. |
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
17. I'll leave that to others to decide. |
|
But don't let that stop you from making silly claims.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. Like I didn't quote Johnathan Turley on impeachment? |
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. I'm glad you brought that up. |
|
What the constitution says:
Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
What you say in that OP:
CONSTITUTION: Congress shall impeach for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. PELOSI: “Impeachment is off the table.”
CONSTITUTION: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. PELOSI: “I have the sole power.”
CONSTITUTION: Judgment in the cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, but the party convicted shall be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law. PELOSI: “Moot point.”
CONSTITUTION: The senators and representatives shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution. PELOSI: “Well, that depends on what the meaning of shall is.”
I know you're incapable of grasping this but the Constitution does NOT say that shall impeach. It says shall remove upon impeachment and conviction.
And stop with the Turley agrees with your made up constitution.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
25. All we have to do now is figure out who does the impeaching. |
|
Then we can do the removing.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
27. All you have to do is stop making |
|
up your own private constitution, and pretending its the real thing.
See ya.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
28. All I want to know is who does the impeaching. |
|
I figure if we get in good with the impeachers it will be easier to get to the removers.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. I've been working on this for a long time. |
|
I can back up the numbers.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
you're always making claims you can't back up.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
16. With which numbers are you having problems? |
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
18. The numbers that indicate that Gore would win |
|
in a landslide, or anything in the real world that provides evidence for that. Clue: DU opinion polls don't count.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
19. Oh, that's simple. Al Gore is a way better candidate than any Republican. |
|
People will vote for him way more. Lots even.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
24. nope. not numbers. not evidence. |
|
just pulled out of your......
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
RB TexLa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:51 PM
Response to Original message |
6. 2ed? It would be his third campaign for the presidency |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 12:51 PM by RGBolen
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. This thesis is based solely on winning Democratic campaigns. |
Freddie Stubbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:02 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Don't forget Wesley Clark! |
|
He was the last Democrat ti enter the primary race last time. How well did that work out?
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. Wesley Clark has never won a presidential race. |
|
We only deal with winners here.
|
MiniMe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message |
21. The primaries weren't as compressed as they are now |
|
With all of the states moving their primaries up, it would definitely make it more difficult to announce this late.
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
22. When was the arguable deadline? |
|
When Thompson got in?
How's that primary legal battle going, anyways?
|
MiniMe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
29. Not trying to argue with you |
|
I want Gore to get in, and I wouldn't even have to think about it to vote for him. And I hate that all the 2008 election crap started less than a week after the 2006 election. I was just pointing out that the primaries for most of the states have been moved up to an earlier date, and it would make it more difficult to enter late and win.
As far as Thompson goes, I think that the repukes hate their candidates soooo much, that they are looking for a savior, so they were promoting Fred Thompson even before he decided to run. Now that he has joined the race, and opened up his mouth and spoke, I don't think that he has as much support. It will be interesting. Run Al, Run!
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
|
It's just fun posting ridiculous threads like this. It gives me hope.
But I really don't know how that primary challenge is panning out.
|
Zandor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:53 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Which means he might!
:rofl:
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-11-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
32. I have no intention of dying of cancer. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 06:49 PM
Response to Original message |