Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

U.S. Presidential Elections 2008


Recommended Posts

Drug Kingpins for Rudy Giuliani

Tim Grieve, Salon.com

Oct. 25, 2007 | Here's an endorsement the Rudy Giuliani campaign probably won't be putting up on its Web site: a video clip of two legendary drug lords riffing on what a stand-up guy America's Mayor really is.

The guy in the wheelchair is Frank Lucas, who once claimed to make $1 million a day selling drugs, some of which he says he had smuggled in from Vietnam in the coffins of dead U.S. soldiers.

The guy on the phone is Leroy "Nicky" Barnes, one of the most famous drug dealers in U.S. history and a man Time once called the "reputed Godfather of a multimillion-dollar drug empire."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/200...urce=newsletter

New York Heroin Kingpin Caucus endorses Rudolph W. Giuliani for president in '08!

Nicky Barnes and Frank Lucas make a rare appearance, endorsing presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani in this exclusive video clip.

Barnes, the focus of the forthcoming documentary film, "Mr.

Untouchable" by filmmaker Marc Levin (Slam, Brooklyn Babylon etc.)

appears here via phone with Frank Lucas, the real life character, on

whom the forthcoming major motion picture "American Gangster," is

based.

These two notorious gangsters, and arguably the two biggest heroin

dealers in the history of New York City, explain why it is that they

support Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, for

president in 2008.

-------------

Saw it on CNN a few days ago and was surprised they would air it on national TV. But the news articles have all been pulled, dead links. The video interviews are still there on several sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...Thirty-three percent said they approve of the job he is doing, and 64 percent disapprove."

Sounds as if the next presidential election is going to be another close one, but for anyone who wants to win, they best take a different direction than Bush has been taking, so that's good news.

Better check the approval ratings for the Democratically controlled Congress....Bush's ratings are kicking their ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not having it both ways...but President Clinton sure did. Not only did he downsize American force structure and decimate morale, he left the unfinished state of terrorism affairs for President Bush to clean up with a much smaller military. But alas, we now what what Mr. Clinton's priorities were.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-39...h&plindex=6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per my likings: McCain. The only republican candidate with credible diplomatic skills, a solid military background and usually not afraid to go against the minorities representing deeply vested interests which are often irrelevant to the majority of voters.

It just happens to be a shame he doesn't stand a chance in hell, as his age (and wisdom) is considered more a liability than an asset.

As per the Dems....meh, I don't mind Hillary [much to the anger of the 'Clintons are the AntiChrist(s) crowd]. From a practical standpoint, I would much rather see Hillary in the Oval Office than than an Edwards type figure, no?

------

Ideals aside, it will be Guiliani vs. Clinton.....and who will win.....time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's an issue yet, but it is unusual that people making $12,000 a year are donating more than 1 month's salary to anything, let alone a politician who's raking in the money already. Nobody I know could afford to give $1200 to a campaign, and most of my friends are in the 30 to 60k range. That people below the poverty line are giving this much looks highly suspicious.

Let's face it, with all the loop holes in American political contribution laws, this is money being funnelled plain and simple. The why is also easy, her handlers want her to appear to be a woman of the people, someone blue collar workers admire. And she wants to appear to be the opposite of what she really is, backed by big money.

I think that this fund raising campain shouldn't be advertized as it is now. What mass media is telling us, it's something like whoever is richer should be elected. So they're hinting a voter who to vote for. Why do we need to be prompted of that? You could collect a billion of bucks for your campain, does it matter if you have nothing right in your soul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
New polls show Hillary slipping badly, and Obama making up ground. This surprises me as I thought Clinton was the heir apparent for the Dems, with the contest merely a formality.

Ms. Clinton has not endeared herself to the far left, and even some moderate elements of the Democratic party. She has baggage that makes it harder to lift in the general campaign. Doesn't mean she won't get the nomination, but it is not a slam dunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard today that Hillary would lose the presidental election against every single one of the Republicans vying for the nod. Kind of warms the heart on a cold winter day.

I guess your heart will grow cold with this latest poll published on FOX.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313224,00.html

A recent Gallup poll testing hypothetical general election match-ups showed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama edging out most of their potential Republican rivals in 2008.

The poll, conducted of 897 registered voters from Nov. 11-14, gave Hillary Clinton, who is leading the Democrats in most national polls, an advantage over everyone in the GOP field.

The hypothetical race was closest between Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Clinton and Arizona Sen. John McCain. The poll gave Clinton a 5-point edge in a match-up with Giuliani, 49 percent to 44 percent. In a race with McCain, Clinton received 50 percent, McCain received 44 percent.

I think the right wing has convinced itself that their numbers are correct.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/...about-poll.html

A poll we wrote about yesterday -- Zogby Interactive's online survey of 9,150 "likely voters," has gotten some attention today from Drudge and other sites with similar political leanings. The angle -- that the survey reportedly shows Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton trailing the Republican contenders in head-to-head matchups -- has caught the sites' eyes.

We noted that the methodology raises some concerns among polling experts, because the pool of respondents came from folks who signed up online to be included in Zogby's interactive surveys. That raises questions about how random and truly representative the survey group is.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard today that Hillary would lose the presidental election against every single one of the Republicans vying for the nod. Kind of warms the heart on a cold winter day.

This is true, but not because of any poll or even the Republican candidates. Ms. Clinton could not win a general election because of the voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess your heart will grown cold with this latest poll published on FOX.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313224,00.html

I think the right wing has convinced itself that their numbers are correct.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/...about-poll.html

A classic Democrat response, quickly grab another poll result and question the accuracy of the one with damning results.

Edited by sharkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A classic Democrat response, quickly grab another poll result and question the accuracy of the one with damning results.

That's pretty funny. I don't question the accuracy. Other pollsters question it.

The Gallup poll is the most recent poll.

Further on why some people question the Zogby polls.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/0...nterstitialskip

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty funny how you assumed I was referring to you. But I said Democrats, meaning americans, not you. Hillary is still damaged goods, it doesn't matter who's doing the questioning.

It is not entirely clear what you meant since you said you responded to my post and made an accusation about quickly grabbing a new poll. The plain truth is that the Gallup poll is the most recent poll and contradicts your contention that Clinton is below Republican candidates.

The Gallup poll is considered more accurate than online polls.

This whole issue with online polls and their methodology has been discussed in the political polls threads. Angus Reid does all their polls online from a group that makes themselves available for such polls. Many pollsters believe that this is not random enough.

As for your contention on Clinton, she seems to be holding her own against damaged Republicans.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty funny how you assumed I was referring to you. But I said Democrats, meaning americans, not you. Hillary is still damaged goods, it doesn't matter who's doing the questioning.

omg do 'certain posters' have to pick fights in every part of the board? :rolleyes:

No not you sharkman.

Hillary might be damaged goods, but she's the best the Dems have.

Head - to - head matchups this early in the game are really useless.

The person with the greatest name recognition wins by default. Hillary has the greatest name recognition by far. Hence, Hillary wins.

Anybody who posts them and points to anything else is truly useless.

Could Hillary win a general election? Maybe. Her VP choice would be very important.

I do get a chuckle out of many of the leftist Canadians here who support the Democrats in the US. The Democrats are much further to the right than they would hope. A lot of CPC supporters here would be much more comfortable with the Democrats than with the Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do get a chuckle out of many of the leftist Canadians here who support the Democrats in the US. The Democrats are much further to the right than they would hope. A lot of CPC supporters here would be much more comfortable with the Democrats than with the Republicans.

You speak the truth. The US is a lot more right-shifted than we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You speak the truth. The US is a lot more right-shifted than we are.

That's only because they're more representative and less party line. A democrat from urban michigan might not favor farm subidies in exchange for tax-credits for automakers whereas a dem from rural missisppiy probably likes the farm subsidies.

It's a much richer political landscape out there in the US and generally americans don't have the willingness to let the government into their lives as readily as Canadians do.

But in today's democratic party I'd make the observation that the nytjobs are ruling the madhouse. Centrism is out the window as the candidates fight over who supports universal healcare, childcare, etc etc. it's like some kind of freak show of long lost trudeaupians.

Just as from time to time the GOP gets pushed too far off centre by it's religious zealots, the DEMs are being driven by the far left kooks right now which is why, by the time the hatred for GW bush gets old and the surge starts working, the reflex toward the Dems will fade and this far left strategy will be out of touch with Mr. & Mrs. America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not entirely clear what you meant since you said you responded to my post and made an accusation about quickly grabbing a new poll. The plain truth is that the Gallup poll is the most recent poll and contradicts your contention that Clinton is below Republican candidates.

...

As for your contention on Clinton, she seems to be holding her own against damaged Republicans.

At this stage, name recognition is everything. (The same logic partly explains why Bush Jnr got ther Republican candidacy in 2000.)

I think the name - plus fund-raising skills - make Hillary the Democratic winner. She may come in second in Iowa but a week later, she'll be first in NH and the rest (SC) will fall quickly into place. For the Dems, this'll be over before February and Super Tuesday.

And then - the Democrats will crash and burn horribly.

But in today's democratic party I'd make the observation that the nytjobs are ruling the madhouse. Centrism is out the window as the candidates fight over who supports universal healcare, childcare, etc etc. it's like some kind of freak show of long lost trudeaupians.
Exactly. It's like McGovern or something.
Time stamp me today saying Giuliani (spelling?) will be the 42nd(?) president of the united states
I can't believe it but I've been thinking the same.

I thought Thompson would do better and I wouldn't write off Romney yet. The Republican primaries will be interesting.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...