Next Vice President thread

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Interesting issue. For Obama it can't be Hillary or Edwards so it might be a complete surprise. No idea who that might be. How about Colin Powell? That might be too much soul brother at once for America. Obama might need to find someone with knowledge about foreign politics etc. His own 'Cheney', so to speak.

For McCain, somebody mentioned Lieberman. How about him? Would make Israel happy that's for sure.

Not only that, it would pull some of middle road dems over too. Cannot agree with a lot of the stuff he thinks is right, but i feel Lieberman is a human being, which is a start anyway.

[Platapus]

Well since I voted for Richardson in the Presidents poll, I would not be upset if Obama picked Richardson for his VP. He has quite the CV.

[geetrue]

This event is on tomorrow ... It seems to be the first debate in person for both canidates. I think it is more of a question and answer thing than a real debate though.

Influential Pastor to Host Forum With Presidential Candidates
FOXNews
by FOXNews.com

Rev. Rick Warren will host John McCain and Barack Obama at his California mega-church Saturday. (AP Photo) John McCain and Barack Obama bickered for weeks over the kind of debates they wanted - but when California pastor Rick Warren ...

[Digital_Trucker]

That should be interesting. I wonder if either candidate will answer any questions or do the usual and fill the room with hot air and speak in circles

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Separation of religion and state anyone ?

An interesting question for those voters who insist that the President be a christian or even being religious.

Reference Article VI of the United States Constitution.

"... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Lets hope that there will not be any religious questions during this debate.

[Digital_Trucker]

I suppose that depends on what you consider a religious question. A candidates stand on certain subjects which can be interpreted as religious (abortion, same sex marriage, etc) should still be asked. Not that we should believe the answers because we all know how politicians are about saying what they believe will get them elected.

Edit : This voter doesn't insist on religion in a representative in government. I do, however, insist on morality.

Second edit : Does separation of church and state mean that a President can't be religious or be seen or heard in a church? I certainly hope not.

[Happy Times]

Ive posted before that Obama should go with Joe Biden, winning ticket.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I don't know DT, I just don't understand why they have to debate in a church. Can't they debate in a neutral place where all Americans would find themselves at ease ?
It's not meant as an offence, but there's a big difference in the understanding of "separation of church and state" depending if you're in the US or in France and probably a good part of Europe I think.
It never came to my mind that 2 presidential candidates could ever debate in a religious place (especially in that kind of industrial church), I think they would get hashed by all the press from left to right excepted "la croix" (lol).
Our current president is already mocked by the press for showing off a lot (religion oriented speaches, ceremony with the pope etc etc), and he's not even a believer, just a populist trying to get the christian vote.

I understand where you're coming from Mikhayl. It is a strange place to debate. Obama agreed to "town hall" type debates that McCain proposed, but then Obama decided that he couldn't get his "schedule" to coincide. As for it being a place that all Americans would feel at ease in, all Americans won't be able to attend this, or any other, "debate" except by television. If a person feels ill at ease even looking at the inside of a church, then I don't know what to tell them.

Personally, I'm just happy they're even "debating" (I don't think that's what it's going to be, though). I see it for what I think it is, that is an opportunity for both candidates to try to pick up some votes from the evangelicals. Unfortunately, that is politics in this country (and probably most democratically oriented countries). You do whatever is believed to get you elected. Then you keep doing whatever it takes to get reelected. Never mind serving the public good, just keep your cushy political job. As far as the church and the preacher are concerned, they get national attention, which means more contributions. The press gets something to rail about when one or the other slips up and says the wrong thing. Everyone is happy except for the average Joe, who gets absolutely nothing out of the whole deal. Can't tell I'm jaded against politics can you?:rotfl:

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I don't know DT, I just don't understand why they have to debate in a church. Can't they debate in a neutral place where all Americans would find themselves at ease ?
It's not meant as an offence, but there's a big difference in the understanding of "separation of church and state" depending if you're in the US or in France and probably a good part of Europe I think.
It never came to my mind that 2 presidential candidates could ever debate in a religious place (especially in that kind of industrial church), I think they would get hashed by all the press from left to right excepted "la croix" (lol).
Our current president is already mocked by the press for showing off a lot (religion oriented speaches, ceremony with the pope etc etc), and he's not even a believer, just a populist trying to get the christian vote.

Totally Dude! I think they should debate in Anton Lavey,s Church. The ACLU should file a suit on behalf of all Satanist to have the fairness act enabled to cover debate locations.